Tag Archives: Executive Order

Group Urges Obama to EXPAND Executive Order on Wages

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND LOGO

There are some that do not feel Obama’s overreach of power has not gone far enough! The National Federation Of The Blind say that his Executive Order  raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers must also include workers with disabilities.

BALTIMORE, Feb. 4, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The National Federation of the Blind, the nation’s oldest and largest nationwide organization of the blind, has sent a letter to President Obama urging him to value the work performed by workers with disabilities by including disabled workers in the forthcoming executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers.  Over four-hundred thousand disabled workers, many of whom work for entities that receive federal contracts, are currently paid far less than the federal minimum wage under an obscure provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Here is the letter to President Obama, from Dr. Marc Maurer:

February 3, 2014
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

In your January 28th State of the Union Address, and via a conference call with Vice President Biden and Secretary of Labor Perez on January 29th, it was announced that all contractors would be required by executive order to pay their federally funded workers at least $10.10 an hour under any new contracts. The National Federation of the Blind, the oldest and largest nationwide organization of blind Americans, urges you to include workers with disabilities in this executive order, affirmatively and explicitly. We further urge you to announce that you will sign the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act (H.R. 831) if and when that legislation reaches your desk. With a Republican sponsor and substantial Democratic co-sponsorship, this nonpartisan piece of legislation will responsibly phase out the discriminatory practice of paying workers with disabilities less than the minimum wage.

Our respect and prayers go out to Americans like Sergeant First Class Cory Remsburg, who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom and equality we seek to enjoy as American citizens. We are thankful that Sergeant Remsburg is recovering from the wounds he suffered in service to this great nation. But we must point out that his value to our society is not a function of the restoration of his eyesight and ability to walk, but of the simple fact that he is a human being with determination, belief in himself, love for the United States, and aspirations for his future. There are millions of others who actively seek to serve this nation we love with our unique talents and strengths, whether or not we can benefit from technology or medical intervention that will mitigate or eliminate our disabilities. Some of us may be blind in both eyes; others may not be able to hear; some may be unable to walk; some may have developmental disabilities that require innovative interventions; and still others may have other disabilities that require them to perform everyday tasks a little differently. We seek to have our different characteristics embraced as respected contributions to our nation’s diversity, not as badges of inferiority that condemn us to a life of low wages and low expectations. We are no less valuable, we are no less capable, and we are no less American than any other citizen.

We wholeheartedly agree with you when you say, “The America we want for our kids – a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us – none of it is easy. But if we work together; if we summon what is best in us, the way Cory summoned what is best in him, with our feet planted firmly in today but our eyes cast towards tomorrow – I know it’s within our reach.” We believe that this America includes people with disabilities, and we ask you to demonstrate that you believe it as well.

Sincerely,

Marc Maurer, President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

cc: Vice President Joseph R. Biden

The Honorable Thomas E. Perez

 

 

 

Obama threatens to go full-on dictator in 2014

Barack Obama

White House senior staff are hitting the talk show circuit this weekend to relay President Obama’s newest threat: if Congress won’t do exactly as the White House wishes, the White House will go around them.

Press Secretary Jay Carney and Senior White House Advisor Dan Pleiffer made the President’s position clear on ABC’s “This Week” and Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday.”

Carney spun the dictatorial threat by saying that President Obama would work with Congress where possible, but will “bypass Congress where necessary” – a thinly-veiled threat to Congress to get-in-line or be circumvented by Presidential proclamation.

Pleiffer took an even more vague approach to informing Congress that the President will either get his way or throw a tantrum: “The President has a pen, and he has a phone, and he’s going to use those” – the pen threat conceivably hinting that the President will issue Executive Order edicts for any initiative on which the President has been unable to lead a divided government.

Unlike effective Presidents like Clinton or Reagan, Obama has been unable to lead a divided Congress to pass much of anything. Obamacare was passed with both the House and Senate being held by Democrats and most everything else the President has done through Executive Order, administrative action or other non-legislative paths.

Obama started his first term leading a parade. Democrats had control of Congress, he had just won the majority of the American vote and held high approval numbers – all squandered trying to push a heavily-extremist liberal agenda.

After shoving the incredibly unpopular Affordable Care Act down the throats of Americans, Democrats lost the majority in the House and Obama had to either lead a divided government or flounder. His current approval ratings have pegged-out on the floundering side.

Threats, like those issued by Carney and Pleiffer, are not how a confident leader gets things done. Compromise is difficult and in a divided Congress, compromise is required – unless you are operating in a dictatorial regime.

Now, Obama is throwing down the gauntlet: Do what I want, the way I want it, or I’ll stretch the powers of the Executive branch to their breaking point to get my way.

Obama Executive Order: Doctors to Screen All Individuals Ages 15 to 65 Years for HIV

white_house

Executive Order — HIV Care Continuum Initiative


white_house

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

ACCELERATING IMPROVEMENTS IN HIV PREVENTION AND CARE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE HIV CARE CONTINUUM INITIATIVE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government to effectively respond to the ongoing domestic HIV epidemic, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Addressing the domestic HIV epidemic is a priority of my Administration. In 2010, the White House released the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy (Strategy), setting quantitative goals for reducing new HIV infections, improving health outcomes for people living with HIV, and reducing HIV-related health disparities. The Strategy will continue to serve as the blueprint for our national response to the domestic epidemic. It has increased coordination, collaboration, and accountability across executive departments and agencies (agencies) with regard to addressing the epidemic. It has also focused our Nation’s collective efforts on increasing the use of evidence-based approaches to prevention and care among populations and in regions where HIV is most concentrated.

