Audit the Fed needs your help
As H.R. 459, Audit the Fed, continues to gain momentum in the U.S. House, I need your help today to turn up the pressure on the Senate to support its companion legislation, S. 202.
Currently, S. 202 stands at 20 cosponsors.
But with Congress in the middle of their “Spring Break,” things are quiet on the Hill.
So our collective shout in support of transparency will ring even louder if we take advantage of this opportunity!
The Fed’s defenders know the Senate is their stronghold, but you and I have a staunch defender of liberty in Senator Rand Paul to champion this cause.
While he works on the inside to gain support for Audit the Fed, you and I can provide critical grassroots support by continuing to apply pressure on the outside.
When legislators get back from their break, they need to be greeted by their staff with one message: Support Audit the Fed now!
Here are just a few actions you can take today to help increase support for Audit the Fed in the Senate:
*** Click here to find out if your senators are supporting S. 202.
*** If your senators have signed on, call them through the congressional switchboard at (202)224-3121 to urge them to do everything in their power to achieve a roll call vote on S. 202.
*** If your senators currently don’t support the bill, call Congress and demand they stand up for transparency and accountability by cosponsoring as soon as they return from their break.
*** Visit your senators’ websites to get their district office information and call their local offices with the same message you sent to their Hill staff.
*** Once you’ve contacted your senators, forward this email on to your contacts and encourage them to join you in supporting this historic cause.
Campaign for Liberty first made Audit the Fed its top legislative priority in 2009.Since then, we’ve seen millions of Americans rally to our side, legislation passed to peel back some of the layers of secrecy from the Fed, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke desperately try to spin his way out of the corner we’ve put him in.
But we must not stop until a thorough audit is passed.
Every day the Fed remains unchecked is another day they can put you and me on the hook for trillions more in handouts and promises to their well-entrenched friends.
This can be the year we finally put an end to the Fed’s stranglehold on our economy.
C4L members have rallied to the cause to make sure H.R. 459 gains support in the House, so I hope you will help S. 202 advance by contacting your senators right away.
In Liberty,
Matt Hawes
Vice President
P.S. With H.R. 459 fast gaining momentum in the U.S. House, I hope you’ll agree to help turn up the pressure on your senators to support its companion legislation, S. 202.
Click here to find out if your senators are currently on board the bill.
If they are, contact them through the congressional switchboard at (202)224-3121 to urge them to do everything in their power to seek a roll call vote.
If they are not yet on the bill, call them right away to demand they support transparency and accountability.
And if you are able, chipping in $10 or $15 today would go a long way toward helping C4L continue to spread the word about Audit the Fed!
Cross-Border Martial Law: Stage 1
by Gary North
On Monday, April 2, the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada will meet at what is billed as the North American Leaders Summit. Here is the agenda, as posted on the website of the White House.
If you think I am exaggerating, consider the following.
TRILATERAL DEFENSE: STAGE 1
The Defense Department has posted a press release on steps leading up to this summit. A new system of multi-national defense has been created. It is called the North American Defence Ministry. Notice the way Defense is spelled: Oh, Canada! You can read the press release here.
According to the three Ministers of Defence, North America is facing threats so enormous that the three nations must work together to thwart them. But what nation is strong enough to offer such a threat? None is mentioned. Nevertheless, those threats are out there, the three ministers of defense assure us.
The first meeting of what they call "the trilateral collaboration" was held in Ottawa. Here is what they decided.
It turns out that the threats do not come from nations. They come from SPECTRE. You remember SPECTRE, the SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. Sean Connery's James Bond battled against SPECTRE. Well, maybe SPECTRE isn't the threat it once was, but something like it is.
But that's not all. The defense ministers will also
I am curious. What disasters across all three borders are such a threat that it requires a new trilateral defense system to respond?
I can think of one: a joint operation to release airborne anthrax in three cities, for example: Washington, Ottawa, and Mexico City. But why, exactly, will it take joint military responses to deal with this? The terrorists will be long gone.
