Tag Archives: executive branch

Why to Vote for Romney

Honestly, Mitt Romney was not the first choice as GOP presidential nominee for many voters. They preferred a handful of candidates to Romney. Despite Ron Paul’s many brilliant positions on fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, smaller less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and protecting American sovereignty, due to absolutely irreconcilable differences with him on matters of foreign policy, he was not among that handful of candidates.

The forces against America, be they global governance, environmental extremism, communism or islamo-fascism are interwoven and inter-linked on large scale international fashion in a world made much smaller by modern technology. These forces are unrelenting. For the sake of deterrence, America must be ready, willing and equipped to fight them on each and every battlefield. A return to an eighteenth or nineteenth century foreign policy would not foster that necessary capacity. Sad to say, “progressive” Woodrow Wilson destroyed that era of American foreign policy when he entered the USA into WWI.

That being said, the defeat of barack obama remains of paramount importance.

obama and his ideologically driven co-conspirators have spent a century erecting a bureaucratic shadow government (within the EPA, the DOE, the DOI and other departments) and big government dependency programs considered by too many Americans as “entitlements”, not to mention the now obscene number of illegal “czars”. These “czars” and bureaucrats answer to the Executive Branch, not to voters. Congress has not lifted a finger to stop the erection of this illegal shadow government. Rather, over the years they have voted for it. Thanks to this shadow government, Congress is quickly becoming irrelevant. If obama is re-elected, he will not hesitate to bypass what he clearly sees as Congressional “obstruction” by exploiting that shadow government to fully implement plans to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”.

obama MUST be removed as Chief Executive.
The survival of America is at stake. obama and his Occupy sympathetic “progressive” Democratic allies are hostile to America. In order to demonstrate 100% allegiance to America and not to Occupy, vote for the GOP candidate. Since his victory in the Texas Primary ensures he will have enough delegates to win the GOP nomination, vote for Romney. Every American is urged to demonstrate their commitment to removing obama by contributing to the inevitability of his defeat by voting for Romney.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. Do not pledge allegiance to any politician.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/why-to-vote-for-romney/

Snippets From The SOTU: Obama Asks For More Power

Now I may be reading this wrong, but the last few sentences of this quote make it sound like our president is asking for Congress to grant the Executive branch (even) more powers.  (wording in bold is my emphasis)

“Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”  -President Barack Obama (SOTU 2012)

Now, let’s start with the first paragraph; there are two funny statements in it.  The first one is his lament that a simple majority “can’t get anything done” anymore.  What’s funny is that when Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I don’t think Barack Obama gave one thought to how “easy” or “hard” it was to get anything done, but now that the Republicans have a chance to stand their ground, methinks the president doesn’t like it so much.

The second funny thing is that he asks for “judicial and public service” nominations to receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.  Ya know…  I just have to wonder if that request was on his mind after some recent shenanigans with a “recess appointment”.

But the not so funny thing I noticed comes at the end of that second paragraph.  When the average person hears Barack Obama says he wants to “consolidate bureaucracy” and make government “leaner” and “quicker”, they probably think it sounds reasonable.  But when I hear that statement (in its entirety), I wonder exactly what “authority” our president is asking Congress to grant him.  And when he says he wants government to be more “responsive to the needs of the American people”, I wonder what he will interpret those needs to be.  I mean not too long ago, he interpreted our needs to be stimulus for “shovel ready jobs” that didn’t exist.

A Deeper Look at Dangerous Streamlining Bill S.679 – Chief Scientist of NOAA

A Deeper Look into the Troublesome Aspects of “The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011″…

* * *

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain…
What’s the worst that could happen?…
There really are no ‘important positions’ that would be affected by S.679…

Don’t worry your pretty little head…

Supporters of the Back-Door-to-Dictatorship bill, or “The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011”, as it’s euphemistically listed in the U.S. Senate, tell us there’s nothing to fear.

