Deliberately Destroying America

By Alan Caruba | June 17, 2012 | Canada Free Press

It has taken three and a half years into Barack Obama’s presidency for most Americans to realize that he has been deliberately destroying America by driving up the nation’s debt and deficit, reducing privately held wealth, forcing millions onto the public dole, undermining its moral structure, and weakening the nation’s reputation internationally.

His latest lie is that “the private sector is doing just fine”, but the numbers tell the whole story and one can find them on an excellent blog, Economic Collapse, that offers seventy examples:

Rep. Allen West: ‘Family Values, Not Government’ Needed for Economic Stability in Black Community

By Amanda Swysgood | June 20, 2012 | CNS News

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army Lt. Col. (AP photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a freshman conservative congressman and former Army officer, said that the “breakdown of the Black family” is one of the most important causes of the economic disparity facing the black community.

“We are here today to talk about economic freedom, as opposed to economic dependency,” West said at a Capitol Hill forum Monday addressing “Economic Empowerment in the Black Community.”

“‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ in the black community are at 28 percent; that leads to a failure in education and that leads to a failure in urban statistics and revitalization,” West said.

A panelist at the forum, West said Black unemployment remains at almost 14 percent — almost double the rate for whites.

“This is a trend that has continued for the past 50 years, during both strong and weak economies,” he said.

Leftwing Extremists Bully and Heckle Kindergarteners for Singing Patriotic Song (God Bless the USA) [Video]

Bob Turner Stands with Kids as Libs Heckle Them for Singing Lee Greenwood Song

By Rush Limbaugh | June 19, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Bob Turner was the president of Multimedia, which was a company that syndicated TV programs, and they syndicated mine in 1992 through 1996. Bob Turner was the president, and it was Bob Turner that chased Roger Ailes and me down one night at 21 with the idea of doing a show. He was a great guy. He is a great guy. And he has the perfect temperament. I mean, the guy knew what he was getting into. Almost. (laughing) He sized it up real quickly, and he was as loyal as the day is long.

Border Patrol Group Representing 17,000 Agents Calls on Eric Holder to Resign Over Fast and Furious

By Jason Howerton | June 18, 2012 | The Blaze

Attorney General Eric Holder. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) is joining a growing chorus of groups and lawmakers calling for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder for his part in the failed gunrunning operation known as “Fast and Furious,” the Washington Times reports.

The NBPC represents all 17,000 of the Border Patrol’s “nonsupervisory agents.”

Council President George E. McCubbin III said the attorney general’s handling of the case was “a slap in the face to all Border Patrol agents who serve this country.” He also said Holder  attorney has failed to provide any leadership within his department.

Only Voters Can Hold Obama Accountable For Illegal Amnesty Policy

By Ken Klukowski | June 17, 2012 | Breitbart News

President Obama’s new amnesty policy regarding illegal aliens violates the law. But there’s probably no route to trump it either in Congress or in court, so the only recourse is for the American people to trump it by electing a new president.

Are We in Revolutionary Times?

By Victor Davis Hanson | June 15, 2012 | National Review

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

The Democrat Race Lie

By Bob Parks | June 16, 2012 | Black and Right

This whopper deserves all the attention it can get. Again, it shows the ignorance and contempt of the electorate liberals depend on.

In 2010, Democrats gave their website a facelift and whitewash. Click on the screenshot above to see what they used to say about their civil rights history compared to now.

How Political Parties Almost Ruined the Constitution

By Julia Shaw | June 15, 2012 | The Foundry

The Constitution is for sale.  No, really. Christie’s in New York will auction off George Washington’s 223-year-old copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights next week.

The pages are largely unmarked, except for a few of Washington’s notes about the presidency. That’s appropriate, considering that Article II was drafted with George Washington in mind. This has largely worked out well, except in one area: the Electoral College for selecting the President.

Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers for the 112th Congress

View this document on Scribd

Legislative Lowdown: The secret plan to raise your taxes

By Brian Darling | June 8, 2012 | The Daily Caller

Republicans are secretly negotiating with Democrats to raise your taxes after the election.

“A dozen senators ranging from Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn to Delaware Democrat Chris Coons have begun to organize closed-door briefings with leading economic experts to prod Congress into action,” Politico reports.

Evidently these leading experts include Robert Zoellick of the World Bank and William Dudley, president of the New York Fed. These guys are experts in fear-mongering. Unfortunately, members of Congress, motivated by fear, will likely cut a terrible deal for the taxpayer.

Congress is taking action to address “the year-end fiscal cliff” set up by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, cuts to defense spending, a possible debt ceiling hike and a scheduled Obamacare tax increase. Details are scarce, but we know these squishy members want a deal after the elections so they can feel free to violate Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge not to vote for tax hikes.

Report: 70 House Members to Call on DOJ to Investigate SWATting of Conservative Bloggers

By Liberty Chick | June 8, 2012 | Breitbart News

Earlier today, Breitbart News reported that the recent SWATting attacks on several political writers and commentators have been gaining traction in the mainstream media:

Today, CNN featured a story centering around CNN contributor and RedState managing editor Erick Erickson, the latest victim in a series of incidents in which an imposter mimics the phone number of a target, then calls the police and confesses to a violent crime. Such confessions often result in law enforcement personnel, many times special weapons and tactics teams (SWAT teams), responding to calls with full force, risking the life and health of the target. This tactic has been called SWATting by the FBI.

Playing to the Right’s Strengths on the Net

By John Hayward | June 5, 2012 | Human Events

The McCain campaign had a notoriously poor online presence in 2008. The McCain Model T bounced and rattled across the Internet, while the Obama campaign zoomed past in one of the light cycles from Tron. Obama’s team aggressively harvested social media information, gathering it both online and in person, when young voters attended campaign rallies and rock concerts-which the cynical observer might note were virtually synonymous. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign offered a crude Web game called “Pork Busters!” in which visitors basically played “Space Invaders,” but shot at pink pigs instead of aliens.