I can think of another: a joint operation of a suicide squad that has been infected with smallpox. Each of them flies to a different city. He or she then goes to the movies. Lots of movies. If you are curious about the likely effects, do a Google search for "Dark Winter" and "terrorism." I did. Here are the results.
Conclusion: the targets of this trilateral planning are civilians, not terrorists. This is all about a cross-border system of martial law. This is stage one. There is stage two.
CANADA'S ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN
In 2011, the Canadian government posted what it called an Economic Action Plan. This is a bilateral plan to integrate economically the USA and Canada.
What caught my eye is this. They are concerned about public resistance. Remember, this is Canada – good old stodgy Canada.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper up until now has pursued bilateralism: USA and Canada. That policy is about to go the way of all flesh. Trilateralism is the agenda of the North American Leaders Summit.
Harper's government in February 2011 published a detailed outline of a system of bilateral government regulations on trade: transportation, agriculture, health products, and environmental safety. This sounded harmless to Canadians. But the extension of cross-border economic regulations is part of a much more comprehensive plan to integrate the economies of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. This, in turn, is preparatory for regional/hemispheric integration.
If all this sounds familiar, that's because it is. When David Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission in 1973, he had something like this in mind. Step by step, the program has extended. Think of this as the dream of the wonderful folks who gave us the euro.
FROM FREE TRADE TO POLITICAL UNIFICATION
For over two centuries, believers in political centralization have used a bait-and-switch strategy that has worked repeatedly.
First, they extol the benefits of free trade, meaning the elimination of sales taxes on imported goods. Their model: Adam Smith's book, The Wealth of Nations (1776).
Second, they call for the creation of a joint free trade zone. They never recommend unilateral reductions of tariffs by one government on one side of a border. Always, there must be a negotiated free trade zone: joint sovereignty.
Third, they call for joint regulations making the judicial rules of production fair.
Fourth, they call for a common currency. This always turns into a call for a national central bank, then a common international central bank.
Fifth, they call for regional military defense.
Sixth, they call for political integration: the United States of Whatever.
This strategy was designed by James Madison. He attempted to get it passed at the Annapolis Convention of 1786. When that failed, he called for a closed-door convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.
Delegates from several states were authorized to attend, but only on this basis: to lower tariffs, not to replace the Articles of Confederation. As soon as the closed-door session opened, four separate plans were submitted to replace the Articles of Confederation. (I wrote a book on this: Conspiracy in Philadelphia. It's free.)
The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,
Three years after ratification, Hamilton succeeded in getting Congress to adopt a central bank, privately owed.
In 1861, the Confederacy decided to set up its own free trade zone. The North invaded.
Throughout the 1930s, internationalists promoted the idea of a free trade zone under the League of Nations. Large multinational corporations would be licensed by the League to trade, immune from national tariffs, with the League taxing them for the privilege. The most famous advocate was New York lawyer John Foster Dulles.
In 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community was set up to conduct free trade in Western Europe. This led to the creation of the Common Market in 1957. This morphed into the European Union in 1992. This required the European Central Bank, which gave Europe the euro in 1999.
It is bait and switch.
CONCLUSION
Central planners cannot get the voters to accept internationally what the voters have long accepted nationally. So, they adopt a stealth program. It is a bait-and-switch strategy. Again and again, it has worked.
North America got NAFTA in 1994. Unless Congress stops the process, we will soon get a joint military system of domestic crowd control. The boundary markers for this system have been laid: milestones. Next will come the laying of the foundations.
Most voters know nothing of this. Of those who do know, most ignore it.
The trap is set with tax breaks: low tariffs. That is the bait. It is tasty bait. Then the trap is sprung.
Paraphrasing Patrick Henry in 1765, if that's a conspiracy theory, make the most of it.
On Monday, April 2, the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada will meet at what is billed as the North American Leaders Summit. Here is the agenda, as posted on the website of the White House.