Since the release of the Strategy, additional scientific discoveries have greatly enhanced our understanding of how to prevent and treat HIV. Accordingly, further Federal action is appropriate in response to these new developments. For example, a breakthrough research trial supported by the National Institutes of Health showed that initiating HIV treatment when the immune system was relatively healthy reduced HIV transmission by 96 percent. In addition, evidence suggests that early treatment may reduce HIV-related complications. These findings highlight the importance of prompt HIV diagnosis, and because of recent advances in HIV testing technology, HIV can be detected sooner and more rapidly than ever before.

Based on these and other data, recommendations for HIV testing and treatment have changed. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that clinicians screen all individuals ages 15 to 65 years for HIV, and the Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines for Use of Antiretroviral Agents now recommends offering treatment to all adolescents and adults diagnosed with HIV.

Furthermore, ongoing implementation of the Affordable Care Act provides a historic opportunity for Americans to access affordable, quality health care. The Act is expanding access to recommended preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, including HIV testing, and, beginning in 2014, insurance

companies will not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including HIV. Starting October 1, 2013, Americans can select the coverage that best suits them through the new Health Insurance Marketplace, and coverage will begin January 1, 2014.

Despite progress in combating HIV, important work remains. Since the publication of the Strategy, data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there are significant gaps along the HIV care continuum — the sequential stages of care from being diagnosed to receiving optimal treatment. Nearly one-fifth of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States are undiagnosed; one-third are not linked to medical care; nearly two-thirds are not engaged in ongoing care; and only one-quarter have the virus effectively controlled, which is necessary to maintain long-term health and reduce risk of transmission to others.

In light of these data, we must further clarify and focus our national efforts to prevent and treat HIV infection. It is the policy of my Administration that agencies implementing the Strategy prioritize addressing the continuum of HIV care, including by accelerating efforts to increase HIV testing, services, and treatment along the continuum. This acceleration will enable us to meet the goals of the Strategy and move closer to an AIDS-free generation.

Sec. 2. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Initiative. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Initiative (Initiative), to be overseen by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. The Initiative will mobilize and coordinate Federal efforts in response to recent advances regarding how to prevent and treat HIV infection. The Initiative will support further integration of HIV prevention and care efforts; promote expansion of successful HIV testing and service delivery models; encourage innovative approaches to addressing barriers to accessing testing and treatment; and ensure that Federal resources are appropriately focused on implementing evidence-based interventions that improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 3. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Working Group. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Working Group (Working Group) to support the Initiative. The Working Group shall coordinate Federal efforts to improve outcomes nationally across the HIV care continuum.

(a) Membership. The Working Group shall be co-chaired by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy and the Secretary of Health and Human Services or designee (Co-Chairs). In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Working Group shall consist of representatives from:

(i) the Department of Justice;

(ii) the Department of Labor;

(iii) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iv) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(v) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(vi) the Office of Management and Budget; and

(vii) other agencies and offices, as designated by the Co-Chairs.

(b) Consultation. The Working Group shall consult with the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, as appropriate.

(c) Functions. As part of the Initiative, the Working Group shall:

(i) request and review information from agencies describing efforts to improve testing, care, and treatment outcomes, and determine if there is appropriate emphasis on addressing the HIV care continuum in relation to other work concerning the domestic epidemic;

(ii) review research on improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(iii) obtain input from Federal grantees, affected communities, and other stakeholders to inform strategies to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(iv) identify potential impediments to improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum, including for populations at greatest risk for HIV infection, based on the efforts undertaken pursuant to paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subsection;

(v) identify opportunities to address issues identified pursuant to paragraph (iv) of this subsection, and thereby improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(vi) recommend ways to integrate efforts to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum with other evidence-based strategies to combat HIV; and

(vii) specify how to better align and coordinate Federal efforts, both within and across agencies, to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

(d) Reporting.

(i) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall provide recommendations to the President on actions that agencies can take to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

(ii) Thereafter, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy shall include, as part of the annual report to the President pursuant to section 1(b) of my memorandum of July 13, 2010 (Implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy), a report prepared by the Working Group on

Government-wide progress in implementing this order. This report shall include a quantification of progress made in improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Barack_Obama_Signature

BARACK OBAMA

 

SOURCE: The White House

Executive Order Creates Election Commission

Obama_signingPresident Obama signed an executive order last week creating the nine member Presidential Commission on Election Administration, a move he signaled as a priority during the State of the Union speech.

The Commission, co-chaired by Bob Bauer, who was Obama’s lead counsel in his 2012 campaign, and Ben Ginsberg, who held the same role in the Romney camp is tasked with studying polling locations, voter access, voting machine technology and much more.

The executive order defines the mission of the panel as follows:

“The Commission shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency.”

Though a very small percentage of polling locations experienced delays on Election Day 2012, locations with arguably the highest turnout in the nation had few problems to note. Minneapolis, for example, had some polling locations with more than 100% turnout, yet Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie reported the day ran smoothly. Ritchie said of the estimated 3 million people statewide (MN had an estimated 76% voter turnout), “I think people had a really good experience.”

The debate about long lines and extensive wait times rears its head every few years, but the math simply doesn’t add up. Following the 2010 census, in accordance with a law enacted by Congress in 1975, polling locations were reviewed in each state and redistricting took place. Each Congressional district, state senate district and other districts were evaluated and potentially changed, and then approved by the states. The redistricted lines are based on census numbers so that each polling location has approximately the same number of residents, and therefore, approximately the same number of eligible voters.

