We have just finished our second year of presenting you with information and opinions on issues relating to attacks by our government on our rights, freedoms and way of life as intended and established by our Founding Fathers. These past 27 months under the ideologically radical, intellectually dishonest, corrupt, arrogant, racist and abjectly incompetent Obama Administration have been among the worst (excluding the Civil War) in our nation's history.
Even worse than the Carter's years.
We have a "president" who shows an unmistakable and perpetual disdain for our country and a majority of its citizens (which has been on display internationally). His actions have consistently been geared to weakening us economically and militarily and to reducing us to a non-exceptional and middling nation in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Domestically, he has relentlessly sought to abrogate our rights, freedoms and choices often by resorting to unconstitutional or fringe means and regulations that frequently make use of his hand-picked radical, anti-American and often Marxist czars and far-left infested government agencies. These are imposed against the will of the people - US!
These are the signs and manifestations of tyranny and MUST NOT BE TOLERATED.
Obama, as well as those in his Administration, in Congress and elsewhere who seek to negate our rights like that which occurred in the old Soviet Union through the Politburo, must be vehemently and vociferously opposed and either neutralized or removed from office or government positions.
Information is power and we must use it to Save Our Rights!
Thank you for your continued support ... and spread the word.
Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.
These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.
We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.
Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.
Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.
What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.
Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."
A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."
According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."
Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."
Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:
• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.
This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.
If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.
The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.
The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."
This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.
The Obama Administration has critical information on the Fort Hood jihadist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, that it is refusing to release to Congress despite repeated requests.
We can only speculate on some of the reasons. Interestingly and as noted below, Obama and many in his administration have refused to acknowledge the obvious including leaving it out of reports and speeches: that this was an act of Islamic terrorism.
This terrorist had a long history of pro-Islamic rants, actions and associations and even yelled “Allahu akbar” while murdering members of our military. All the evidence is irrefutable and incontrovertible.
Obama’s refusal to consider this an Islamic terrorist event, particularly given his position as President of this country, is of incalculable concern and places our country at immeasurable risk. We feel that this goes beyond blatant incompetence or truckling to Islam and “political correctness”.
Is this just another of myriad examples that Obama’s allegiance is not truly to America and its Judeo-Christian foundations and instead more toward Islam?
Given his history (including attending a Madrassa in Indonesia as a child; Muslim father and step father), statements (anti-American; anti Judeo-Christian and pro-Islam), actions (pro-Arab, anti-Allies including vehement hatred of our ally Israel, etc.), we firmly believe that this is the case.
It also begs the important question which has simmered in the public for a while: is Obama really a Muslim and not a “Christian” which he feigns to be?
Obama's Fort Hood Jihadist
Pamela Geller April 11, 2011
We have been hearing for years that the White House is withholding evidence on the Fort Hood jihadi, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Now comes direct confirmation of this from Hasan's own lawyer.
Major Hasan, also known as Soldier of Allah, according to his business card, mowed down thirteen U.S. soldiers while screaming Allahu akbar on the Fort Hood military base in Texas a year and a half ago, in November 2009. Yet his trial keeps on being postponed. On March 30, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the outgoing commanding general at Fort Hood, granted a request from John Galligan, Hasan's lawyer, to delay the trial until late April. Galligan, however, disclaims responsibility for all the delays, blaming them on none other than Barack Hussein Obama.
Rick, a reader of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, forwarded to me an email exchange he had with Galligan. Rick wrote to Galligan last Thursday: "The American people are getting pretty upset about all of these delays." On Friday, Galligan responded: "Delays are due to prosecution/White House refusal to disclose evidence. Blame them for the delays."
So where is justice? This Islamic supremacist should have been executed by now. What's the hold up? Galligan's blaming Obama is consistent with how the White House has behaved throughout this case. Back in November of 2010, I wrote at Atlas Shrugs that the Obama administration was "still covering up the motivation behind the attack."
Even worse, in October 2010, a soldier at Fort Hood who caught Hasan's jihad murders in two videos on his cell phone camera was ordered by his commanding officer to delete both videos.