On April 2, 2012, President Obama will host Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico for the North American Leaders' Summit (NALS) in Washington, DC. This meeting will build on wide-ranging and ongoing cooperation among the United States, Canada, and Mexico with a particular focus on economic growth and competitiveness, citizen security, energy, and climate change. The leaders will also discuss North America's role in the Americas in anticipation of the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia later in April, as well as other global economic, political, and security issues.Note: This summit is preliminary to a hemispheric summit to be held later in April. Note these words: citizen security, energy, and climate change. Allow me to translate: police state, rationing, and regulation.
If you think I am exaggerating, consider the following.
TRILATERAL DEFENSE: STAGE 1
The Defense Department has posted a press release on steps leading up to this summit. A new system of multi-national defense has been created. It is called the North American Defence Ministry. Notice the way Defense is spelled: Oh, Canada! You can read the press release here.
According to the three Ministers of Defence, North America is facing threats so enormous that the three nations must work together to thwart them. But what nation is strong enough to offer such a threat? None is mentioned. Nevertheless, those threats are out there, the three ministers of defense assure us.
The first meeting of what they call "the trilateral collaboration" was held in Ottawa. Here is what they decided.
By virtue of our geography, our peoples, and our trading relationship, our three nations share many defense interests. Threats to North America and the hemisphere are increasingly complex and require non-traditional responses. Building upon the trilateral collaboration under the North American Leaders Summit process, we share a determination to enhance our common understanding of those threats and of the approaches needed to address them.It would be helpful to know what these "increasingly complex" threats to North America are. It would be even more helpful to know which "non-traditional responses" are being contemplated.
Our countries are committed to working together to address challenges in the region. We know that transnational threats require transnational responses.That word, "transnational," needs clarification. What are some of these transnational threats? What nation might be planning transnational threats against Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States? What nation has identified these three nations as enemies? I have heard of none.
It turns out that the threats do not come from nations. They come from SPECTRE. You remember SPECTRE, the SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. Sean Connery's James Bond battled against SPECTRE. Well, maybe SPECTRE isn't the threat it once was, but something like it is.
With this in mind, we have agreed to enhance our cooperation to support efforts to counter transnational criminal organizations and to respond to natural disasters in the hemisphere.The trilateral collaboration is determined not to let these criminal organizations get the upper hand. Neither is nature: natural disasters in the hemisphere. We all remember what the hemisphere was almost wiped out by. . . . By. . . . By whatever it was. Back then. Never again!
Our meeting today has established the framework necessary to build North America's resilience by pursuing a practical agenda built on sustained trilateral cooperation on issues related to defense. As part of our initial work plan, we intend to:If we are to believe this press release, the Mexican drug dealers are so well armed and pose such a threat that the defense departments of all three North American nations must now cooperate trilaterally.
- Develop a joint trilateral defense threat assessment for North America to deepen our common understanding of the threats and challenges we face.
- Explore ways to improve our support to the efforts of civilian public security agencies in countering illicit activities in our respective countries and the hemisphere, such as narcotics trafficking.
But that's not all. The defense ministers will also
- Explore how we can collaborate to increase the speed and efficiency with which our armed forces support civilian-led responses to disasters.
I am curious. What disasters across all three borders are such a threat that it requires a new trilateral defense system to respond?
I can think of one: a joint operation to release airborne anthrax in three cities, for example: Washington, Ottawa, and Mexico City. But why, exactly, will it take joint military responses to deal with this? The terrorists will be long gone.
I can think of another: a joint operation of a suicide squad that has been infected with smallpox. Each of them flies to a different city. He or she then goes to the movies. Lots of movies. If you are curious about the likely effects, do a Google search for "Dark Winter" and "terrorism." I did. Here are the results.
Conclusion: the targets of this trilateral planning are civilians, not terrorists. This is all about a cross-border system of martial law. This is stage one. There is stage two.
- Continue to work together to strengthen hemispheric defence forums.