All this harmless act proposes is to “…free up the Senate so that it can focus on our country’s most urgent needs of reducing spending and debt,” according to the bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Lamar Alexander, in a reply to this writer, “…rather than on confirming hundreds of junior positions in a president’s administration, like the public-relations officer of a minor department.”

Oh. Well, that’s a relief! If that’s all it is, maybe I shouldn’t worry my pretty little head about it. After all, what possible harm could come from our elected public servants relieving themselves from the onerous duty of rubber-stamping trivial, junior-level, non-essential posts that “are not involved in policy making,” as the good Senator pointed out.

Except…

When one reads the fine print, actually examines the job descriptions covered by S.679, a few positions jump out as not-quite-so “junior”.

Positions like the Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example.

Still, not to worry, we’re told. “These positions are part-time advisory board or commission positions, or full-time positions that are not involved in policy making…,” the senator reassured.

The Chief Scientist of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration … a junior position? Not involved in policy making? Well, that’s good…

Except…

That may be news to NOAA, its administrator, the Chief Scientist, and probably President Obama himself. On the administration’s own organizational chart, the Chief Scientist answers directly only to the NOAA administrator.

According to an Oct. 2009 email by that organization’s administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, agency was “Reinstituting and elevating the role of NOAA Chief Scientist, to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As senior scientist for NOAA, the Chief Scientist will drive policy and program direction for science and technology priorities.”

Should we be concerned that the person appointed by the president into this scientific position, one which will admittedly drive policy, might need at least a cursory glance by the Senate? What’s the worst that could happen… that Obama would hand-pick a decidedly leftist, socialist-leaning progressive? Have we any proof he’d do that?

Except…

We’re probably shouldn’t count his recently-departed climate czar, Carol Browner, of course. The ex-Clintonian EPA head who ordered her staff to wipe clean her government office computer’s hard drive before she left that post? The very same day the agency was ordered by a judge to preserve electronic records? Though Browner was acquitted of any wrong-doing, in an apparent case of ‘geez, your honor, I didn’t know I was s‘posed to keep them records’, one has to question the timing of the action.

And we probably shouldn’t be concerned that Obama could again pick someone like Browner, with ties to the group ‘Socialist International’. Ties that were also swept clean after Obama picked her as his czarina. Up until a week prior to that naming, the site listed her as one of its leaders of their Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The group is highly critical of America, promotes global governance, and calls for a reduction of wealthy countries’ economies in response to climate change.

So much for a ‘more transparent’ administration. Unless ‘transparent’ means ‘vanishes into thin ether’…

But not to fret… we have no reason to suspect Obama would appoint a globalist, socialist, climate-scarologist, ‘America-is-evil-ist’ radical for the Chief Scientist position of NOAA. Not when that agency is seen as an authority in matters climatic. Not when the climate is being used as a reason to make vast, sweeping transformations in the way Americans live and work.

Surely he wouldn’t have two such radicals pushing to affect ‘change’ in America because of the global climate threat?

Except…

To hold that position, we also must overlook another of the president’s men, science czar John Holdren.

Holdren’s official title is Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.

Holdren has touted mankind as the evil cause of global warming… wait, we’re calling it ‘climate change’ now, after the bitterly cold and snowy years we’ve had.

Holdren has worked to discredit scientists who dared challenge the progressive stance of anthropomorphic climate change, those who use their data to suggest the recent warming period was cyclical, not dependent on mankind’s actions. Holdren has suggested such draconian population measures as mandated limited family size, forced sterilization and abortion for women who defy such limits by daring have extra children.

But regardless of whom Obama places in the NOAA Chief Scientist seat – or any of the more than 200 ‘junior, non-policy-making posts named in S.679 – we shouldn’t worry. None of these positions could possibly be affect significant changes in America’s energy policy or business regulations or everyday processes.

Even if the Chief made outrageous recommendations, America’s rule of law and reliance on due processes that would keep such progressive chicanery from taking effect. Right?