Though the President’s new commission intends to study and recommend changes related to the “number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places,” “ballot simplicity and voter education,” and the “efficient management of voter rolls and poll books,” there is no mention of any attempt to dissuade voter fraud. In fact, the stated purpose of the commission is to “improve the experience of all voters.” As we have learned in the last few election cycles, not all voters abide by election laws.

Voter fraud is rampant in the United States. For a few examples, click here: EJ Haust Voter Fraud and here: Voter Fraud Still an Issue

Each state has authority over its election practices including ballots, technology, and polling locations, but the recommendations of this new commission are “intended to serve as a best practices guide for state and local election officials…” according to Josh Earnest, Deputy Press Secretary for the White House. That could prove valuable to activists seeking to make voting controlled by the executive branch.

Though the commission won’t have authority to directly override state election rules, its recommendations could conceivably be used as a tool by the Department of Justice to use when persuading judges to impose changes at the state level. The President is essentially giving credibility to a group of nine of his friends to create a “study” that will later be seen as the authority on election best practices. What Secretary of State, governor, state legislature, or judge will have the instinct to deny recommendations by this panel of experts?

The commission is required to submit its final report 6 months following its first public meeting. It will have staff, though none of the nine members will have a salary. All members will be allowed reimbursement of travel expenses.

Follow me on Twitter!

Obama Executive Order: Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity

white_house

white_house

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

IMPROVING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE CYBERSECURITY

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1Policy. Repeated cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure demonstrate the need for improved cybersecurity. The cyber threat to critical infrastructure continues to grow and represents one of the most serious national security challenges we must confront. The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of the Nation’s critical infrastructure in the face of such threats. It is the policy of the United States to enhance the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure and to maintain a cyber environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while promoting safety, security, business confidentiality, privacy, and civil liberties. We can achieve these goals through a partnership with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to improve cybersecurity information sharing and collaboratively develop and implement risk-based standards.

Sec2Critical Infrastructure. As used in this order, the term critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.

Sec3Policy Coordination. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions and programs described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System), or any successor.

Sec4Cybersecurity Information Sharing. (a) It is the policy of the United States Government to increase the volume, timeliness, and quality of cyber threat information shared with U.S. private sector entities so that these entities may better protect and defend themselves against cyber threats. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”), and the Director of National Intelligence shall each issue instructions consistent with their authorities and with the requirements of section 12(c) of this order to ensure the timely production of unclassified reports of cyber threats to the U.S. homeland that identify a specific targeted entity. The instructions shall address the need to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, operations, and investigations.

(b) The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a process that rapidly disseminates the reports produced pursuant to section 4(a) of this order to the targeted entity. Such process shall also, consistent with the need to protect national security information, include the dissemination of classified reports to critical infrastructure entities authorized to receive them. The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a system for tracking the production, dissemination, and disposition of these reports.

(c) To assist the owners and operators of critical infrastructure in protecting their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or harm, the Secretary, consistent with 6 U.S.C. 143 and in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, shall, within 120 days of the date of this order, establish procedures to expand the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program to all critical infrastructure sectors. This voluntary information sharing program will provide classified cyber threat and technical information from the Government to eligible critical infrastructure companies or commercial service providers that offer security services to critical infrastructure.

(d) The Secretary, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program created under Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities), shall expedite the processing of security clearances to appropriate personnel employed by critical infrastructure owners and operators, prioritizing the critical infrastructure identified in section 9 of this order.

(e) In order to maximize the utility of cyber threat information sharing with the private sector, the Secretary shall expand the use of programs that bring private sector subject-matter experts into Federal service on a temporary basis. These subject matter experts should provide advice regarding the content, structure, and types of information most useful to critical infrastructure owners and operators in reducing and mitigating cyber risks.

Sec5Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections. (a) Agencies shall coordinate their activities under this order with their senior agency officials for privacy and civil liberties and ensure that privacy and civil liberties protections are incorporated into such activities. Such protections shall be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles and other privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks as they apply to each agency’s activities.

(b) The Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall assess the privacy and civil liberties risks of the functions and programs undertaken by DHS as called for in this order and shall recommend to the Secretary ways to minimize or mitigate such risks, in a publicly available report, to be released within 1 year of the date of this order. Senior agency privacy and civil liberties officials for other agencies engaged in activities under this order shall conduct assessments of their agency activities and provide those assessments to DHS for consideration and inclusion in the report. The report shall be reviewed on an annual basis and revised as necessary. The report may contain a classified annex if necessary. Assessments shall include evaluation of activities against the Fair Information Practice Principles and other applicable privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks. Agencies shall consider the assessments and recommendations of the report in implementing privacy and civil liberties protections for agency activities.

(c) In producing the report required under subsection (b) of this section, the Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of DHS shall consult with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

(d) Information submitted voluntarily in accordance with 6 U.S.C. 133 by private entities under this order shall be protected from disclosure to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Sec6Consultative Process. The Secretary shall establish a consultative process to coordinate improvements to the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. As part of the consultative process, the Secretary shall engage and consider the advice, on matters set forth in this order, of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council; Sector Coordinating Councils; critical infrastructure owners and operators; Sector-Specific Agencies; other relevant agencies; independent regulatory agencies; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; universities; and outside experts.

Sec7Baseline Framework to Reduce Cyber Risk to Critical Infrastructure. (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (the “Director”) to lead the development of a framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (the “Cybersecurity Framework”). The Cybersecurity Framework shall include a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall incorporate voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices to the fullest extent possible. The Cybersecurity Framework shall be consistent with voluntary international standards when such international standards will advance the objectives of this order, and shall meet the requirements of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), and OMB Circular A-119, as revised.