We have agreed to meet on a regular basis in order to build on today's historic meeting and continue our cooperation in addressing shared continental threats. We will pursue this trilateral agenda respectful of national sovereignty and in coordination with other agencies in our respective governments. The results of our meeting will be conveyed to our respective leaders in advance of the upcoming North American Leaders Summit.Notice the phrase, "respectful of national sovereignty." If you think NAFTA was a bad idea, sovereignty-wise, wait until you see what comes next.
CANADA'S ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN
In 2011, the Canadian government posted what it called an Economic Action Plan. This is a bilateral plan to integrate economically the USA and Canada.
What caught my eye is this. They are concerned about public resistance. Remember, this is Canada – good old stodgy Canada.
- Coordinate and share research on how people become radicalized and turn to violence;
- Share best practices and tools for law enforcement and corrections partners to detect, prevent and respond to this threat;
- Develop a common messaging and strategic communications approach; and
- Emphasize community-based and community-driven efforts. This will include collaborating on how to engage with communities and build their resilience against violent extremists who seek to target specific communities in our respective countries, as well as coordinating community outreach.
Establish binational plans and capabilities for emergency management, with a focus on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (CBRNE) events.In addition to this is the threat to the communications system.
- Coordinate national-level emergency communications plans and strategies;
- Identify future trends and technologies related to communications interoperability;
- Promote the use of standards in emergency communications;
- Promote governance models and structures; and
- Share best practices and lessons learned.
We build on the efforts of many partners – from police and other emergency workers to our armed forces – who continue to safeguard us from the complex threats we face.This is being promoted to Canadian voters as an economic action plan. It is a great deal more than an economic action plan. This is not merely about freer trade. It is about cross-border martial law.
We also recognize that cooperation across air, land, and maritime domains, as well as in space and cyberspace, our enduring bi-national defence relationship, and military support for civilian authorities engaged in disaster response efforts and critical infrastructure protection, have all contributed significantly to the security of our populations.
| |
Harper's government in February 2011 published a detailed outline of a system of bilateral government regulations on trade: transportation, agriculture, health products, and environmental safety. This sounded harmless to Canadians. But the extension of cross-border economic regulations is part of a much more comprehensive plan to integrate the economies of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. This, in turn, is preparatory for regional/hemispheric integration.
If all this sounds familiar, that's because it is. When David Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission in 1973, he had something like this in mind. Step by step, the program has extended. Think of this as the dream of the wonderful folks who gave us the euro.
FROM FREE TRADE TO POLITICAL UNIFICATION
For over two centuries, believers in political centralization have used a bait-and-switch strategy that has worked repeatedly.
First, they extol the benefits of free trade, meaning the elimination of sales taxes on imported goods. Their model: Adam Smith's book, The Wealth of Nations (1776).
Second, they call for the creation of a joint free trade zone. They never recommend unilateral reductions of tariffs by one government on one side of a border. Always, there must be a negotiated free trade zone: joint sovereignty.
Third, they call for joint regulations making the judicial rules of production fair.
Fourth, they call for a common currency. This always turns into a call for a national central bank, then a common international central bank.
| |
Sixth, they call for political integration: the United States of Whatever.
This strategy was designed by James Madison. He attempted to get it passed at the Annapolis Convention of 1786. When that failed, he called for a closed-door convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.
Delegates from several states were authorized to attend, but only on this basis: to lower tariffs, not to replace the Articles of Confederation. As soon as the closed-door session opened, four separate plans were submitted to replace the Articles of Confederation. (I wrote a book on this: Conspiracy in Philadelphia. It's free.)
The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,
Three years after ratification, Hamilton succeeded in getting Congress to adopt a central bank, privately owed.
In 1861, the Confederacy decided to set up its own free trade zone. The North invaded.
Throughout the 1930s, internationalists promoted the idea of a free trade zone under the League of Nations. Large multinational corporations would be licensed by the League to trade, immune from national tariffs, with the League taxing them for the privilege. The most famous advocate was New York lawyer John Foster Dulles.
