Obama’s Secret Stash
Mar 8, 2011 Political
After Barack Obama was elected there was some event where people were lined up to receive taxpayer money because of their dire economic situations. A woman who was interviewed said she was there for the money. When asked where the money was coming from she said Obama. Then when asked where he was getting it she said she did not know, maybe from his stash.
Typical welfare queen who thinks there is some stash of money that is available for those who “need” it.
Perhaps though, she was on to something. Obamacare seems to have Obama’s secret stash contained in it. The Heritage Foundation reports that Obamacare contains appropriations of $105 BILLION to implement the law. These appropriations were inserted to bypass the appropriations procedure and were designed to prevent a future Congress from defunding the program.
This was a blatant move to circumvent the Constitutional method for appropriating funds and nothing more. Democrats probably had a feeling that Obamacare would end their reign as the majority and did this to allow the unconstitutional law to proceed.
Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to see what was in it and that looks to be the case as we have now discovered an underhanded method to fund an unpopular and unconstitutional law.
Republicans can defund this but it will take extra work and diligence to get it right. The article at Heritage points out:
Conservatives can still save the nation from Obamacare’s bureaucratic kudzu, but they must act proactively. They must go beyond simply not providing funds for the implementation of Obamacare. CRS explains: “Precedents require that the language be phrased in the negative, for example, that ‘none of the funds provided in this paragraph (typically an account) shall be used for’ a specified activity.”
The Democrats leave messes and others have to clean them up. They are underhanded and sneaky and should never be trusted.
They made it difficult but not impossible to clean up the mess of Obamacare but the question is, why did they do it?
If it is so wonderful and everyone will love it then why did the Democrats in Congress do this?
They did it because they knew people opposed it and they wanted to ram it down our throats. In order to control the population they must control health care and they are well on their way. They are a third of the way to having everyone dependent on a government handout and if they can nail down health care they will have us all by the gonads.
We need to put an end to this now and we need to keep Democrats from ever having power.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, Democrats, funding, heritage foundation, illegal, lies, obamacare
The Jackson Does Not Fall Far From The Tree
Sep 22, 2010 Political
Looks like Jesse Jackson Jr has a little woman trouble on his hands. The trouble would be that he has to many women which might not set to well with his wife. Seems ole Jr had a woman flown in to “meet” with him and the flights were paid for by an outside source. This means Jr might have taken a gift and not reported it.
Lost in all this are new allegations that Jr was involved in the pay for play scheme that involved the Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. Yep. looks like Jr is as corrupt as his daddy and just as smooth with the women.
Not to worry though. Jr knows he has disappointed some of his supporters but he plans to continue to work hard for them.
I think he will be working hard to keep his job which is his number one concern.
Then again, he did work hard for at least one supporter…
Source:
Chicago Sun Times
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: daddy's boy, illegal, jesse jackson, lies, sex
Constitution Slaughters The Slaughter Solution
Mar 13, 2010 Political
By now anyone with a head and who is not trying to rewrite history over this issue knows that the Democrats are working full speed ahead to pass unpopular legislation in order to take control of our lives by controlling our health care. They want to vote for Obama’s signature legislative item but they are worried about the ramifications of passing unpopular legislation especially in an election year.
It is a double edged sword because they need to pass it now because they will lose too many seats to pass it next year. But if they pass it now they will lose even more seats and Obama will have no future agenda because Republicans will not allow anything he wants to pass. It won’t get considered. This will be the price for ramming legislation through without following the Constitution. I bet then we hear Democrats scream about being left out of the process and how ham handed the Republicans are.
Anyone who complains should be locked in the basement so we do not have to hear them again. This would include Obama.
The most recent idea coming from Democrats is to consider a bill voted on and passed if another piece of legislation is passed. This is a way to avoid voting on the unpopular bill but getting what they want passed.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law! Doug Ross
According to Constitutional Attorney Mark R Levin, this rule is unconstitutional. The House and Senate must vote on a bill and it must be sent to the president to be signed into law. So far, so good because they are voting on a bill but they are not voting on the bill that will become law and they are not voting in accordance with the Constitution:
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively… [emphasis added]
In ALL cases the bills shall be voted on by Yeahs and Nays. They cannot vote on one rule change and say it means they voted on another bill. Every BILL (singular) must be voted on with yeahs and nays. Our Founders set this up for a reason.
Of course the Constitutionality of something has never stopped Democrats from doing what they wanted but I am pretty sure there will be a lot of legal challenges to any process that does not follow the Constitution and the legal process in accordance with the law.
Note to Democrats, just because you change the rules does not mean the rules adopted are Constitutional.
Here is a link to the US Constitution for those who are challenged in this area. It would be particularly nice if Politicians read this.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out because the left is worried about the interpretation of the Senate Parliamentarian when it should be worried about the Constitution.
Can they use reconciliation to fix a bill that has not been agreed upon by both chambers? Don’t know but they cannot vote for a rule and say it counts as voting for a bill.
The other interesting thing that I see is Joe Biden has a big role in this as President of the Senate. This is the guy who scolded Dick Cheney and cited the wrong part of the Constitution when discussing the role of the VP. Seems that Biden was unaware that the VP has Executive and Legislative responsibility and that this is spelled out in the Constitution (it really helps to read it).
In any event, Biden might get a chance to learn what the VP is allowed to do.