(b) The Cybersecurity Framework shall provide a prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and cost-effective approach, including information security measures and controls, to help owners and operators of critical infrastructure identify, assess, and manage cyber risk. The Cybersecurity Framework shall focus on identifying cross-sector security standards and guidelines applicable to critical infrastructure. The Cybersecurity Framework will also identify areas for improvement that should be addressed through future collaboration with particular sectors and standards-developing organizations. To enable technical innovation and account for organizational differences, the Cybersecurity Framework will provide guidance that is technology neutral and that enables critical infrastructure sectors to benefit from a competitive market for products and services that meet the standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes developed to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall include guidance for measuring the performance of an entity in implementing the Cybersecurity Framework.

(c) The Cybersecurity Framework shall include methodologies to identify and mitigate impacts of the Cybersecurity Framework and associated information security measures or controls on business confidentiality, and to protect individual privacy and civil liberties.

(d) In developing the Cybersecurity Framework, the Director shall engage in an open public review and comment process. The Director shall also consult with the Secretary, the National Security Agency, Sector-Specific Agencies and other interested agencies including OMB, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, and other stakeholders through the consultative process established in section 6 of this order. The Secretary, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other relevant agencies shall provide threat and vulnerability information and technical expertise to inform the development of the Cybersecurity Framework. The Secretary shall provide performance goals for the Cybersecurity Framework informed by work under section 9 of this order.

(e) Within 240 days of the date of this order, the Director shall publish a preliminary version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the “preliminary Framework”). Within 1 year of the date of this order, and after coordination with the Secretary to ensure suitability under section 8 of this order, the Director shall publish a final version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the “final Framework”).

(f) Consistent with statutory responsibilities, the Director will ensure the Cybersecurity Framework and related guidance is reviewed and updated as necessary, taking into consideration technological changes, changes in cyber risks, operational feedback from owners and operators of critical infrastructure, experience from the implementation of section 8 of this order, and any other relevant factors.

Sec8Voluntary Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Program. (a) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall establish a voluntary program to support the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and any other interested entities (the “Program”).

(b) Sector-Specific Agencies, in consultation with the Secretary and other interested agencies, shall coordinate with the Sector Coordinating Councils to review the Cybersecurity Framework and, if necessary, develop implementation guidance or supplemental materials to address sector-specific risks and operating environments.

(c) Sector-Specific Agencies shall report annually to the President, through the Secretary, on the extent to which owners and operators notified under section 9 of this order are participating in the Program.

(d) The Secretary shall coordinate establishment of a set of incentives designed to promote participation in the Program. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary and the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce each shall make recommendations separately to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that shall include analysis of the benefits and relative effectiveness of such incentives, and whether the incentives would require legislation or can be provided under existing law and authorities to participants in the Program.

(e) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, shall make recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, on the feasibility, security benefits, and relative merits of incorporating security standards into acquisition planning and contract administration. The report shall address what steps can be taken to harmonize and make consistent existing procurement requirements related to cybersecurity.

Sec9Identification of Critical Infrastructure at Greatest Risk. (a) Within 150 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall use a risk-based approach to identify critical infrastructure where a cybersecurity incident could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security. In identifying critical infrastructure for this purpose, the Secretary shall use the consultative process established in section 6 of this order and draw upon the expertise of Sector-Specific Agencies. The Secretary shall apply consistent, objective criteria in identifying such critical infrastructure. The Secretary shall not identify any commercial information technology products or consumer information technology services under this section. The Secretary shall review and update the list of identified critical infrastructure under this section on an annual basis, and provide such list to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs.

(b) Heads of Sector-Specific Agencies and other relevant agencies shall provide the Secretary with information necessary to carry out the responsibilities under this section. The Secretary shall develop a process for other relevant stakeholders to submit information to assist in making the identifications required in subsection (a) of this section.

(c) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall confidentially notify owners and operators of critical infrastructure identified under subsection (a) of this section that they have been so identified, and ensure identified owners and operators are provided the basis for the determination. The Secretary shall establish a process through which owners and operators of critical infrastructure may submit relevant information and request reconsideration of identifications under subsection (a) of this section.

Sec10Adoption of Framework. (a) Agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure shall engage in a consultative process with DHS, OMB, and the National Security Staff to review the preliminary Cybersecurity Framework and determine if current cybersecurity regulatory requirements are sufficient given current and projected risks. In making such determination, these agencies shall consider the identification of critical infrastructure required under section 9 of this order. Within 90 days of the publication of the preliminary Framework, these agencies shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of OMB, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that states whether or not the agency has clear authority to establish requirements based upon the Cybersecurity Framework to sufficiently address current and projected cyber risks to critical infrastructure, the existing authorities identified, and any additional authority required.

(b) If current regulatory requirements are deemed to be insufficient, within 90 days of publication of the final Framework, agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall propose prioritized, risk-based, efficient, and coordinated actions, consistent with Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), to mitigate cyber risk.

(c) Within 2 years after publication of the final Framework, consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall, in consultation with owners and operators of critical infrastructure, report to OMB on any critical infrastructure subject to ineffective, conflicting, or excessively burdensome cybersecurity requirements. This report shall describe efforts made by agencies, and make recommendations for further actions, to minimize or eliminate such requirements.

(d) The Secretary shall coordinate the provision of technical assistance to agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section on the development of their cybersecurity workforce and programs.

(e) Independent regulatory agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure are encouraged to engage in a consultative process with the Secretary, relevant Sector-Specific Agencies, and other affected parties to consider prioritized actions to mitigate cyber risks for critical infrastructure consistent with their authorities.

Sec11Definitions. (a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) “Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council” means the council established by DHS under 6 U.S.C. 451 to facilitate effective interaction and coordination of critical infrastructure protection activities among the Federal Government; the private sector; and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

(c) “Fair Information Practice Principles” means the eight principles set forth in Appendix A of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.