Except…

This particular administration, has a track record for bypassing the process in order to get its progressive objectives accomplished (ObamaCare, anyone?). Senate leadership of this and the prior session have shown not only an inability to impede that agenda, but an unwillingness to do so. Senator Harry Reid, and his cohort in the House, former speaker Nancy ‘We-have-to-pass-it-so-we-can-know-what’s-in-it’ Pelosi, rammed the President’s health-insurance agenda down America’s collective throats, despite vocal outrage from across the country’s demographic.

The current Senate, still under Reid’s leadership even if several seats changed party, offers little or no improvement if supposedly Republican Senators like Lamar Alexander and Mitch McConnell don’t oppose but actually co-sponsor such legislation as S.679.

One must ask – and I do – if the co-supporting senators have actually read through this bill? Or if they’re relying on the its sponsor, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to just give them the gloss-over?

One must also ask – and I do – why the senators seem so willing to hand over their responsibilities, which we sent them to the Capitol to perform in our stead?

Cap-and-Trade legislation failed to get through the legislature. Yet Obama has announced his mulish faithfulness to the progressive eco-agenda without needing the legislative branch, stating the old adage that there’s more than one way of ‘skinning the cat’.

By bestowing greater regulatory power to unelected bodies, like the EPA, and employing executive orders, the president has attempted to circumvent the will of the American people and Constitutional processes that give us voice in our own governance.

The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 threatens to streamline the American people right out of the process which our founders knew was necessary: the governance of the people, by the people and for the people, not the rule over the people by one man, unanswerable to the people.

America doesn’t need, or want, a dictator. But if we don’t all act – flood the Senate with calls, letters and emails telling them to drop S.679 – that’s exactly what we may end up with.

If We the People fail in our duty, sitting back while those we send to speak on our behalf give up that duty, then perhaps we’re only getting what we deserve.

# # #

Why Obama’s Use of Regulation vs. Legislation is Flawed

The Failure of Barack Obama The Obama administration is using regulatory controls in place of legislation in many areas. By moving traditionally legislative actions into the executive branch, President Obama does not need to depend on a Congress that may not be able to produce the laws needed to force his progressive agenda on the whole of America. What he has failed to recognize is that the approach has a major flaw that could leave his legacy .. empty.

The latest of Obama’s regulatory pushes is the EPA’s push to limit CO2 by stretching the intent of the clean air act to illogical extents. By simply “declaring” carbon dioxide, the same element in human exhalation, a pollutant, the executive branch agency can create legally enforceable regulations that can limit anything that produces, and perhaps consumes, the life-giving molecule.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 910 last month in response to the administration’s dictator-like actions. The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 is a bill that would prohibit the EPA Administrator from regulating carbon dioxide. It passed the house 255-172, but will likely die in the progressive-heavy Senate. The executive branch trumps the legislative – what happened to checks and balances?

In April, CDN reported on the EPA’s successful maneuver to block Shell Oil from drilling in the arctic sea. As the article shows, EPA head Lisa Jackson and her band of progressive extremists didn’t use the law, didn’t even try to fight the actual act of drilling – they killed the project because of the CO2 emissions of a single ship.

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling. (emphasis mine)

Right out of Saul Alisnky’s teachings the EPA uses ridiculous guidelines, that no one could possibly follow, to grind the American business machine into the ground.

Where the Obama team has been short-sighted is in thinking that this tactic will create lasting change. By relying on the executive branch’s authority, all one needs to do to reverse it is .. that’s right .. change the executive.

If Kathlene Sebelius uses regulation to define a market-killing health care system, whomever the next president chooses to replace her will undo it. Which will effectively render the law worthless precisely because it relies too heavily on regulatory authority and not enough on legislative backing.

This will apply to the EPA’s overreach on CO2, health care regulation and anything else the Obama administration dreams up. This is up to the will of the people. The founders of our nation may just have been even more wise than we have or can imagine.