Now it would be funny to see them do all of this only to have it nullified as unconstitutional, or declared not a law because they did not vote on a BILL. They would be back to square one and a lot closer to the election. They would never get another chance and that is a good thing.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, illegal, joe biden, Obama, slaughter, stock market, usurp
Begone, Pesky IGs
Jul 7, 2009 Political
Well, the Hussein Administration and hiz posse, the Congress, are taking steps to ensure that no one will know for sure who is raping who in the government. A viking mentality has taken over in virtually every government agency that gets money from the government, with wholesale plundering and pillaging going on as if there was a Bridezilla gown sale, and these government employees, (you know, these people who work for us) are busy rooting like wild hogs in our wallets, and they do not want any prying eyes.
To that end, they have begun firing, or causing to resign, several Inspectors General, the people who are supposed to safeguard our agencies, and oversee responsible spending and sound business practices. But Lord help you if you are an IG who has questions about possible improprieties- you’re going to be canned.
Last month, the International Trade Commission dismissed its inspector general and President Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service. Also, Amtrak’s inspector general retired suddenly after delivering to leadership of the federally backed corporation an independent audit alleging interference with his probes. Amtrak said retirement arrangements had been made before the analysis was delivered.
Federal watchdogs and their investigative and auditing staffs are tasked with rooting out government corruption or investigating sensitive personnel matters. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are at least 69 inspector general offices across the federal government, with new ones established as the need arises. The president appoints approximately 30 IGs, while the remainder are appointed directly by agency leadership. Rules and reporting structures vary.
washingtonpost.com
That’s not all of the story, either- while some are presidential appointments, most are appointed through the agencies they are supposed to guard and oversee, but the Resident wants more control over any possible negative news- after all, that would be “getting off message”, which is supposed to be all sweetness and light, not raping and pillaging the nation’s treasury.
Whoops- too late- that has already been done-but there is surely no need for people to know how badly this is being done to them, their children, and their grandchildren, thus the tightening of the IG positions, many more of whom will now directly answer to the Resident.
Inspectors general at five financial regulatory agencies are objecting to legislation that would elevate their positions to the presidential-appointment level, arguing that the move would compromise their ability to conduct independent investigations.
The bill would elevate the five officials at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
washingtonpost.com
You notice the agencies that the Resident wants more control of, right? All of them are with the financial community and regulate your money in some form or fashion, and pretty much guarantee that you will never hear a negative report, no matter how bad the situation becomes. And it is already bad, but apparently in Hussein’s mind, transparency doesn’t mean what everybody in the English- speaking world believes the definition to be. Or, here’s a revelation- he LIES. I am kind of leaning in the lie direction, myself, because there’s just too much BS in anything he says for a rational mind to digest.
So begins the dismantling of the financial institutions of America, from our bank account into their pockets. This is still just the beginning, you know- he still has more pain for us, and it will be coming.
“We remain unconvinced that a presidentially appointed IG is more independent than one that reports to a bipartisan board,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, which tracks government watchdogs.
“I think you can be more independent reporting to a bipartisan board than being at the mercy of the president’s good graces,” she said.
Though the bill passed the House, its fate in the Senate is uncertain. Both chambers continue to probe the Amtrak and ITC situations and an allegation of possible interference with inspector general investigations at the Library of Congress.
Walpin’s dismissal drew the most attention, however. Obama dismissed him after the agency’s bipartisan board of directors contacted the White House counsel’s office about his behavior at a May board meeting. In an initial letter to lawmakers, Obama stated that he had lost confidence in Walpin. Several lawmakers objected, and the White House provided documents outlining its reasons.
washingtonpost.com
And all of this without the comedy of “Stuart Smalley”, or as he is less known, Al Franken- All I know is we as a nation need to wake up, or we’re going to be like Scarlett O’Hara after the rape of Georgia, grubbing for beets in the post- apocalyptic world that Hussein is busy creating for us.
Oh won’t that be fun.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: governemntal robbery, illegal, Inspectors General, poorhouse
Obama’s Law Breaking Is Political Courage
Jun 19, 2009 Political
When George Bush fired some US Attorneys, all done in accordance with the law (they serve at his pleasure), he was soundly thrashed in the media. He was accused of protecting people who were being investigated and of firing those who did not hold the same opinions as he. The left had investigations and issued subpoenas. They made a federal case out of it, so to speak.
Obama has fired an inspector general who was investigating wrongdoing by one of his supporters (a friend of his wife) and has reportedly fired two others with whom his ideas were at odds. Obama did not follow the law that he cosponsored with regard to the firings. In other words, he broke the law by not following procedures. One of the attorneys involved said that the firings were acts of political courage:
“But [Eisen] said that what they did [the firing] in trying to fix the situation was an act of political courage — and ‘political courage’ is the phrase they used,” says the aide. Washington Examiner
George Bush fires attorneys who work at his pleasure and did so in accordance with the law and the left made him out to be a villain. He was doing something corrupt and wrong according to them.
Obama breaks the law in firing at least one, and probably three, inspectors general and he was courageous. This is sheer hypocrisy and the media has given it very little play. ABC is probably preparing for the Obama Infomercial and the others are too busy enjoying the tingles up their legs to actually report on this.
The statists and other Obama apologists will claim he did nothing wrong, but again I point out, he broke the law when he fired them. They will find excuses to exonerate their messiah.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: firing, illegal, inspector general, Obama