(d) “Independent regulatory agency” has the meaning given the term in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(e) “Sector Coordinating Council” means a private sector coordinating council composed of representatives of owners and operators within a particular sector of critical infrastructure established by the National Infrastructure Protection Plan or any successor.

(f) “Sector-Specific Agency” has the meaning given the term in Presidential Policy Directive-21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), or any successor.

Sec12General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Nothing in this order shall be construed to provide an agency with authority for regulating the security of critical infrastructure in addition to or to a greater extent than the authority the agency has under existing law. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter or limit any authority or responsibility of an agency under existing law.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) All actions taken pursuant to this order shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods. Nothing in this order shall be interpreted to supersede measures established under authority of law to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence and law enforcement operations.

(d) This order shall be implemented consistent with U.S. international obligations.

(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Barack Obama

BARACK OBAMA

 

 

Source: White House

Obama takes control of the internet with Cybersecurity Executive Order

white_house

white_house

Executive Order on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity

Today, President Obama signed an Executive Order to strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure by increasing information sharing and by jointly developing and implementing a framework of cybersecurity practices with our industry partners.

  • Defense Industrial Base Information Sharing Program Now Open to Other Sectors: The Order expands the voluntary Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program, enabling near real time sharing of cyber threat information to assist participating critical infrastructure companies in their cyber protection efforts.
  • NIST to Lead Development of Cybersecurity Framework: NIST will work collaboratively with critical infrastructure stakeholders to develop the framework relying on existing international standards, practices, and procedures that have proven to be effective.

Partnering with Industry to Protect Our Most Critical Assets from Cyber Attack

Today’s new Executive Order was developed in tandem with the Presidential Policy Directive on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience also released today. The Executive Order strengthens the U.S. Government’s partnership with critical infrastructure owners and operators to address cyber threats through:
  • New information sharing programs to provide both classified and unclassified threat and attack information to U.S. companies. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to produce unclassified reports of threats to U.S. companies and requires the reports to be shared in a timely manner. The Order also expands the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program, enabling near real time sharing of cyber threat information to assist participating critical infrastructure companies in their cyber protection efforts.
  • The development of a Cybersecurity Framework. The Executive Order directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to lead the development of a framework of cybersecurity practices to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure. NIST will work collaboratively with industry to develop the framework, relying on existing international standards, practices, and procedures that have proven to be effective. To enable technical innovation, the Cybersecurity Framework will provide guidance that is technology neutral and that enables critical infrastructure sectors to benefit from a competitive market for products and services.
The Executive Order also:
  • Includes strong privacy and civil liberties protections based on the Fair Information Practice Principles. Agencies are required to incorporate privacy and civil liberties safeguards in their activities under this order. Those safeguards will be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPS) and other applicable privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks. Agencies will conduct regular assessments of privacy and civil liberties impacts of their activities and such assessments will be made public.
  • Establishes a voluntary program to promote the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework. The Department of Homeland Security will work with Sector-Specific Agencies like the Department of Energy and the Sector Coordinating Councils that represent industry to develop a program to assist companies with implementing the Cybersecurity Framework and to identify incentives for adoption.
  • Calls for a review of existing cybersecurity regulation. Regulatory agencies will use the Cybersecurity Framework to assess their cybersecurity regulations, determine if existing requirements are sufficient, and whether any existing regulations can be eliminated as no longer effective. If the existing regulations are ineffective or insufficient, agencies will propose new, cost-effective regulations based upon the Cybersecurity Framework and in consultation with their regulated companies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to leverage the Cybersecurity Framework to consider prioritized actions to mitigate cyber risks for critical infrastructure consistent with their authorities.
Building on Progress 
In May of 2009, President Obama declared our digital infrastructure a strategic national asset and made protecting this infrastructure a national priority. As part of this effort, the Obama Administration has:
  • Created the National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center: The NCCIC is a 24-hour, DHS-led coordinated watch and warning center that improves our nation’s ability to address threats and incidents affecting critical infrastructure, the Internet, and cyberspace.
  • Issued the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace: The NSTIC and its programs are creating alternatives to passwords for online services that are more convenient, secure, and privacy enhancing.
  • Submitted to Congress Comprehensive Cybersecurity Legislation: The Administration continues to believe that legislation is needed to fully address this threat. Existing laws do not permit the government to do all that is necessary to better protect our country. The Executive Order ensures that federal agencies and departments take steps to secure our critical infrastructure from cyber attack, as a down-payment on expected further legislative action.

Source: White House

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Signs Executive Order Denying Public Funded Benefits to Young Illegal Immigrants

On Wednesday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer ordered her state government agencies to deny drivers licenses and other public benefits to young illegal immigrants who obtain work permits under the new Obama Administration policy.

In the executive order, she was reaffirming the current Arizona law that denies taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification to illegal immigrants.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issues an executive order denying public-funded benefits to young illegal immigrants

Young illegal immigrants around the country between the ages of 16-30 around the nation began applying for work permits on Wednesday under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The new federal ‘policy’ defers deportation of certain young illegal immigrants who have a high school diploma, a GED, or who have served or are currently serving in the United States Armed Services, and all applicants must not have committed certain crimes.

Jan Brewer labeled the new federal policy by Barack Obama as “backdoor amnesty” back in June when the policy was announced.

Arizona has been a leading state in fighting for the right to protect their citizens from illegal immigrants, most recently making the news with the Arizona v. United States Supreme Court decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned parts of the Arizona enforcement law known as SB1070 but ruled that a key provision on requiring police to ask people about their immigration status under certain circumstances can be implemented.