Obama’s Green Jobs: This is What Corruption Looks Like [Video]

Do you know what the Obama Administration considers a “green job?” Do you know what “green jobs” even means? We asked Obama’s top Department of Labor statistician. See the full Oversight Committee hearing here.

Unlike Obama, Scott Walker delivers

By Sen. Ron Johnson | May 31, 2012 | Politico

Scott Walker has lived up to his campaign promises, author says. | AP Photo

Starting Wednesday, most of the folks I know in Wisconsin will be looking forward to a well-earned respite from what seems like a permanent campaign.

Instead of taking a break from politics between elections, Wisconsin has for months been dealing with fugitive legislators, ugly protests, legal challenges and a series of recall contests allegedly aimed at overturning Gov. Scott Walker’s legislative agenda. There’s virtually no possibility that his successful reforms will be overturned, so one has to wonder: What exactly is the point of Tuesday’s recall vote?

The simple facts are the governor’s reforms have worked, and Wisconsin is open for business.

U.S. Constitution: Parental Rights Amendment

At last: parental authority challenges government intruders

By Wes Vernon | May 28, 2012 | Renew America

It has been a century since Woodrow Wilson reportedly opined that young boys should grow up to be as unlike their fathers as possible. Whether he worded it exactly that way, our 28th president surely pursued the goal, both as educator and as politician.

Not that his era was the first to witness a challenge to parents’ prerogative. However, the early 20th century “progressive movement” (of which Wilson was a part) did offer up the most open manifestation of that attitude in American official circles up to that moment in history.

Different versions, same crusade

In our own time, Hillary Clinton has channeled such Wilsonianism into the high-sounding It Takes a Village, which a few years ago became a bestselling book viewed by many as suggesting the “village” (not the parent) as best arbiter of what is best for one’s children.

The Liberal Trojan Horse

Restoring the Constitution

By James W. Ceaser | May 22, 2012 | The Claremont Institute

A widespread sentiment today, especially among conservatives, holds that if America could just get back to the Constitution, the nation would go a long way to resolving its greatest challenges. This sentiment has produced celebrations of our Constitution at Tea Party rallies, the printing and distribution of tens of thousands of handsome pocket versions, and a solemn reading of the entire document in the House of Representatives last year.

Such displays of enthusiasm are heartening, but they are no substitute for hard analysis. If the Constitution is being offered as the solution, it is necessary to specify what the problem is and how a revival of constitutionalism would help to fix it.

America’s future well-being is threatened today by a federal government characterized by a stunning lack of discipline, as it piles up debt at an unsustainable rate. The symbol of this pathology in the public mind is Greece, a nation that has spent itself into bankruptcy without apparent shame or regret. By coincidence, the authors of The Federalist also pointed to the example of Greece, classical Greece in their case, to illustrate the greatest challenge to popular government in their day: majority faction. By this James Madison meant the enactment of policies, usually encouraged by demagogic leaders, that threaten “the rights of other citizens, or…the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Leon Panetta and the Institute for Policy Studies

By  Christian Gomez | June 12, 2011 | The New American

Receiving very little opposition and easy questions regarding troop deployments and withdraw dates for Afghanistan and Iraq, the Senate overlooked Panetta’s past record, which puts into question the eligibility of Panetta as Secretary of Defense.

Careful observation of former Rep. Panetta’s record in the U.S. House of Representatives reveals a history of votes perceivable as in contrast with U.S. national security objectives, which if confirmed as Sec. of Defense may compromise U.S. national defense.

The Proposed Enemy Expatriation Act Leaves Too Many Questions About Who Can Take Your Citizenship [Video]

The NDAA: Just one more link in the chain of tyranny [Video]

By James Corbett | January 15, 2012 | Corbett Report

Each year, the United States Department of Defense budget and expenditures are approved by Congress, which must pass a National Defense Authorization Act in order to fund the DoD.

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

By Rep. Paul Ryan | May 2012 | American Spectator

Also in Choice Symposium

• James Piereson – A Time for Choosing
• Stephen Moore & Peter Ferrara – The Road From Serfdom
• David N. Bass – The Millennial Perspective

The choice and the contrast in health care.

In March, as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of President Obama’s partisan health care law, the American people saw an event that could mark the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. At the same time, just across the street in the halls of Congress, they witnessed a powerful reaffirmation of the American Idea as the House of Representatives passed the Path to Prosperity—a budget for the federal government.

FBI quietly forms secretive Net-surveillance unit

By Declan McCullagh | May 22, 2012 | CNET

CNET has learned that the FBI has formed a Domestic Communications Assistance Center, which is tasked with developing new electronic surveillance technologies, including intercepting Internet, wireless, and VoIP communications.

The FBI has recently formed a secretive surveillance unit with an ambitious goal: to invent technology that will let police more readily eavesdrop on Internet and wireless communications.

Facebook’s Failure May Be Part of Government Plan to Control Internet [Video]

Related Articles

• Millions are still not ‘friends’ with Facebook (todayonline.com)
• Five (Intuitive) Reasons To Bet on Facebook (edelman.com.au)
• Four ways Facebook has transformed the tech IPO (news.cnet.com)
• India’s proposal for government control of Internet to be discussed in Geneva (therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com)
• Facebook denies plans to let children under age 13 join (todayonline.com)
• Facebook preaches accountability – but doesn’t practise it (guardian.co.uk)
• Why millions refuse to like Facebook (stuff.co.nz)
• As IPO nears, millions of users still opt out of Facebook (csmonitor.com)
• The Facebook earnings-forecast scandal (blogs.reuters.com)
• Plan afoot for U.N. to rule Internet (wnd.com)
• UN / World Bank to Control World’s Information and Communications From Internet Hub in Africa (12160.info)
• Found you! (Internet privacy) (joranvar.wordpress.com)
• Mark of the Beast: Bilderberg Pushes Mandatory Internet ID for Europe (wrc559.com)
• Facebook: Seriously, How Did This Become Such A Mess? (pandodaily.com)
• Facebook’s stock should trade for $13.80 – MarketWatch (marketwatch.com)
• A domain name worth more than Disney…? (glennbeck.com)
• 5 Apps that let You Video Chat with Facebook Friends (soshable.com)
• Facebook IPO Deepens Investor Distrust of Stocks – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
• The Facebook Song (idonesaidit.com)

Crony Capitalism Creeps Into the Defense Budget

By Peter Schweizer | May 22, 2012 | Daily Beast

Congress is supposed to be cutting deficits. So why are so many members using the defense budget to line the pockets of friends and allies?