This is unacceptable. An army officer ordered the destruction of evidence in a jihadist attack on American soldiers? The officer should be on trial for obstruction of justice.
And back in April 2010, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) had to subpoena the Obama White House to get information it was withholding for a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood jihad massacre.
Meanwhile, the official government report on this jihad mass-murder doesn't mention jihad or Islam at all. Congressman John Carter (R-TX) said that "the Obama Administration continues to deny the Fort Hood attack was terrorism, failed to grant the casualties the same status as that given casualties from the 2001 Pentagon attack, conspicuously omitted even mention of the words 'radical Islamic terrorism' in the official DOD report on the shootings, and will not acknowledge the role of political-correctness in stifling whistleblower warnings of the impending attack."
Yet on the morning of Major Hasan's mass slaughter of U.S. troops at Fort Hood in the bloodiest act of war on a military base in U.S. history, he distributed Qur'ans and his card, calling infidels to convert to Islam before his jihad (as I reported at Atlas Shrugs on November 6, 2009 -- Major Hasan's Dawah before Jihad). Hasan screamed "Allahu Akbar!" as he mowed down U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood.
Also, a fellow psychiatrist recalled a lecture Hasan gave (a "grand round" is the term for it) when he was a medical resident at Walter Reed: "It freaked them out." Normally, a lecturer focuses on a particular disease or disorder and recent research or treatment options. Instead, Hasan reportedly harangued the doctors and staff about what the Qur'an teaches about non-believers going to hell, being scalded, beheaded, etc. A Muslim psychiatrist in the audience reportedly challenged Hasan about his interpretation of the Qur'an, but he would not back down (because he was right). Other sources said that several in the audience suggested afterward that Hasan might be a shooter someday.
Yet Obama has continued to withhold evidence in the Fort Hood jihadist attack and, as Galligan has just revealed, continues to shield the Muslim terrorist.
So crippled has our military (and other branches of government) become by this self-imposed Sharia (do not insult Islam!), that despite the staggering loss of U.S. soldiers in Hasan's Fort Hood massacre, the chief concern of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. in the bloody aftermath of the Fort Hood jihad was that "speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."
That was the concern.
By Gd, what have they done? They have abandoned, by their own volition, the only weapon of survival -- they are practicing suspension of the mind, refusing to think.
Who is looking out for Americans? We know who is looking out for the jihad in America. John Galligan just reminded us.
For those of us who knew that Obama the candidate for President was not who he claimed that he was and that he posed a substantial danger to America, we are not surprised by his attacks on the foundations of America. What is somewhat shocking and disheartening is how rapidly, severe and widespread his destructive actions have been on our way of life, rights, finances, freedoms, security, future, etc. There are no epochs in our history that have been anywhere near as noxious for the Country or the individual as this “president’s” two years.
To paraphrase one of his (narcissistic) slogans: “He is the one that the Founding Fathers were warning us about.”
Obama must be stopped. Neither the United States nor much of the world can afford 2 more years of his arrogant, corrupt, criminal, narcissistic, profligate, hedonistic misrule and tyranny.
Obama's First Two Years a Disaster for America
Chad Stafko March 16, 2011
Recall the euphoria that surrounded Barack Obama during the 2008 election season and after he was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. Life was going to be blue skies and rainbows, or at least we were told, with hope and change on the way. The American people would be better off and so would our nation with Obama in control. After a little more than two years as the President, those blue skies have turned gray with not the slightest hint of a rainbow.
Some professed that with Barack Obama as President, the staples of life would become affordable if not altogether free. Surely you remember Peggy Joseph who said, at a Barack Obama campaign event in August 2008, that she would not have to worry about paying for her gas and mortgage. Consider what has happened to those staples of life during the Obama presidency.
As of March 14, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline was $3.57/gallon. When Obama took office in January 2009, the price was $1.81/gallon. That represents more than a 90% increase in just over two years.
To put that in perspective, assume you have a 40 mile round trip commute to work, your car gets 20 miles per gallon and that prices remain the same going forward. Relative to January 2009, you are paying about $18 more per week and about $72 more per month at the pump.