The Obama Administration and Eric Holder challenged the law in 2010, claiming that Arizona doesn’t constitutionally have the right to pass the law, since Immigration powers are enumerated to the federal government.

Gov. Brewer went on the Mike Broomhead show on 550 KFYI radio to discuss the executive order, listen here:

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

Obama Dream Act Executive Order Causes ICE Confusion

ice agents

A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said at a press conference headed by Senator Jeff Sessions, R(AL) that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to accept statements by illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act. Agents are to believe statements at face value and without any verification.

Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, explained how the new selective immigration enforcement is affecting the ICE agents:

“As we still wait on detailed guidance from the administration, it’s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we’ve seen so far concerns us greatly,” Crane, said. “As one example, prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”

“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”

This new directive contradicts Homeland Security’s own words: “Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action.”

Evidence of this new policy was detailed in a story last month at CDN by Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu. As soon as the new policy went into effect so called ‘dreamers’ were allowed to be released if they simply told officers they were qualified to stay in the US.

“The lawlessness must end,” Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose office organized the presser, said. “They’ve handcuffed and muffled those charged with protecting the public safety and the integrity of our borders,” Sessions said. “Such action has not only weakened our security but our democracy. All Americans, immigrant and native born, will have a better future if our nation remains unique in the world for its special reverence for the rule of law and fairness in our immigration system.”

Senator Chuck Grassley R(IA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the policy is a political act by Obama meant to garner votes. “The president campaigns in 2008 that, in the first year, he’s going to have immigration issues solved,” Grassley said. “At this point, after three-and-a-half years, we have not seen any bill whatsoever. So, then as is a core pattern in this administration, you got to blame somebody else, so it [the administration] comes up with this statement: ‘if Congress won’t, I will.’”

In a tight presidential election will this obvious attempt to buy votes further endear DREAM Act subscribers to the Obama camp or will the blatant overstepping of the president through executive order turn away voters?

Another Presidential Power Grab

obamahalo

July 6th 2012, President Obama signed yet another Executive Order, ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS.  This new Executive order grants the administration and the Department of Homeland Security massive new abilities that might be needed to re-establish communications during the event of a natural disaster or national security event.  This order will allow the DHS to ensure  that “communications must be possible under all circumstances” and “and improve national resilience.”  This new Executive order states that;

“Sec. 4.1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an Executive Committee Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide full-time, expert, and administrative support for the Executive Committee’s performance of its responsibilities under section 3.3 of this order”

This new Executive order establishes the National Security and Emergency Preparedness or NS/EP a Executive Committee established to control communications during a crisis and ensure that the government has the proper ability to communicate whenever it needs. The “policy” of this Executive Order passed on Friday, July 6th 2012 says that it must have the capability “to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations.” Further down within the Executive Order it specifies the main responsibility of the NS/EP which is; “to serve as a forum to address NS/EP communications matters.”

Established under the executive order signed by President Obama on July 6th 2012 the NS/EP will “address”  “communication matters” and contain “representatives designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the General Services Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as such additional agencies as the Executive Committee may designate. The designees of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Executive Committe.”

The NS/EP’s main responsibility for the Committee’s forum that is setup under section 3.1 ; “shall be to: (a) advise and make policy recommendations to the President, through the PPD-1 process, on enhancing the survivability, resilience, and future architecture of NS/EP communications, including what should constitute NS/EP communications requirements;”

The NS/EP will also “evaluate the capabilities of existing and planned communications systems, networks, or facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP communications requirements, including any recommended remedial actions;”  In addition to the committee being able to “evaluate the capabilities of existing and planned communications” the DHS will also have the ability to ensure those “communications” “through the use of commercial, government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate.”

Section Four of the Executive Order establishes the “Executive Committee Joint Program Office, which is the “Office” that will oversee the NS/EP”s performance, that is put together by the Department of Homeland Security(DHS). Even though the JPO will “provide full-time, expert, and administrative support for the Executive Committee’s performance of its responsibilities under section 3.3 of this order.”  Under this same section it also states that the JPO “shall be responsive to the guidance of the Executive Committee.”  The JPO which was established to “provide” “support” to the “Executive Committee” will be taking “guidance” from the group it oversees.

Some of the responsibilities that were established under section four, the JPO which is suppose to “provide” “support are;”

a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications that are directly responsive to the national security needs of the President, Vice President, and senior national leadership

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications; and

(d) provide, operate, and maintain communication services and facilities adequate to execute responsibilities consistent with Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981, as amended.

The Federal Government already has the National Security Council, which was established in Executive Order 12333, listed above, which allows the Federal government to use the NSC to “act as the highest ranking executive branch entity that provides support to the President for review of, guidance for, and direction to the conduct of all foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and covert action, and attendant policies and programs.”

This Executive Order signed last Friday and the Agencies or committee’s created within it, are not funded by Congress, which is suppose to be the purse strings for the Federal government. The order states that; “a long-term strategic vision for NS/EP communications and propose funding requirements and plans to the President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the PPD-1 process, for NS/EP communications initiatives that benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;”  this funding for all of these agencies will “(c) coordinate the planning for, and provision of, NS/EP communications for the Federal Government under all hazards;”

The Agencies and Committees and additional power now granted to the DHS under this new Executive Order is protected by one of the last sections which lays out its protections of the agencies and committees and their funding stating that; “(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:” and, “(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”  With the power invested in the Federal Government to fund and control these agencies independently from Congress, and the power to grant executive privilege, where does it end?