I’m generally a pretty hawkish fellow when it comes to the military: better to be strong than weak. I think of the world as a pretty rough neighborhood, and we need protection.

But as Congress tries to decide how we are going to slash spending and get out of this budget deficit, debates on the defense budget offer more evidence that crony capitalism, rather than sound policymaking, increasingly rules the day in Washington. How else do you explain Congress authorizing more defense spending than the military brass is asking for? How else to explain Capitol Hill pushing weapons systems that the Pentagon doesn’t even want?

Obama Voters Losing Jobless Benefits Due to the Manipulation of Workforce Numbers

By Rush Limbaugh | May 11, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Michael in Momence, Illinois.  Great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Thanks a lot, Rush, first-time caller.  I’m calling because I was at the unemployment office just yesterday, and they have tables there where people fill out the paperwork that they have —

RUSH:  Wait, wait, wait whoa, whoa, whoa, just a second.  I need you to go slow here.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  Why were you at the unemployment office?  It may seem like an obvious question, but I want to know, why were you at the unemployment office?

CALLER:  I was filing for benefits.

RUSH:  Filing for unemployment benefits.  Okay.

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  Then you said on the tables…

CALLER:  They had tables set out for people to fill out paperwork.

RUSH:  Okay.

CALLER:  All right.  On this table was a few copies of a news release, as it said across the top of the paper, and what the news release was saying was:  Due to the lowering of the unemployment rate and the improving economy, that federal extensions for unemployment benefits were being canceled.  So it’s not 99 weeks anymore.

RUSH:  Well, this was in Momence, Illinois?

CALLER:  Kankakee County office.

RUSH:  Kankakee County.  So you went in there —

CALLER:  Yeah.

RUSH:  — and they’re touting the economy roaring back so much, unemployment rate has gone down, the economy is improving, so federal extensions for unemployment benefits are being canceled?

CALLER:  That’s correct.

RUSH:  I had not heard that.

CALLER:  That was news to me as well.

RUSH:  Well, but was there anything in this about 99 weeks, or are you just saying that because you know it’s 99 weeks that’s the max?

CALLER:  Well, actually my brother’s well below his 99 weeks. He called to verify and he said he’s gonna be kicked off as of next week.

RUSH:  Even before he reaches his 99 weeks?

CALLER:  Yeah, 99 weeks doesn’t mean anything anymore.

RUSH:  I have not heard this anywhere. Have you heard this anywhere, that people are just being told the economy is doing so well and unemployment is going up or down, employment’s going up, that your benefits are being canceled?

CALLER:  Not mine personally yet, but that’s what’s going on.

RUSH:  Well, but you’re just starting.  Illinois’s unemployment rate hasn’t gone down. Illinois’s unemployment rate is skyrocketing.

CALLER:  Well, apparently they seem to think it’s pretty good.

RUSH:  Well.  This doesn’t make any sense.

CALLER:  Well, Rush, here’s part of my question, is what happens to these people now that they’re shoved up the unemployment rolls?  Are these people being counted?

RUSH:  That’s why this doesn’t make any sense.  In an election year, you add people to the unemployment rolls.  You take care of ’em. You extend their benefits. You make sure they know you’re doing — this makes no sense.  This is like a Romney prank.

CALLER:  You know what you probably could do, and maybe your staff could do it, maybe go to the Illinois unemployment website and click on news releases.  They do release news on the website.

RUSH:  Well, I’ll assign one of the 55 people doing research to that.  Snerdley is asking me, “Could this be how they’re lowering the numbers?”  Am I the only one that sees this?  Again, I ask that question.  Okay, here are the two possibilities on the table.  Michael, I was joking about the 55 people doing research.  I was being very, very facetious.  Thanks for the call.  Here’s what we have.  A guy goes in to the Illinois unemployment office in Kankakee County.  News releases all over the tables where you fill out your forms: Because the unemployment rate is coming down and the economy is recovering, unemployment benefits are being canceled.

The only thing not said on the release is, “Get a job.”  I don’t know what canceled means. They’re not canceling everybody’s benefits.  That I know.  But it’s just what this guy saw.  So here are the two possibilities on the table.  Snerdley’s theory is that this is how they’re getting the unemployment rate down.  Okay, the benefit of that is what?  The unemployment rate going down, millions and millions and millions of Americans unemployed, who else is gonna see this?  The only people that are gonna see this are people going to the unemployment office.  Why do you go to unemployment office?  To get your bennies.  To get your benefits.

You walk in to get your benefits. You read a news release that says: Sorry, you’re out of luck, get a job.  This is how we’re lowering the unemployment rate. And this lowering the unemployment rate is gonna redound to Obama by getting him more votes because we’re gonna spread the news the economy is recovering, unemployment’s going down, but nobody is gonna see that unless somebody from that office called here like just happened.  On the other hand, what is the real-world effect of this?  People who are on unemployment are in there, I’d say the majority of them are genuine, they’re not scamming the system.  Some are in there trying to scam it, happens, but most people are in there ’cause they’re out of work and they want some unemployment benefits.  They read something in there:  Sorry, the economy is getting so good, the unemployment rate is falling so much, that benefits are canceled, or extension benefits are canceled.