The pertinent question we might ask is, "What has President Obama done in the past two years to limit the rise of oil and gasoline prices, if anything?" The answer is...nothing. If anything, his policies have contributed towards rising prices. Recall the moratorium he enacted on oil drilling following the BP oil spill that further limited the supply of the commodity from our own waters. His failure to support drilling in ANWR and his overt allegiance to the anti-drilling environmental fringe has also directly contributed to less supply of oil and therefore higher oil prices.
Ms. Joseph also looked forward to Obama paying her mortgage. Well, many Americans don't have to worry about a mortgage anymore, as they've had their houses foreclosed. In 2009, a record 2,824,674 foreclosures took place, while 2,872,892 foreclosures occurred in 2010. In other words, 5.7 million families have lost their homes, but at least they're not up all night wondering how they will pay their mortgage.
It just wasn't supposed to be this way, at least in the eyes of the 53% of voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama. After all, President Obama's policies were going to reignite the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8% at least that is what we were told, thereby making those aforementioned mortgages affordable. The opposite has occurred.
In December 2008, President Bush's final full month in office, the nation's unemployment rate stood at 7.3%. From that point until December 2010, a period in which Obama benefited from accommodative Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, the unemployment rate rose to 10.1% at one time and remained at or above 9.5% from July 2009 until November 2010.
This resulted despite unprecedented government spending labeled as "economic stimulus."
What happened? Instead of a surge in America's economic growth, we've seen a surge in America's deficit. Under the direction of President Obama, the United States has seen its deficit increase by more than $3 trillion or by nearly $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.
Then there was the promise of "When there's a bill that ends up on my desk, as President, you, the public, will have five days to look online to find out what's in it before I sign it...." Again, the reality has been the complete opposite.
Rewind to March 2010, when then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in reference to the ObamaCare bill, said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Really? I thought that 2,700 page bill would be posted on the Internet for all to view for five days. Instead, it was rushed through and pushed down our throats, despite most Americans not in favor of it. Again, Obama failed to deliver, as he has time after time.
We are now just after the halfway point of the Obama presidency. Based on the facts, we are no better off as a nation than we were when Obama took office. The average American citizen has failed to see an improvement in his or her lifestyle versus two years ago. This is a presidency, up to this point, that has been an absolute disaster for our nation and our people.
Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
In his first 2 years as “president”, Obama has revealed himself not to be the leader of all Americans but instead of only certain select groups. We have seen his racist ideologies and proclivities through myriad examples (Reverend Jeremiah Wright; 10 year membership in black liberation theology, racist, anti-American Trinity United Church of Christ; National of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; Attorney General Eric Holder and the culture of racism (black rights trump white rights) at the Dept. of Justice; the Cambridge police incident; etc.)
His pro-union stance has been quite evident even before the election. It has only solidified with their assistance in electing him “president”. The vehemence of this position and the extents that he goes to support and protect them are … indefensible. To wit: his illegal arrogation of assets from GM to the unions instead of secured holders in violation of constitutional law.
In Wisconsin now as well as elsewhere, he is insinuating himself in local situations, siding with the unions and against the state’s taxpayers and citizens. His words and actions are unwarranted, divisive and destructive.
None of this is a surprise which is why the sooner that he is gone, the better it is for the average hardworking American.
Obama: I will 'paint the nation purple with SEIU'
After viewing the video below we can now say with certainty which side President Obama is on concerning the Wisconsin public union protests. Mr. Obama is not a public union supporter, he is their national leader. This is rapidly becoming a nationwide manufactured "crisis", as orchestrated by SEIU and Obama's Organizing for America. Is this what he meant when he said he would make us a nation of purple states?
We are witnessing and soon will be directly or indirectly involved in a “class” struggle, first at the state level then nationally. This isn’t one of the middle vs. the upper or lower class. This is one between greedy, reckless, public unions who can never be paid or compensated enough versus the hard working taxpayer who is footing their extortionate costs through ever escalating taxes.