In 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community was set up to conduct free trade in Western Europe. This led to the creation of the Common Market in 1957. This morphed into the European Union in 1992. This required the European Central Bank, which gave Europe the euro in 1999.
It is bait and switch.
CONCLUSION
Central planners cannot get the voters to accept internationally what the voters have long accepted nationally. So, they adopt a stealth program. It is a bait-and-switch strategy. Again and again, it has worked.
North America got NAFTA in 1994. Unless Congress stops the process, we will soon get a joint military system of domestic crowd control. The boundary markers for this system have been laid: milestones. Next will come the laying of the foundations.
Most voters know nothing of this. Of those who do know, most ignore it.
The trap is set with tax breaks: low tariffs. That is the bait. It is tasty bait. Then the trap is sprung.
Paraphrasing Patrick Henry in 1765, if that's a conspiracy theory, make the most of it.
Does Obama Want to Be Emperor?
In divide and conquer fashion, President Obama has recently launched blistering and some have said unprecedented attacks against the following perceived enemies… the Supreme Court, Rep. Paul Ryan, American oil and gas companies, Wall St traders, American insurance companies, families making over $250K per year, and those who question man-made global warming. These attacks have grown in intensity and are a far cry from the hope and change he promised four years ago. Is the President unable to withstand criticism? Does he feel above being criticized? Or is this a calculated election year strategy to divide and distract Americans?
Michelle Obama to kids: Tell grandparents they are 'wrong' for not voting for my husband
Michelle Obama is now stumping for children to convince their “great-grandparents” to vote for her husband.
Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain ‘Obamacare’ Statements
(Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo)
Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.
“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President — stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review,” Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.
“The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific,” he added.
Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be “an unprecedented and extraordinary step” if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by “a democratically elected Congress.”
“I would just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and — and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, there’s a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Obama’s argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure.
“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” he said.
“Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes,” Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question.
Smith didn’t back down explaining that Obama’s statements had “troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that’s not a small matter.” He also referred to the law in question as “Obamacare,” an informal reference that has been politically charged.
Kaersvang again reiterated the administration’s deference to judicial review, but Smith was not satisfied, moving to demand an annotated explanation 48 hours from now.
Neither spokesmen for the White House nor Department of Justice would comment on the matter.
Speaking at an Associated Press luncheon today, Obama appeared to try and clarify his position, arguing that it’s been decades since the Supreme Court struck down a law on an economic issue, such as health care.
“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it,” he said, “but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.”
You can listen to full audio of the exchange HERE:
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-demands-obama-explain-obamacare-statements-000508798--abc-news-politics.html
By Devin Dwyer | ABC OTUS News
(Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo)
In a remarkable, partisan exchange in a Texas courtroom Tuesday, a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law.
Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.
"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President - stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review," Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.
"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific," he added.
Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be "an unprecedented and extraordinary step" if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by "a democratically elected Congress."
"I would just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and - and passed law," Obama said. "Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."Obama's argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure.
"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" he said.
"Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes," Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question.Smith didn't back down explaining that Obama's statements had "troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that's not a small matter." He also referred to the law in question as "Obamacare," an informal reference that has been politically charged.
Kaersvang again reiterated the administration's deference to judicial review, but Smith was not satisfied, moving to demand an annotated explanation 48 hours from now.
Neither spokesmen for the White House nor Department of Justice would comment on the matter.
Speaking at an Associated Press luncheon today, Obama appeared to try and clarify his position, arguing that it's been decades since the Supreme Court struck down a law on an economic issue, such as health care."The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it," he said, "but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress."
You can listen to full audio of the exchange HERE. It begins at 18:01 into the recording.
ABC News' Jason Ryan contributed to this report.
Also Readhttp://news.yahoo.com/judge-upset-obamas-comments-health-care-law-010429840.html
By | Associated Press
HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.
The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.
During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.