In an election year, Obama turning away voters?  I can’t believe this.  This is like a Republican trick.  If I didn’t know better I’d say Andrew Breitbart had been in the Kankakee County, Illinois, unemployment office.  I mean here you have hapless people with nowhere else to go, out of work, going in to sign up for unemployment and they read something from the regime that says, “No benefits, the economy is doing too good.”  In an election year you want as many people on unemployment benefits as possible.  You want dependents. You want people thanking you for making it possible they can eat.  Snerdley, you’re off the reservation. Snerdley is now suggesting this is how they’re getting rid of white working class.  They don’t know who’s gonna walk in there.  The news release doesn’t say: Only to be read if you’re white working class.  Doesn’t say that.  Everybody’s gonna see this.  According to the BLS, the Illinois unemployment rate is 8.1, so it is down.  This doesn’t make any sense.  And again, anybody can call here and say anything, but the guy sounded legit.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• More Than 200,000 Americans Will Lose Their Unemployment Benefits This Weekend (thinkprogress.org)
• Jobless Americans to lose unemployment benefits (finance.yahoo.com)
• Jobless claims fall (csmonitor.com)
• Gallup: Unemployment Rate Up ADP: Unemployment Rate Up Weekly Jobless Claims: Unemployment Rate Up Obama’s Announcement of Unemployment Rate Tomorrow: Down, I’m Thinking Update: CNN Mentions The “Invisible” Jobless (minx.cc)
• Are you about to lose unemployment benefits? (lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com)
• Length Of Unemployment Benefits (answers.com)
• Is the Unemployment Rate Misleading? (dollarsandcommoncents.net)
• U.S. jobless claims fall more than expected (cbc.ca)
• Drop in jobless rate is because fewer Americans than ever work (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Obama to GOP: Restore unemployment benefits now (usatoday.com)
• Congress extends $34 billion jobless benefits package (dailycaller.com)
• This is What Our President Wants… (“Enjoy it while it last, because if I geelected, this day is the closest it’s ever gonna be to the way you remember this country being.”) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• U.S. hiring slows sharply; more people drop out of workforce (tbo.com)
• It’s the Government, Stupid – Tea Party Nation (gds44.wordpress.com)
• Economy adds just 115,000 jobs as hiring slows (jsonline.com)
• If Obama’s Jobs Record Is Good, How Come the Media Can’t Ask About It? (minx.cc)
• Unemployment Rate Drops to 8.1% Is Anyone Buying It? (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• Long-term unemployment remains virtually unchanged in economic recovery (rawstory.com)
• Jobs data may be too good to be true (economywatch.msnbc.msn.com)

Why Congress Must Confront the Administrative State

By Robert Moffit, Ph.D. | April 2, 2012 | Heritage Foundation

Abstract: The triumph of the administrative state has been made possible by the emasculation of the legislative power. Washington’s problem is not merely federal spending and debt; it is the arrogance of centralized power. The time is therefore ripe for a major national discussion not only about the size of government, but also about the processes of government. Americans have a choice: to be governed by the rule of law, as hammered out in open legislative debate carried on by elected representatives who are directly accountable to us, or the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us. The rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government—exactly what the Founders wished to prevent in crafting the Federal Constitution.

Steve Kroft of CBS recently interviewed President Barack Obama. In response to a question on his job performance, the President ranked himself fourth among America’s chief executives (behind Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln) in the production of policy initiatives.[1]

Critics quickly ridiculed his self-assessment as narcissistic nonsense. They’re wrong.

President Obama is transforming American government. Few Presidents have enjoyed more success in enacting such a large policy agenda in such a short period of time.

• Within weeks of his inauguration, the President signed into law a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid.
• He quickly followed this up with the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus” bill), adding $831 billion to our deficits.
• In 2010, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd–Frank bill), providing for massive and far-reaching financial regulation.
• And on March 23, 2010, he signed into law the 2,800-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). It is the largest single piece of social legislation in American history, expanding federal control over one-sixth of the American economy and the personal lives of more than 300 million citizens.

Combine this massive legislative production with his zealous regulatory program. While Washington’s bureaucratic regime has been growing since the early 1900s, under President Obama its growth has exploded. In 2009 and 2010 alone, federal agencies issued 7,076 final rules.[2]

While the President insists that his regulatory output is less than that of President George W. Bush, a closer look reveals that his “major” regulations—those having an annual impact of at least $100 million each—were more numerous. Since President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion.[3] Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes.[4]

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are at the center of this regulatory storm. They alone account for 43 percent of all rules in the federal pipeline.[5] Of the 43 major rules issued in 2010, 10 were based on EPA mandates.[6] With the President’s health and environmental initiatives alone, the Obama White House has dwarfed the regulatory agenda of its predecessors.

The national health law expands the administrative power of the HHS Secretary beyond anything previously attempted. The Secretary is required to act—indicated by the statutory language “shall”—1,563 times in the final language of the legislation, and 40 specific provisions of the law mandate or permit the issuance of regulations.[7] Senate Republican Policy Committee staff estimate that the new law creates 159 new agencies or entities, but the Congressional Research Service says that the exact number is “unknowable” inasmuch as certain powerful federal offices are created administratively without direct congressional authorization.

While the law’s schedule of implementation stretches out over eight years, the most far-reaching provisions—the mandates on individuals, employers, and states—take effect in 2014. Nonetheless, in less than two years, the national health law has already generated over 11,000 pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines and related paperwork in the Federal Register.

Just consider the law’s 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The powerful board will make its initial recommendations for detailed and specific Medicare payment cuts in January 2015, and the Secretary is empowered to put them into effect unless Congress enacts an alternative set of payment cuts to meet statutory Medicare spending targets.[8] The board’s automatic recommendations are subject to neither administrative nor judicial review, and the law further requires a three-fifths Senate majority to block IPAB’s prescriptions.

Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has observed that the extraordinary power of this new board is “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”[9]

In 2010 alone, Congress enacted 217 bills that became law, but that same year, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules covering a wide variety of economic activities.[10] Today, more than at any other time in our history, we are less and less governed by the rule of law, hammered out in legislative deliberations as the Founders intended, and more and more governed by the rule of regulation. We are subject to edicts promulgated by administrators—persons we do not know and will never know, persons protected by civil service law and tenure who are not accountable to us and will never be accountable to us. Nonetheless, the administrators’ detailed decisions have the force of law.