These public union employees are paraded around often as compassionate teachers who just want the best for your children. Meanwhile, they and other in the public sector are taking home 40% to 90% more than comparable jobs in the private sector – that is you and me. In fact, many taxpayers are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads but still are coerced into paying for these avaricious union members.
Have scores from knowledge tests skyrocketed during these past 20 or 30 years?
Of course not!
They have been plummeting while teacher compensation packages are going through the roof, resulting in many states approaching the precipice of bankruptcy. Our international ranking regarding the education level of our children has dropped embarrassingly and precipitously.
As expected, “president” Obama has now insinuated himself in the Wisconsin situation, siding with the union protestors and against the state. This is quite reminiscent of his stance against Arizona.
Obama, the anti-President, and anti-American in Chief, is yet again acting in a divisive, anti-State and anti-citizen fashion.
Fortunately, Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Walker rebuked Obama in a quite forceful and appropriate way.
We applaud and strongly Gov. Walker’s strong leadership and responsible and principled stand (as well as the Republicans in that state’s Senate). They must remain resolute and protect the hardworking taxpayers in that state.
Their example may very well serve as the paradigm for what is anticipated to be a struggle that will be repeated across the country in many states.
The honest hardworking citizens of America must be the ultimate victor.
Unions' Fight in Madison Is a Disgrace
Larry Kudlow 2/18/2011
The Democratic/government-union days of rage in Madison, Wis., are a disgrace. Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan calls it Cairo coming to Madison. But the protesters in Egypt were pro-democracy. The government-union protesters in Madison are anti-democracy; they are trying to prevent a vote in the legislature. In fact, Democratic legislators themselves are fleeing the state so as not to vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s budget cuts.
That’s not democracy.
The teachers’ union is going on strike in Milwaukee and elsewhere. They ought to be fired. Think Ronald Reagan PATCO in 1981. Think Calvin Coolidge police strike in 1919.
The teachers’ union on strike? Wisconsin parents should go on strike against the teachers’ union. A friend e-mailed me to say that the graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent. The graduation rate for African-Americans in Milwaukee public schools is 34 percent. Shouldn’t somebody be protesting that?
Governor Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit, and he wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That’s an outrage.
Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are bankrupting America -- which by some estimates is suffering from $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is also pushing a bill to limit the collective-bargaining rights of teachers for wages and wage-related benefits. Similar proposals are being discussed in Idaho and Tennessee. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich wants to restrict union rights across-the-board for all state and local government workers. More generally, both Democratic and Republican governors across the country are taking on the extravagant pay of government unions.
Why? Because taxpayers won’t stand for it anymore.
In an interesting twist on this story, even private unions are revolting against government unions. Private unions pay taxes, too. And they don’t have near the total compensation of the public unions. It’s no wonder they’re fed up.
So, having lost badly in the last election, the government-union Democrats in Wisconsin have taken to the streets. This is a European-style revolt, like those seen in Greece, France, and elsewhere. So it becomes greater than just a fiscal issue. It is becoming a law-and-order issue.
President Obama, who keeps telling us he’s a budget cutter, has taken the side of the public unions. John Boehner correctly rapped Obama’s knuckles for this. If the state of Wisconsin voters elected a Chris Christie-type governor with a Republican legislature, then it is a local states’ rights issue.
But does President Obama even know that the scope of collective bargaining for federal employees is sharply limited? According to the Manhattan Institute, federal workers are forbidden to collectively bargain for wages or benefits. Instead, pay increases are determined annually through legislation.
Meanwhile, Gov. Scott Walker said it would be “wise” for President Obama to keep his attentions on Washington, not Wisconsin. “We’re focused on balancing our budget,” he said in a television interview. “It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to be focused on balancing their budget, which they’re a long ways from doing.”
Obama should stay out. And Governor Walker should stand tall and stick to his principles. A nationwide taxpayer revolt against public unions can save the country. Otherwise, the spiraling out-of-control costs of state public-union entitlements will destroy the local fisc, just as surely as the unreformed federal entitlements of Social Security and health care are wrecking our national finances.