"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.
On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress."I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.
A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.
However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.
"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements," Smith said.
The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities.
The Justice Department did not immediately return a telephone call late Tuesday seeking comment.
White House officials had no comment on Smith's statements, instead referring to comments Obama made earlier Tuesday at the annual meeting of The Associated Press in Washington.
At the meeting, Obama said the Supreme Court "is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. ... I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has."
___
Associated Press writer Will Lester in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution
By Frank Salvato
In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.
During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,”questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said. At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.
Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”
There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist. Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.
Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:
“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management...”
The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”
Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.
Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.
So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.” The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just as soon spit on the Constitution than try to understand it. We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.
---
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.
In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.
During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,”questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said. At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.
Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”
There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist. Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.
Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:
“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management...”
The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”
Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.
Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.
So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.” The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just as soon spit on the Constitution than try to understand it. We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.
---
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.
Alert: Public Advocate on radical Watch List
Public Advocate is once again under attack in national news.
You see, the radical Homosexual Lobby has specifically targeted Public Advocate for destruction.
They want us shut down for good.
They have demanded you and I stop all operations... that I step down from all public roles... that we cease to talk about the radical homosexual agenda entirely.
Silenced. Disbanded. Destroyed.
It wasn’t that long ago that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) launched an online petition to have Public Advocate banned from the internet -- banned from sending any emails at all.
But now the Homosexual Lobby has upped the ante through their allies at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
According to the SPLC, Public Advocate is a hate group.
They claim that our defense of true marriage and traditional morals is an act of hate and offensive to homosexuals.
They have placed Public Advocate on its Watch List and announced to every radical homosexual and sympathizer that I have to be stopped at all cost.
With our looming victory in Tennessee and the growing fights for real marriage in Maryland, Washington and California -- we have become Enemy #1.
And now even silencing us is not safe enough for them.
With the SPLC leading the charge, they want to destroy Public Advocate once and for all.
You see, Southern Poverty Law Center has literally written the book on discrediting conservative groups.
They label anyone who disagrees with the ever-changing Liberal Agenda as “hatemongers” or “evil.”
Now they are focused on you and me because the Homosexual Lobby has become increasingly central to the SPLC’s mission.
They want to destroy any belief in morality, or traditional families, or even in gender -- and they have as much as $168 million in assets.
It is heartbreaking to see how much cash they command. But it is nothing less than a sign of God’s favor that you and I are holding them off with only a fraction of the resources.
It is up to you and me to fight them every time; for every classroom... for every church... for every family.
But now they are beating the war drums and gathering their army -- and they are finding many allies.
With the SPLC’s declaration of war, the entire radical Liberal Lobby is taking aim at me.
Big Media has taken SPLC’s side -- repeating the same unfounded accusations and outright lies -- while leaders in the Democrat Party have launched public smear campaigns against me personally.
They want to destroy my credibility and my mission.
And so I have a personal request of you today Blaine.
The SPLC and their allies have demanded that I stop talking to you about their agenda.
I could never do that...
But they have also demanded that Public Advocate cease all fundraising operations.
And so I am asking you, right here and right now, to give them your answer.
Will you tell them no?
Will you chip in a quick donation of $10 or more today?
It's only through your financial support and the support of other pro-Family Americans that Public Advocate continues to fight.
The very best way for Public Advocate to answer the SPLC’s hate-filled attack is with an overwhelming show of support.
Every little bit helps.
It is important to me to know you are still with me.
For the Family,
Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate
P.S. The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared Public Advocate to be a hate group for defending tradional morality and true marriage.
They have joined with Human Rights Campaign and even leaders of the Democrat Party in a desperate attempt to destroy Public Advocate once and for all.
They have demanded that I step down and desist in all fundraising and community activities, but I have told them absolutely not!
To show the Homosexual Lobby that we will not be beaten down, Would you please defiantly answer them by chipping in a quick $10 donation or more today?