 

Waivers Render Executive Order A Toothless Tiger

President Barack Obama signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA.) on July 1, 2010.  The law’s purpose was to convince the Iranian Government to comply with its full range of nuclear obligations, and engage in constructive negotiations on the future of its nuclear program.

On November 21, 2011, Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13590. That EO called for sanctions on ANY entity (see Section 5) doing business with Iran, specifically buying Iranian oil. The sanctions were designed to affect financial institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s central bank for the sale or purchase of petroleum and related products.

On April 26, 2012, Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, provided “Sanctions Targeting Foreign Energy Involvement in Iran: The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), CISADA, and a November 2011 Executive Order” for Congress. In his report, Katzman says, “The President has had the authority under ISA to waive sanctions if he certifies that doing so is important to the U.S. national interest. CISADA changed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) waiver standard to ‘necessary’ to the national interest.” (page 6)

Well, I guess issuing waivers has, in Obama’s mind, become necessary. In an announcement largely overshadowed by the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday, June 28, 2012, that the Obama administration was exempting China from sanctions called for in EO 13590 for continuing to buy Iran’s oil.

China’s imports of Iranian oil did decline substantially between January and May, 2012. The decline was attributed to a contract dispute between China’s state-controlled Sinopec and Iran’s National Iranian Oil Co. But when that dispute was resolved, China’s imports of Iranian crude rose again by 34.5 percent. Coincidence? You decide.

House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R – FL) said, “The administration likes to pat itself on the back for supposedly being strong on Iran sanctions. But actions speak louder than words, and today the administration has granted a free pass to Iran’s biggest enabler, China, which purchases more Iranian crude than any other country.”

Since March, 2012, a total of twenty waivers have been granted, including top Iran customers China, Japan, India, South Korea and Italy.

The signing of EO 13590 was widely covered by the MSM, predicting the new sanctions reflect an increasingly Trans-Atlantic response to Iran. The MSM predicted an expansion of the reach of existing sanctions and their potential impact on companies worldwide that interact with Iran’s financial and petroleum sectors. But with granting of waivers, EO 13590 has become a “toothless tiger,” a fact that the MSM has chosen to ignore.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

President Obama in 2011: Can’t Stop Deportation of Illegal Immigrants by Executive Order

immigracion

President Obama’s executive order to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants, essentially ignoring separation of powers and legislating from the executive, is sure to be called a cynical act of “pandering” in an election year. But it is far, far worse than that.

Compelling and conclusive video shows that the president is knowingly and willfully violating The Constitution of the United States and his Oath of Office.

President Obama at a Univision town hall in March 2011 literally says he cannot suspend deportations by executive order. He even gives an explanation about how laws are made in the United States before stating that ignoring the laws would not be an appropriate thing for him to do as president.

Below is the footage:

This shows without a shadow of a doubt to all citizens of the United States that a vote for Obama is a vote for an aspiring dictator. The man is willing to violate national sovereignty and disobey the laws of the United States in order to get a marginal electoral boost in a voting demographic. One wonders what laws Obama will wake up tomorrow and decide to ignore.

Hispanic voters better think long and hard before installing a dictator intent on bringing the same kind of corrupt, dysfunctional economics and backwards, banana republic politics to America as runs rampant throughout Latin America, South America, and former Third World nations.

If you want America to continue being America, vote this Hugo Chavez-type despot out of office and help this nation remain a beacon of liberty and prosperity, and a safe haven for people fleeing from tinpot dictators like Barack Obama.

President Obama’s Executive Order for Marriage Equality

marriage3

(Associated Depressed) — President Obama issued an executive order entitled the Equality in Marriage Act, requiring by law that all marriages be, “Equal in all respects, whether in terms of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, appearance, or intelligence.”

The policy shift ushers in not only a new era of legal equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples, but equalized marriage outcomes for all human beings, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.

“The time has come for us to set aside our petty differences,” President Obama said before a White House podium overlooking the picturesque National Mall, “to take hope in the change of this transformational agenda, so that all people, no matter what background or what our individual differences, will not be overly blessed or overly cursed with a marriage to someone who is not right for them.”

Millions applauded the president for the progressive decree, which would put an end to marriage inequality once and for all. People who once thought they were doomed to a miserable marriage to someone in their same victim class have already looked forward to seeing the new policy put in practice.

But now that the applause has ended, controversy has set in regarding what exactly the president meant.

“Well, frankly, there is no precedent in American law for this kind of sweeping, although breathtaking vision,” said Mortimer L. Swathley of the politically neutral Brookings Institution. “We are in a new era of law when we just have to try to discern what Obama’s intentions are when he issues an executive order.  Such scholars have already dubbed themselves ‘Obama reconstructivists.’ ”

The decree has sent lawyers, judges, and pastors scrambling to accommodate a flurry of new matrimonial activity sure to provide a stimulus for the recovering economy.

“We still aren’t sure if Obama means that two people with high IQs now need to get divorced and remarry spouses with proportionately lower IQs,” said Judge Michael B. Fuddell. “Or if two good-looking people have to separate and pair with ugly partners, or if white people have to marry black people, or even so far that dark people have to marry pasty people. It’s kind of a legal nightmare…but an exciting one.”

The national divorce rate has already tripled, providing a boon to family legal practices across the country. Marriage rates also received a much-needed boost, although single people are already starting to grumble about discrimination.

“Couples who once found themselves chained to a much dumber or uglier spouse were initially happier that Obama approved the overall collective equality in their marriages,” said psychotherapist Jill Brubeck of a marriage counseling agency in California. “But as mandatory reporters, we are having trouble getting two intellectually-challenged partners to acknowledge that there is any inequality there. They just aren’t bright enough to make sense of the law, poor things.”