Regulation, as law, can and does directly affect whether or not we can start or run our businesses, determine how many persons we can or cannot afford to hire, how we may or may not use our land or dispose of our property. Not only do administrators publish thousands of pages of regulations, but our fellow citizens can sometimes also go to jail for violating them.

THE TRIUMPH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the triumph of the administrative state, but that conquest is only possible because of the emasculation of the legislative power. The Founders made Congress the lawgiver, as clarified in Article I, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution. So much of their focus, reflected in The Federalist and other writings, was on how to check and balance the predominant legislative power, to channel and contain personal ambition and factional interest, to restrain potentially tyrannical majorities and safeguard the rights of beleaguered minorities, to secure personal liberty and protect the rights of property.

Though federal power has grown steadily since President Washington took the oath of office, today the relationship between the individual and the government is changing in a qualitative way. Americans are increasingly the subjects of an administrative regime rather than the free citizens of a democratic republic with a limited government.

Picking Winners and Losers. This steady transfer of legislative power to administrators has another inescapable consequence: arbitrary rule. The champions of administrative power invariably couch their arguments in appeals to expertise. The more complex the economic sector to be planned or regulated, the more that strict uniformity in the application of the rules becomes problematic.

In broad congressional grants of power, lawmakers give administrators wide latitude in the development and enforcement of the rules, so those who make the rules can also unmake them by granting waivers and exemptions. In the case of the health care law, HHS has already granted over 1,722 temporary waivers to certain businesses, unions, and gourmet restaurants in San Francisco that don’t have to comply with national coverage rules that apply to other companies throughout the country.

Treating similarly situated Americans differently, either as individual citizens or as citizens of a particular state, amounts to arbitrary rule; and arbitrary rule is inherently unjust.

THE NEED FOR A HIGHER LEVEL OF PUBLIC DEBATE

Today’s debate over the powerful bureaucracy is usually framed in terms of economic impact: How will federal rules affect economic growth and job creation, the price of gasoline or electricity, the cost of health insurance or the quality of medical care? While this level of debate is necessary, it is insufficient. Yes, we cannot neglect the trees, but it is really the health of the forest that matters.

The big question is this: How does this bureaucratic ascendancy affect ordinary Americans? My answer: Our very civic life is at stake, not just our prosperity.

The current trend is an affront to our self-government. The tacit assumption: Millions of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions for ourselves. Rather, we need to be closely supervised by officials. They will prescribe for us, for example, what kind of light bulbs and washing machines we should use. The provision of nutritional or caloric information on restaurant menus, or food items dispensed through vending machines, is now a federal mandate under Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act.

Our supervision, though distant and impersonal, becomes more precise and detailed. We are to become increasingly dependent on government for our well-being. Today, almost half of Americans (48.5 percent) live in households that are getting some form of government assistance, largely funded from federal revenues, but nearly half (49.5 percent) of our citizens pay no federal income taxes. But today’s Progressives are still dissatisfied. In their view, the many are to be even more dependent on the few, and the few (the hated “rich,” however they are defined) should be paying even more in taxes than they do today.

Over time, these dynamics will change the character of our people, with corrosive consequences for our political culture and our economic prosperity. America will have a progressively larger class of dependent citizens, and that spirit of freedom and independence for which the Founders risked their lives and fortunes will be broken.

It does not have to be this way. Our task is to paint the big picture, the overarching framework of American civic life. The great medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, the “First Whig,” defines law as an edict of reason, promulgated by the sovereign for the common good of the community.[11] The law instructs citizens in their rights and duties, and thus has a teaching function. That being the case, as lawmakers, you must become teachers of the Constitution, carriers of our rich political culture of republican government.

What must we do to preserve and protect the constitutional traditions of limited government, individual liberty, the separation of powers, and the unique advantages of federalism? James Madison, “the Father of The Constitution,” was not a lawyer, but he was a Congressman. And in that role, he was also a teacher: He routinely employed his formidable talents in the education of his colleagues and fellow citizens on the first principles of government.

In my reading of the public mood, you also have an eager audience. More and more Americans hunger for the wisdom of the Founders, are reading their biographies, and seek to understand their tightly reasoned arguments for the adoption of our Constitution. They are also becoming aware that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which they are being governed and that this process deviates from the intentions of the Founders. They correctly sense that modern government is ever more distant and disconnected from them. They are right.

HOW WE GOT HERE

President Obama, like President Woodrow Wilson, is a real “Progressive,” but what does that mean? In his recent speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, he recalled President Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism.”[12] A genuine Progressive, TR favored the imposition of inheritance taxes and the income tax and became the standard bearer of the Progressive Party in 1912.

Reflecting that tradition, President Obama and his ideological allies are also vigorous champions of aggressive executive power.[13] Commenting on President Obama’s governance, New York Times columnist David Brooks predicts, “When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era…. It’s a progressive era based on faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.”[14]

Welcome to the “100 Years War” of American politics. Progressivism, after all, was America’s dominant political movement from 1890 to 1920. While the Progressives are identified with social reform and the reining in of corporate interests and trusts, they focused intensely on structural reform of government, particularly civil service reform and the democratization of our politics.

No modern American political movement has been more successful. Within a relatively short span of time, progressives backed the adoption of four transformative amendments to the Constitution. They fostered the income tax (Sixteenth Amendment) and secured direct election of U.S. Senators (Seventeenth Amendment); many backed Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment); and they allied with the suffragettes (Nineteenth Amendment). In the several states, they broke the power of the political bosses and enacted initiative and referenda and the recall of public officials.

Long before the New Deal of the 1930s, Progressives concentrated power in Washington. With the backing of the Progressives, Congress created the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the Federal Trade Commission (1914). Federal employment soared.[15] During the Great War, Congress (in the Overman Act of 1918) gave President Wilson enormous discretionary power to consolidate and rearrange executive offices and agencies. Meanwhile, dissent, especially criticism of America’s entry into the war, was suppressed.