Obama is acting more like a corrupt dictator than the President of what was once a great and free nation. His wanton and arrogant disregard for the will of the people as well as his naked power grab and narcissism place him in a category never before entered by any previous President. This is the crowning jewel (in a negative context) of his sorrowful repertoire which even exceeds his abject incompetence, naiveté and absence of leadership.
The only winner in this besides those Americans who live off the forced largesse and labor of the taxpayer is Jimmy Carter. As pathetic and traitorous as he has become, in comparison to Obama, Carter is an improvement.
As for the rest of us we have a few choices but they aren’t great. This situation will end “badly” if Obama continues to disregard legal judgments from the judiciary and flout the law, creating a Constitutional crisis, in addition to disregarding the will of the good people of this country.
President Stealth Strikes Again
Ed Lasky February 08, 2011
How Obama and his merry band are trying to evade the will of the people
The people spoke in November when they delivered a shellacking to Democrats and Barack Obama. They had grabbed too much power in ways that ran afoul of tradition, the law, and the will of the people. In electing so many Republicans to office, Americans wanted a course change from the radicalism of the past two years: the regulatory avalanche, the policy missteps, the ObamaCare overreach.
Have President Obama and his merry band of followers read the memo yet? The people have had it with the tricks and sly maneuvers used by Democrats to push their agenda on America. Apparently they have not yet heard our voices or care to listen to us -- they still have some tricks up their sleeves.
They know the game book of the Republicans -- what their plans are to circumscribe Obama's power-grab, to minimize the damage from ObamaCare and massive and wasteful deficits. I suggested what that very game plan would be in Stopping Obama: A Republican Game Plan. Merely observing and piecing together various news items was sufficient to give one an idea of the contours of the Republican effort; Obama and the Democrats know how the game is played and have deployed their own tactics to counter and foil the Republicans and those darned and dunderheaded Americans who voted for them (the bitter ones who cling to God, guns, and the ballot box).
Republicans in the House now have oversight authority to finally investigate all that has happened the last two years -- and authority chairmen such as Darrell Issa (House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) and Fred Upton (Energy and Commerce) intend to use to root out waste, cronyism, favoritism, and corruption. Issa has already asked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to release a number of documents relating to its policies and earlier testimony before Congress.
The response from the Department? A trick question. For there has been no response. It's called stonewalling (or we can call it the "Just Say No" reply), and it is meant to frustrate and derail any sort of oversight by Republicans.
From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
... The Daily Caller reported that the Obama administration had snubbed top GOP oversight official Rep. Darrell Issa on his first major document deadline as new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sending a short letter promising to comply in response to a major information request that was due Saturday at noon.
A Jan. 28 letter from the Department of Homeland Security said the agency is "in the process of retrieving" documents requested by Issa "and will make them available for your review expeditiously."
But the next day, Issa's two-week deadline expired.
Now Issa is hitting back with a forceful response that demands key documents by Thursday.
What happens if the DHS fails to comply by tomorrow? Issa may issue subpoenas for top officials to explain to his panel why they have failed to cooperate with Congressional oversight. The Democrats on the committee may try to block the subpoenas.
Democrats are going to be in an uproar, charging Republicans are on a McCarthy-like with hunt. Congressman Henry Waxman has already been accusing Fred Upton of being too disruptive because he dare asked the Department of Health and Human Services to give to the committee copies of communications about an office set up under ObamaCare to write and enforce regulations on private insurance companies. The hypocrisy is blatant for, as the Wall Street Journal editorializes, Waxman was very zealous in requesting documents when he was chairman of a committee:
The 19-term Beverly Hills Democrat made his name as a hell-for-leather investigator of business and, at least during GOP Presidencies, the executive branch, so there's more than a little humor in his sternly worded letter to Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton. Mr. Waxman believes Republicans have gone too far by requesting documents from Health and Human Services as they probe ObamaCare's implementation.
Days after the 2006 election, Mr. Waxman mused to reporters that the Oversight Committee he would chair had "jurisdiction over everything" and said that "the most difficult thing will be to pick and choose." He didn't. Which Waxman investigation was most frivolous is still an open question. Was it his dogged pursuit of the Karl Rove conspiracy to "out" Valerie Plame, or Dick Cheney's phantom plan to enrich Halliburton, or the White House noninterference in climate science?