They have joined with Human Rights Campaign and even leaders of the Democrat Party in a desperate attempt to destroy Public Advocate once and for all.
They have demanded that I step down and desist in all fundraising and community activities, but I have told them absolutely not!
To show the Homosexual Lobby that we will not be beaten down, Would you please defiantly answer them by chipping in a quick $10 donation or more today?
RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”
Click HERE to download the PDF version
Paid for by Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee www.ronpaul2012.com
| SYNOPSIS: America is the greatest nation in human history. Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government produced the strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But, we have drifted far from our founding principles, and America is in crisis. Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional government. It is bold but achievable. Through the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and, most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms. DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY: Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan to get it done. SPENDING: Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels. ENTITLEMENTS: Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs. | CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE: Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker. TAXES: Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg. REGULATION: Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order. MONETARY POLICY: Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. CONCLUSION: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. |
Discretionary Spending
Mandatory Spending
Miscellaneous Savings
Revenues
Summary Table
Budget Comparisons
Agency Budget Comparison
Historical Spending, Revenue, and Deficits
Charts and Graphs
Get Ready for 'Unlawful Presence Waivers'
By Bobby Eberle
This one is hard to believe! It appears that the Obama administration is dead set on granting amnesty to illegal aliens no matter what the current laws state or what the will of the American people is. Illegal means illegal, right? Unlawful means unlawful, doesn't it? Perhaps not. Obama's team is now working on what it calls "unlawful presence waivers" to allow certain illegal aliens to stay in the United States. If their "presence" is "unlawful," isn't it just a little bit stupid to grant a waiver?
As reported by Judicial Watch, this new directive would "apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens."
According to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement ... the agency will grant "unlawful presence waivers" to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that's a U.S. citizen.According to the summary of the rule as posted on the Federal Register, the new rule is being implemented, because the existing waiver application process "can take well over a year, and the prolonged separation from immediate relatives can cause many U.S. citizens to experience extreme humanitarian and financial hardships." Come on, folks! We are talking about people who came here illegally, and we are supposed to not only ignore the laws on the books, but also create new ones that make it easier to break the law?
Currently such aliens must return to their native country and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process. In other words, they must enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners do on a yearly basis. Besides the obvious security issues, changing this would be like rewarding bad behavior in a child. It doesn't make sense.
From Judicial Watch:
This appears to be part of the Obama Administration's bigger plan to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty. The plan has been in the works for years and in 2010 Texas's largest newspaper published an expose about a then-secret DHS initiative that systematically cancelled pending deportations. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who said the government bounced their clients' deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed.Just like so many other actions taken by Barack Obama, if current laws don't suit his liking, he goes around them. This is a blatant and ominous show of disrespect for the laws of the United States for the sole purpose of promoting a left wing agenda. Illegal means illegal. Get with the program!
How Does a ‘Common Citizen’ Know If They Can Be Target of NDAA?
(photo: Shrieking Tree)
By: Kevin Gosztola
At the start of the first hearing on a lawsuit challenging the Homeland Battlefield Act, a federal judge appeared to be “extremely skeptical” that those pursuing the challenge had grounds to sue the US government. However, by the end of the hearing, the judge acknowledged plaintiffs had made some strong arguments on why there was reason to be concerned about the Act, which passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on New Year’s Eve last year.
Adam Klasfeld of Courthouse News, one of the few media organizations that actually covered the hearing yesterday, reported that Judge Katherine B. Forrest cited the lack of definition of terms such as “substantial support” or “associated forces,” which appear in the law. Without clearly knowing what “substantial support” for terrorism or “associated forces” of terrorist groups could be, Forrest asked, “How does the common citizen know?”
The government lawyers contended that the Homeland Battlefield Law “affirms” the Authorization to Use Military Force passed under President George W. Bush. But, according to Klasfeld, Forrest asked why language had changed. “Congress writes legislation for a reason, right?” There must be a purpose for the change.