“Permissiveness,” the hallmark of the Sixties, was never welcome among Progressives, old or new. Under the rule of the new Progressives, if you want to just “do your own thing,” you won’t. You will do what you are told. If you think you can just “turn on, tune in, and drop out,” think again. You will be forced, for example, to buy government-approved health benefits—including federally certified abortifacients—or pay a fine. You will behave. You will conform. You will comply. You will not march to a different drummer.

The old Progressives were earnest and well-intentioned—old-fashioned “do gooders.” They were also stern and sober social reformers. During the Progressive Era, Congress suppressed the lottery business and interstate prostitution. They enforced prohibition on the sale and manufacture of alcohol,[16] and they imposed taxes on narcotics. Personal vice had become a public enemy. Professor Charles Beard, a leading Progressive historian, wrote in 1930: “Perhaps no country in the world, except Russia, places so many restraints on what is called ‘personal liberty,’ the right to do as one pleases in personal conduct and on the use of property.”[17]

Because Progressivism is an old and recurrent stream in our public life, its influence on public policy is so immense that it is a given: part of our national landscape. Progressive intellectuals generally had—and still have—a profound faith in social science, a conviction that scientific expertise was the key to social progress, especially in a social and economic order that was increasingly complex. Administration was to be the change agent. Again, Beard: “Thus, in our day, a new social science is being staked out and developed—the science of administration in a ‘great society.’ If the ‘great society’ is to endure, then it must make itself master of administration.”[18]

For Progressives, true liberty was not merely freedom from, or “negative” liberty, meaning freedom from arbitrary rule or tyrannical coercion, as embodied in the venerable natural rights tradition of the American Revolution. True liberty was the freedom to be, to act, to grow personally and to fulfill one’s potential.

This was “positive” liberty. It was to be achieved by the removal of economic and customary restraints, creating fairness in social and economic relations, liberating all persons, regardless of class or condition, from the unwelcome vicissitudes of the market and providing child care, education, universal health care, and pensions: in short, security. Justification for government action would be grounded, as Beard argued, not in power, but in service. This new liberty would be secured through broad-scale central planning and social and economic regulation.

Positive liberty, therefore, was to be achieved through the positive state. Think personal “growth” in a straitjacket.

Such ideological assumptions justified a federal role in health care and a national system of social insurance (based on the German model) for pensions in the Progressive Party platform of 1912. They explain the passion for centralization of power, particularly in the executive branch of national government, where scientific expertise would be able to work its will. “Progressivism,” wrote Professor Ralph Gabriel of Yale University, “was an aspect of the rising cult of science.”[19]

But Progressivism carries within it the seeds of contradiction. While Progressives long championed the democratization of our institutions, sunlight in government, and the elimination of the baneful influence of corporate interests, they clung stubbornly to a faith that public problems could be effectively solved through bureaucratic decision-making: little bands of experts appointed to an expanding number of government boards, commissions, or panels. That is at the heart of the Progressive conception of modern government.[20]

Populist rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality of Progressive rule is profoundly undemocratic, precisely because it takes crucial decision-making that directly affects the lives of millions of citizens “out of politics.” Thus, you have the administrative state: the rule of administrators.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (johnmalcolm.me)
• A New Declaration of Independence (johnmalcolm.me)
• White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare (spectator.org)
• Dictator Obama Issues New Anti-American Decrees (gulagbound.com)
• Sen. Cornyn: Holder’s ‘arrogance knows no bounds’; Obama should force him to comply with Fast and Furious subpoena (dailycaller.com)
• How a bureaucratic dictate becomes a law (dailycaller.com)
• Obama Administration Regulatory Onslaught against American Energy Production Continues (canadafreepress.com)
• Obama administration heeds industry call to ease rail safety rules (kansascity.com)
• Romney’s EPA would look very familiar (politico.com)
• Making Regulation Smarter to Save Lives and Money (whitehouse.gov)
• Obama Gives Coal Miners the Shaft (gulagbound.com)
• Obama’s Narcissism: The Troops are Fighting for Me, Me, Me (wizbangblog.com)
• GOP attorneys general litigate, push back against Obama regulations (dailycaller.com)
• Federalizing fracking: a bad idea (dailycaller.com)
• Managing the Regulation Process will Define Barack Obama’s Success in Office (prweb.com)
• Conditional, Comprising, and Dereliction of Duty (onemorecup.wordpress.com)
• The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress (mb50.wordpress.com)
• Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare… (projectworldawareness.com)
• Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (mb50.wordpress.com)
• Will Obama’s Refi Plan Be on Congress’s To-Do List? (blogs.wsj.com)
• President Obama gives his wish list to Congress (fox6now.com)

Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans

By Steve McCann | May 8, 2012 | American Thinker

The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860.  This statement is not hyperbole.  If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama’s first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of “transforming America” in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress.   That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

The most significant accomplishment of Obama’s first term is to make Congress irrelevant.  Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.

During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.

The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration.  This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they “shall” do something and more than 200 times when they “may” take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action.  On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the “Secretary determines.”  In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The “Chicago Way” Must Be Stopped! (conservativesonfire.wordpress.com)
• Quote of the day: Obama tells Congress to get to work (theblaze.com)
• Obama Targets the Tea Party (spectator.org)
• Cordray: Say, what this CFPB needs is more power (hotair.com)
• Pelosi calls on Obama to respect states’ rights, end medical marijuana raids (dailycaller.com)
• Fundraising Apples and Oranges (whitehouse12.com)
• Twenty percent of NC Democrats decline to vote for Obama (ConservativeActionAlerts.com)
• Romney calls marriage ‘tender’ issue, repeats stance (firstread.msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama Loves America… When It Agrees With Him (wizbangblog.com)
• Obama’s views on gay marriage have been ‘evolving’ for a while (theblaze.com)
• The American People are Fed Up (johnmalcolm.me)

Is Obama Negotiating A Treaty That Would Essentially Ban All “Buy American” Laws?