By the summer of 2008, the Bush Administration had produced more than 1.8 million pages of documents and more than 1,100 different officials had testified before Congress to comply with some 650 investigations.
The Journal notes that one other way the Democrats are going to try to evade the GOP's efforts to restore accountability to Washington. One major strategy the GOP had was to use its House majority to defund various elements of Obamacare. Furthermore, bills would be narrowly drafted to make it easier to cut funding for various agencies.
How did the Obama team respond? By some fancy footwork behind the scenes. The office Upton was investigating had directly reported to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius but, once the GOP took control, was suddenly relocated to the Medicare center. The Journal opines:
The bureaucratic reshuffling was likely meant to counter GOP attempts to defund the office, which has nothing to do with Medicare. Mr. Upton is also asking for information about the process by which HHS has granted more than 700 waivers to its union allies and others exempting them from certain ObamaCare mandates.
Some shuffling of the deck to avoid defunding by suddenly relocating an office from vulnerable area to a more protected one (who wants to be charged with placing Medicare funding at risk?). How clever these Democrats can be when it comes to ignoring the will of the people. Moving offices around on the organizational chart, reassigning government workers who might be called to testify so as to make them less readily available to give testimony to Congress (as has been done by the Department of Justice in the New Black Panther controversy), shifting titles, funds, and job responsibilities become par for the course for the Obama administration. Will their bureaucratic stunts to avoid Republican oversight become a high-stakes game of "Whack- a- Mole"?
So much for those promises Barack Obama made to have the most transparent administration in history. They were, as Barack Obama would say, "just words"?
But wait -- there is more. They also are ignoring federal courts.
From the Washington Examiner:
A federal court in Louisiana has found the Interior Department in contempt for violating an injunction barring enforcement of the first drilling moratorium issued by the agency following the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf Of Mexico.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued the first moratorium June 22, 2010, but shortly thereafter federal District Judge Martin Feldman issued a temporary restraining order, which the government appealed. That appeal was denied and a few days later Salazar issued a second moratorium that was virtually identical to the first.
Judge Feldman was not impressed by Interior's claims that the second moratorium was different, and ruled that "the government did not simply reimpose a blanket moratorium; rather, each step the government took following the Court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance:
"The government failed to seek a remand; it continually reaffirmed its intention and resolve to restore the moratorium; it even notified operators that though a preliminary injunction had issued, they could quickly expect a new moratorium.
"Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt of this Court's preliminary injunction Order."
A federal judge issued an injunction that barred enforcement of a drilling moratorium issued by the agency (it was actually an executive order issued by Barack Obama). So the Interior Department basically sought an end-run around the court's injunction be developing a new moratorium essentially the same as the first one. Plus, the Interior Department has been afflicted with a sudden case of sclerosis since drilling permitting has been shifted into low gear. The executive branch is ignoring a federal court order, and now the judge has the good sense to treat the administration as it should be treated when it ignores the law: with contempt.
One more point.
Judges normally expect the executive branch to follow the laws (how silly in the Age of Obama). This noble but naïve belief was highlighted in Judge Roger Vinson's decision that declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional because it stretched the Commerce Clause to the breaking point. He also said the lack of a severability clause would make the rest of ObamaCare unworkable. One need not dig into the legalistic details of the decision. But what is most interesting is the judge's reasoning in denying the plaintiffs' an injunction that would have prevented the roll-out of Obamacare. Why deny an injunction if Obamacare is unconstitutional?
Because the judge still has faith that a president would abide by the oath taken when he is sworn into the highest office of the land to the best of his ability to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Judge Vinson did not think that an injunction was needed. He cited a previous ruling and wrote that he expected the "executive branch" to "adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction." Well, the judge who issued the contempt citation over the evasion of his own injunction against enforcing the drilling moratorium might want to inform his colleague that the executive branch has no problem ignoring the judicial branch.