There are seven plaintiffs trying to sue right now. Dubbed the “Freedom Seven” by their attorneys, the plaintiffs include: Chris Hedges, a journalist; Daniel Ellsberg, who is known for releasing the Pentagon Papers; Noam Chomsky, a well-known writer; Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir; Tangerine Bolen, founder of RevolutionTruth.org; Kai Wargalla, deputy director of Revolution Truth and founder of Occupy London; and Alexa O’Brien, journalist and founder of US Day of Rage.
Paul Harris of The Guardian also covered the hearing. His report indicates that the government did not block Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir’s testimony from being entered into the record.
Jonsdottir, whose past association with WikiLeaks led the Justice Department to subpoena her Twitter account, had been warned that the State Department might prevent her testimony from being read in court, but author Naomi Wolf was permitted to read Jonsdottir’s statement.
Noting that many US political leaders have labeled WikiLeaks a “terrorist” organization, the statement read by Wolf explained why Jonsdottir had refused to come give lectures in the United States for fear of being detained.
Bolen and Ellsberg did not testify on Thursday, but Hedges, O’Brien and Wargalla each appeared in person to testify. Harris reported that Hedges said he ”feared he might be subject to arrest under the terms of NDAA if interviewing or meeting Islamic radicals could constitute giving them ‘substantial support’ under the terms of the law.” O’Brien described in detail how a private intelligence firm was trying to link US Day of Rage to “Islamic fundamentalists.” And, Wargalla testified on how the City of London had listed Occupy London alongside al Qaeda and extremist groups from Belarus and Colombia.[The NDAA] provisions create a greater sense of fear since now the federal government will have a tool with which to incarcerate me outside of the normal requirements of the criminal law. Because of this change in the legal situation, I am now no longer able to travel to the US for fear of being taken into custody as as having ‘substantially supported’ groups that are considered as either terrorist groups or their associates.
Lawyer Benjamin Torrance, who was in court to represent the government, declined to answer if any of the plaintiffs concerned about the law could be targeted. He said he could not “make specific representations regarding specific plaintiffs.” He could not say if Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir “would have been detained had she flown in from Iceland.” All he could say was that “an association with WikiLeaks alone would not make her subject to the NDAA.”
The reluctance to answer specifically, though routine, led Forrest to state that the government was not helping its case that citizens do not have any reason to fear the law. The judge said, “If people weren’t worried before those series of questions, they could worry about it now,” she said. And, with regards to Hedges, who filed the lawsuit against the government, she added, “It sounded like Mr. Hedges was all over co-belligerents.”
The hearing that played out in court yesterday was held to determine if any of the plaintiffs had grounds to sue. Klasfeld noted, “To win the right to sue, only one of the seven plaintiffs needs to establish a ‘reasonable fear’ of being detained for free speech. The plaintiffs that remain standing can then challenge the law on constitutional grounds.”
Back in December, Congress passed the law but there wasn’t unanimous support. There was a level of consternation over what the Obama Administration was asking members of Congress to do. Much of that dismay came from a broad political spectrum of Americans that found the law to be an assault on civil liberties. Amendments were proposed but failed to pass.
The aftermath has not seen outrage among citizens relent. President Barack Obama may have issued a signing statement to the law, but it did little to change the fact that indefinite detention was codified into law. It did nothing to prevent future administrations from wielding the power of the Homeland Battlefield Act. And, as a result, members of Congress and state officials bolstered by anger at the grassroots level are mobilizing to ensure provisions of the NDAA are stripped or neutralized.
The plaintiffs are realistic about the chance they have to actually advance this lawsuit, but they also are convinced they have to push back against unchecked executive power in the United States. They see this as a beginning and intend to add many more plaintiffs to lawsuit in the coming weeks.
*For previous coverage of the NDAA lawsuit, including comments from plaintiffs Bolen & O’Brien, go here.
*
Here’s video of plaintiffs and others involved in the NDAA lawsuit giving comments during a press conference:
Video streaming by Ustream
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)