Staff Report | May 6, 2012 | The Economic Collapse Blog

69 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have sent Barack Obama a letter expressing their concern that a new international treaty currently being negotiated would essentially ban all “Buy American” laws.

This new treaty is known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and it is going to be one of the biggest “free trade” agreements in history.  Critics are referring to it as the “NAFTA of the Pacific“, and it would likely cost the U.S. economy even more jobs than NAFTA did.

At the moment, the Trans-Pacific Partnership includes Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore.

Barack Obama is pushing hard to get the United States into the TPP, and Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, Canada, Japan and South Korea are also reportedly interested in joining.  But quite a few members of Congress have heard that “Buy American” laws will essentially be banned under this agreement, and this has many of them very concerned.  You can read the entire letter that was sent to Obama right here.

Unfortunately, the leaders of both major political parties are overwhelmingly in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so the objections of these 69 members of Congress are likely to fall on deaf ears.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership will accelerate the flow of American jobs out of this country, and meanwhile our politicians will continue to insist that they are doing everything that they can to “create jobs”.

There is not much protecting American jobs these days.  The “Buy American” laws are one of the last remaining barriers that helps protect against much, much cheaper foreign labor, but now “Buy American” laws are in danger of being banned permanently as a recent article in the Huffington Post explained….

Since the 1930s, the American government has offered preferential treatment to American producers in the awarding of federal contracts. If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms. The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific deal the same privileged status, according to the Thursday letter.

The big problem is that foreign companies often have huge advantages over firms based in America.

In the United States, we have minimum-wage laws.  On the other side of the globe, it is legal to pay workers less than a dollar an hour with no benefits.

In the United States, we have thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations that businesses must comply with.  On the other side of the globe, there is often very little red tape.

The truth is that “free trade” is a really bad deal for the average American worker.  In the emerging one world economic system, labor has become a global commodity and U.S. workers must now compete for jobs with people on the other side of the planet.

Since U.S. workers are often 10 to 20 times more expensive than workers on the other side of the world, there has been a massive outflow of jobs from this country.  Treaties such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership will accelerate those job losses.

You would think that our politicians would notice that our formerly great manufacturing cities are turning into hellholes.

For example, the following is how James Kunstler described what he saw when he traveled through Gary, Indiana recently….

Between the ghostly remnants of factories stood a score of small cities and  neighborhoods where the immigrants settled five generations ago. A lot of it was foreclosed and shuttered. They were places of such stunning, relentless dreariness that you felt depressed just imagining how depressed the remaining denizens of these endless blocks of run-down shoebox houses must feel. Judging from the frequency of taquerias in the 1950s-vintage strip-malls, one inferred that the old Eastern European population had been lately supplanted by a new wave of Mexicans. They had inherited an infrastructure for daily life that was utterly devoid of conscious artistry when it was new, and now had the special patina of supernatural rot over it that only comes from materials not found in nature disintegrating in surprising and unexpected ways, sometimes even sublimely, like the sheen of an oil slick on water at a certain angle to the sun. There was a Chernobyl-like grandeur to it, as of the longed-for end of something enormous that hadn’t worked out well.

The economic guts of this country are being ripped to shreds right in front of our eyes.

Overall, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001.

That number is so crazy that it is hard to fully grasp.

The truth is that the “free trade” agenda of globalists such as Barack Obama is absolutely devastating our economy.

There are hundreds of statistics which prove this.  I don’t have space in this article to reproduce them all, but if you are interested in examining many of them I recommend checking out the following articles….

1) 35 Facts About The Gutting Of America’s Industrial Might That Should Make You Very Angry

2) 47 Signs That China Is Absolutely Destroying America On The Global Economic Stage

3) America Is Being Transformed From A Wealthy Nation Into A Poor Nation At Breathtaking Speed

4) 17 Facts About The Decline Of The U.S. Auto Industry That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe

5) If You Are A Blue Collar Worker In America You Are An Endangered Species

6) The Worst In The World – The U.S. Balance Of Trade Is Mind-Blowingly Bad

7) Free Trade Or Fair Trade? 20 Reasons Why All Americans Should Be Against The Insane Trade Policies Of The Globalists

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Trans Pacific Partnership to Ban “Buy American” Policies (independentsentinel.com)
• Obama faces ‘buy American’ revolt (wnd.com)
• Congress Revolts On Obama Plan That Would Ban ‘Buy American’ (brandtstandard.com)
• Why Canada Should Take a Seat at Trans-Pacific Table (canadafreepress.com)
• Anti-TPP Ad in the Washington Post (eff.org)
• TransCanada Offers Obama Second Chance to Heroically Destroy Tens of Thousands of Pipeline Jobs (minx.cc)
• Congress Revolts On Obama Plan That Would Ban ‘Buy American’ (ellisorelse.com)

Lawmaker’s ‘How to Slap Washington’ Strategy

By Bob Unruhe | April 30, 2012 | WND

Urges other states to protect citizens, build own detention prevention

Virginia has passed a new law that bars state cooperation with any federal detention of its citizens under Barack Obama’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, and a lead lawmaker there says other states should do the same.

“If Congress and the president must suspend a citizen’s civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights to fight the war on terrorism, then we have lost that war, having lost the very purpose for which the war is being fought – to preserve the American constitutional republic,” Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall wrote in a letter this week to legislative leaders around the country.

“Let Congress and the president hear from the states as we join together, so that we soon may see the day that they repeal this terrible law (NDAA),” he wrote.

Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1 just a week ago, making Virginia the first state to approve such legislation.

His concern was that NDAA “literally turns the entire country into a military battlefield, conferring extraordinary powers on the U.S. armed forces against its own citizens.”

“Not since the American Civil War has there been such a claim of power over the nation’s citizenry,” he said. “Thank God, we live under a Constitution of competing independent and sovereign states, not a monolithic centralized power in Washington, D.C.”

Marshall’s letter noted Virginia was the first state in the nation to refuse cooperation “with federal authorities who, acting under the authority of section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), could arrest and detain American citizens suspected of aiding terrorists without probable cause, without the right to know the charges against them, and without the procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our new law goes into effect on July 1, 2012.”