Memo to Judge Vinson: don't expect the executive branch to adhere to any laws as declared by any court unless it comports with President Obama's agenda. And so it has already done so. As the Wall Street Journal notes the White House reaction after the Vinson decision:
Yet the White House and Health and Human Services have already said they'll continue running ObamaCare as if nothing has changed. Imagine the rule-of-law furor if the Bush Administration had said a wiretapping or other civil liberties ruling didn't matter.
Where are the media when it has become increasingly clear to all but the most besotted and blind that Barack Obama regularly flouts not just the will of the people, but the laws of the land in order to pursue his agenda?
We should reciprocate his disrespect -- if not contempt -- on November 6th, 2012.
The Muslim Brotherhood is euphemistic sounding name for a group that sponsors, supports and organizes global jihad with the ultimate goal of destroying Israel and the West and establishing sharia law worldwide. Its philosophies, positions and spawn are well known including such groups as Hezbollah, Hamas and CAIR. Al Queda and it seek the same goals and will do so through violence and terror.
So why is Obama and many in his Administration, particularly Hillary Clinton, speaking out in support of the Muslim Brotherhood including as being an integral part of the Mubarak-Egyptian solution?
Are the “president” and these individuals just seeking appeasement or are they really so thoroughly incompetent, naïve and morally challenged?
Or is there an even more nefarious reason particularly as regards Obama and his inscrutable affinity for Islam?
This isn’t much of a stretch as both his “fathers” were Muslim and he did live in Indonesia as a child and attended a madrassa (Islamic school) there.
His actions as “president” irrefutably reveal a pro-Muslim agenda and present an undeniable danger to America and the West.
Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood -- Obama's Rubicon Moment
Eileen F. Toplansky February 07, 2011
Signed on September 17, 1978, the Camp David Accords ushered in a peace between Egypt and Israel. This peace is clearly in jeopardy now that Obama has shown that America can no longer be trusted to aid its allies, let alone its own interests. In 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitanosecretly met with the Muslim Brotherhood, "a movement that uses a religious identity to mask its political agenda." Also in 2010, the U.N. Security Council "quietly dropped Youssef Nada, a prominent financial and diplomatic representative of the Muslim Brotherhood from an international sanctions list directed at curbing the activities of alleged terrorist financiers." At the time, Victor Comras, a former adviser on financial sanctions believed that "the Obama administration would have had to signal that it was willing to go along with this decision."
The Muslim Brotherhood, long a supporter of Hamas and Hezb'allah, deliberately works to "foster confusion" in order to obfuscate its real message. Thus, conflicting messages come from the Brotherhood leaders, yet it is patently apparent that they are committed to the destruction of Israel. During the Holy Land Foundation case, one of the most interesting exhibits was a "Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May 22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] vision of the future." Thus, "the Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The Brotherhood's slogan depicting a Koran and swords reinforces the group's commitment to jihad and worldwide Islamification. On October 27, 2009, the Muslim Brotherhood Sheik Mahdi Akef claimed that the "Arab rulers are more despicable than the Zionists" and urged his listeners "to wage jihad." In 2007, Akef said that the "Brotherhood has not recognized Camp David from the very first day it was signed." In 2004, Akef declared "his complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America."
More recently, in his February 4, 2011 Friday sermon, Iranian Supreme Leader Al-Khamenei exhorted his listeners as he described the events in Egypt as an "Islamic liberation movement." He reminded his followers of the Iranian Revolution, also known as the Islamic revolution or 1979 Revolution, and reflected on certain parallels with the current Egyptian uprising. Khamenei called the Camp David peace treaty signed by Egypt and Israel the "Treaty of Shame." Syria was praised by Khamenei, while Egypt's Mubarak is cited as a traitor to the Islamic movement. Moreover, Khamenei told his worshipers "not [to] trust the role played by the West and America. ... "
Ominously, Khamenei explained that "the religious scholars, and Al-Azhar ... [would] play a much more significant role [in the new Islamic revolution]." Thus, "when the people embark on its revolution from the mosques and the Friday sermons, and raise the slogan of 'Allah Akbar,' the Islamic scholars are expected to play a more prominent role. This expectation is in place."