While heterosexuals struggle to set aside previous marriages and find their opposites in terms of race, looks, and IQ, homosexuals are elated that gay marriage has effectively been federally mandated.

“If heterosexuals can be trapped in pledged lifelong monogamy, why can’t gays?” said one legal expert. “The only question remaining is why married couples should hoard all the misery, when singles escape scot-free. I think it is time for the president to call upon singles to show a little self-sacrifice, and share the misery.”

While there are still many issues unsettled regarding Obama’s executive order, some citizens are already seeing a positive difference in their lives.

“I thought I was happy wedded to a smart, wonderful husband, having beautiful healthy children,” sobbed Sarah Milner joyfully, “but after listening to President Obama, I realized that I was being selfish, and I could never tolerate living such an unfair life.  So I quit and married a bum who was making catcalls to me everyday on the way to work. The guilt is gone, and I’ve felt better ever since.”

The policy is set to be fully implemented following Barack Obama’s last election.

Author’s note: The above is satire. It is a fictionalized account intended to elucidate certain ideas and principles by taking them to absurd lengths. It is not intended to be taken literally.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker, Misfit Politics, and OwntheNarrative, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk shows at OTNN.

The Successful Desensitization of the American Voter

Of course no good-hearted American wants socialism or communism, but after more than 90 years of progressive desensitization, it’s becoming much more acceptable.

In September of 1919, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUS) was formed as a counter to the Socialist Party of America (SPA). CPUS differed with SPA on one critical issue – the strategy to use to rid the United States of capitalism. While SPA wanted to see organized, militaristic direct action (bombings, armed insurretion, violence against those who disagreed with them), the CPUS wanted to focus on electoral politics – a strategy still used today by America’s Big-Labor unions.

For almost a century, a socialist influence has moved slowly and patiently to bring the last best hope for true economic and social freedom to a cataclysmic end. The tools of class warfare, social justice and false equality have been used to slowly de-sensitize the American populace so that socialistic ideas could take hold and win in election years. Statements like “taking care of our seniors”, “healthcare for all”, “protecting the working poor”, “defending the middle-class”, “making the rich pay their fair share” and more are intended to guilt American voters into trading self-reliance and liberty for government entitlements, dependence and security. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States is a call to arms for Socialism. Such fundamentalism – as Benjamin Gitlow who was arrested as a communist revolutionary in 1919 – attested at his trial in 1920 is central to the socialist agenda:

The socialists have always maintained that the change from capitalism to socialism would be a fundamental change, that is, we would have a complete reorganization of society, that this change would not be a question of reform; that the capitalist system of society would be completely changed and that that system would give way to a new system of society based on a new code of laws, based on a new code of ethics, and based on a new form of government.

  • The government has gone so far as to first take over an American company (GM), then hand ownership to the Union after stripping investors of their rightful stake.
  • Both GE and GM have been heavily pressured by the government to do its bidding – even to the detriment to each business
  • The blackmailing of Boeing by the NLRB as favor to the labor unions
  • Health Care Reform will be the death of the Health Care industry the way we know it – before long, only the government will be left
  • A late Friday executive order by Barack Obama allowing the government more control over the centralized manufacturing and distribution of goods (see: definition of socialism)

Nothing scary here right?

So while not technically socialism by Merriam-Webster’s definition, Crony Socialism or Socialism-light at a minimum is running rampant in our government – how long until the next step is taken?

Just 10 years ago, did anyone believe that the government would have taken over a public company, raided Gibson guitars without cause, given the President the power to direct manufacturing and output, told an aircraft company where it may or may not build a factory, forced terrible health insurance down American’s throats, subsidized something so awful as the Chevy Volt or turned California farms into desert to save an inedible fish?

But the lights aren’t flashing, buzzers aren’t sounding yet are they?

A recently publicized video of Attorney General Eric Holder stating that the leftists must brainwash American’s against gun ownership is a testament to the strategy of the progressive socialists. Fast and Furious was but one attempt to make the gun industry into a distasteful and hated villain – even though it was the government itself being the terrorist, criminal and facilitator of murder.

Yet, the outcry is minimal. The alarm is only sounding in the deepest corners of the Pro-American right. Even Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has rejected the idea that socialism can be used to describe Barack Obama. Why not call it what is is: a 21st century brand of crony-socialism and go after the current administration? Perhaps because of the backlash from the American voters. The electorate has already been so numbed to the ideals and actions of the administration that they no longer see these activities as a threat to the basic fabric that created the greatest nation on Earth. Voters have been so desensitized to these activities that they no longer see them as reprehensible, wrong and detrimental to the American way of life.

American voters are railing against those who would toe the line against socialism. Falling in-line with the talking points of the left, a large portion of the electorate does not believe that those in Congress should be reversing the growth of government by budgetary restriction. So many now owe a portion of their subsistence to the government or soon will that they have no choice but to bend to the will of the ever more powerful central government – exactly what the founders wanted to prevent, the progressive socialists have worked so hard for and of which de Toqueville warned.

While professing “give-and-take”, socialist progressives aren’t actually giving anything. The right is asking for budget cuts and the left has not been able to even hold the deficit steady while in control of congress. The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t offered a budget in the entirety of Obama’s term and the President has not yet demanded one. Despite concerns from the Congressional Budget Office, Americans are not demanding reforms to government spending to prevent America from falling into the same debt trap that has the European Union teetering on the brink of economic collapse.

And again – no sirens, no media outcry, and the size of anti-big government rallies is dwindling. Americans are slowly accepting a long-term, dire fate in trade for self-serving gifts from the public treasury.

Nothing to see here folks, please move along.

« Older Entries