From his pulpit, Khamenei avowed that "the Zionist enemy, not the Egyptian people, should tremble in fear of the Egyptian army," as he believes the Egyptian army will [eventually] join the masses."
In November 2007, Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi wrote for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that the Muslim Brotherhood's "top priority is constructing a Muslim infrastructure in the West which will slowly but surely enable it to rule during the 21st century. As far as the final goal is concerned, there are no policy differences between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The two organizations have the same objective: to place the entire world under an Islamic caliphate."
More recently, Dore Gold asks if "the Obama administration's policy toward Egypt [is] based on a perception that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood would be extremely dangerous -- Or have they taken the position...that the Brotherhood has become moderate and can be talked to?"
In September of 2010, Muslim leaders were brought to the White House in order to provide the groups "funding, government assistance and resources." That is, "the workshop apparently provided special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizers." Thus, "the White House initiated a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups." In fact, "the sponsoring organization (CCMO) or Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations has a long history of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood."
Repeatedly, expert testimony has been given by people who have lived under sharia law and/or have devoted their lives to investigating the terror perpetuated by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Nonie Darwish described "a former Muslim critic of Islam [who has stated] that he is no longer confident that the US government will protect his civil rights as long as there are people in [the American] government such as Dalia Mogahed, the first White House Muslim advisor who is a firm defender of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood."
In his 2009 report entitled "The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," author Steven Merley lists the Muslim Brotherhood Organizations in the United States. They include the more well-known ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and the MSA (Muslim Students Association) as well as others such as the Muslim Communities Association, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, the Islamic Medical Association, the Muslim Youth of North America, the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, the OLF (Occupied Land Fund), the MIA (Mercy International Association), the IIC (Islamic Information Center), to name only a few.
It is now time to test Obama's moral compass. He needs to be directly asked if he believes the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the United States. If he affirms that it is, then he needs to be forcefully questioned as to why he has not taken more concerted steps to thwart their growth in the United States.
If, on the other hand, the 44th president states that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat, then it is quite clear where his true allegiance rests. American vulnerability would be publicly exposed putting us at grave risk.
If Obama cannot or will not answer this simple question, then his neutral stance also speaks volumes and will embolden the terrorism of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is the Rubicon moment for this man. It is the wake-up call for the rest of us.
In probably the most egregious act of the Obama Administration and as far as we can tell, the most perfidious, it secretly agreed to provide Russia with classified information regarding Great Britain’s nuclear capabilities – against that nation’s will and demand. The reason for this unmitigated treachery was to persuade Russia to sign the START Treaty which is so one sided in favor of that country to begin with.
Not only did Putin et. al. crush the abjectly incompetent, naïve and traitorous Obama with this abomination of an agreement, but he also obtained the additional benefit of procuring priceless information about its other enemy’s nuclear weapons.
The START Treaty negates our marked nuclear advantages over Russia – offensively and defensively – and places all Americans as well as citizens in numerous countries around the world in much greater danger. All for a signed piece of paper which, unbelievably, they can still invalidate under certain circumstances.
As for selling out our closest ally, Great Britain, this is a most despicable, inexcusable and treacherous act that is light years worse than any of the other abhorrent acts Obama that has committed against them. Obama has made it a habit to sabotage, undermine and derogate our long time allies – like Great Britain, Israel, Poland, Australia, etc. while coddling up to and appeasing our mortal enemies who are further emboldened by his interminable weakness, incompetence and naivety.
Obama must pay and pay big time for such treason!
Obama's actions warrant impeachment and this MUST be pursued.
Obama is dangerous and must be removed from office ASAP or our and the world’s future is bleak.
He is facilitating conditions for a nuclear Apocalypse.
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
HMS Vanguard is Britain's lead Trident-armed submarine. The US, under a nuclear deal, has agreed to give the Kremlin the serial numbers of the missiles it gives Britain Photo: Tam MacDonald
Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope Feb 4, 2011
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.
• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.
• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”
While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.