He told lawmakers, “While we would hope that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives would be vigilant to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, even when addressing the problem of international terrorism, those efforts in Congress failed at the end of last year, and President Obama signed NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.

“While the [state] bill was modified several times along the way of passage, including amendments from our governor who wanted language to ensure state cooperation with the federal government where it is legal and constitutional, I hope our effort will be a motivation, and perhaps even a model for other state legislatures that they too would take a stand in resisting federal overreach,” he said.

“I was particularly heartened by support from the Japanese American Citizens League, which reminded the Virginia General Assembly that illegal detentions could occur in the future, because they have occurred in the past – with President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 and the roundup of 110,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps because they were classified as ‘suspected enemy aliens.’”

He said, “Today we face a similar situation. The so called ‘War on Terror’ has led to the same kind of hysteria and racist actions by government. I can also say that we have lacked the political leadership to identify that this kind of forced indefinite detention is a repeat of what happened during WWII.”

Marshall offers lawmakers in other states information on how to prepare a similar bill on his DelegateBob.com site.

The Virginia plan endured various twists and turns en route to becoming law. When finally approved by the legislature, the governor still had concerns. He proposed amendments that were adopted without change by lawmakers. Under the state’s procedures, no further signature is needed, and the plan becomes law on July 1.

Marshall said the final bill is “a real slap in the face to Washington.”

“I had liberals voting for this,” he said.

An analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center said the bill “prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

House Bill 1160 addresses several obscure sections of the NDAA of 2012 that appear to allow unlimited detentions by U.S. military forces and federal law enforcement agencies of even U.S. citizens without charges or a court hearing.

The federal plan targets citizens who are classified as belligerents or who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Marshall told WND that he was alarmed to find out that Obama specifically had wanted that section included in the law.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• State to Feds: We Won’t Cooperate (johnmalcolm.me)
• Virginia lawmakers agree to reject NDAA (EndtheLie.com)
• Lawmaker to governor: Sign detention prevention (wnd.com)
• Virginia votes to refuse NDAA (rt.com)
• Virginia says “No” to anti-Constitution NDAA (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)

The subversive network taking over America

By Wes Vernon | April 30, 2012 | Renew America

The time has long passed when we could afford to look the other way on the extent to which subversive influences — communist and jihad-oriented Islamists — have for years been worming their way into the high councils of our government.

So let’s say this again: When the Cold War ended, the enemies of America did not just go away. America is under attack from Communists (with both a large and small “c”) and Jihadists.

These two threats to America (by violent means if necessary) have philosophical differences, but they are bound together by an identical ultimate goal: a one-world dictatorship where they can rule forever by the threat of death for dissenters. Recall this column reported a meeting where supposedly “intellectual thinkers” seriously contemplated the incarceration of 100 million Americans and killing 25 million of them — all in order to complete the takeover. (See “Hollywood’s red stripes” — 10/31/11.)

No congressional committee is investigating this threat to kill Americans and rule the world — a scandal in itself.

Priorities, please

So why on earth should we become embroiled in an out-to-lunch debate over whether every conspirator in this plot carries a Communist Party card in his pocket? Who cares? What matters is that they are moving closer and closer to our destruction and we’re demanding that a congressman who sounds the alarm can produce photocopies of the Communist Party USA cards (complete with official membership numbers) of the plotters. Have we lost all sense of proportion?

Earlier this month, as Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) was asked by a constituent, “What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists or International Socialists?” Congressman West answered that he believed “there are about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party that are members of the Communist Party.” When asked to name them, the freshman lawmaker replied, “It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Combination: Uproar and….silence

Because West used imprecise language with the term “members of the Communist party,” critics took the opportunity to nitpick. The head of the Communist Party itself said West “didn’t know what he’s talking about.” Politico— the de facto magazine version of the Washington Post — called West a “McCarthyite.” Chicago Tribune columnist and editorial writer Steve Chapman demanded that House Republicans “either condemn West and expel him from the caucus or else confirm that his views are perfectly acceptable.”

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media sent Chapman a video of Rep. Danny K. Davis, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, following the latter’s cheerful acceptance of an award from The People’s World (longtime Communist organ) at a meeting of the Chicago headquarters of the Communist Party USA.

Since Chicago is the neighborhood of Chapman’s newspaper, one would think he could easily access (right under his nose) the goings-on of a local congressman’s award possibly just a stroll down the street from the Tribune Building. But the video is available to the world via “Rebel Pundit” Jeremy Segal, a disciple of the late Andrew Breitbart. On the tape, Davis sheepishly evaded Segal’s persistent questioning. (Breitbart’s fight for America lives. Right on!)

No small matter

But here is the more alarming angle to this story — one worthy of a storied media outlet that in better times dubbed itself “the World’s Greatest Newspaper”: This same Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) is a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Talk about the proverbial fox in the henhouse.

That is the committee whose investigations inevitably lead it into the inner workings of the infrastructure (human and otherwise) required to see to it that we are protected from those who want us dead. And a member of that sensitive panel says (as Davis does in the video) that citizens should not be concerned with communists.

Beyond that, Davis is a mere reflection of the mindset that dominates the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The group is chock-a-block with members who have given aid and comfort to America’s enemies. We do not claim to read their minds to determine what motivates them. It is their records that matter.

What is a conspirator?

Back to the question: Was Congressman Allen West off base when he called out the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Answer: No.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Communists and Progressive Liberals: Comrades for Life (thecollegeconservative.com)
• Don’t Let the Organized Left’s Charges of “McCarthyism” Deter You – Allen West Is Right (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
• Allen West Says Congressional Progressive Caucus Is Communist But Won’t Name Names (thinkprogress.org)
• NAACP ousts Allen West after ‘Communist’ quip (rawstory.com)
• Congressman says 80 fellow lawmakers are communists (firstread.msnbc.msn.com)
• Brown: Is Progressivism the new Communism? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Communists, Hiding in Plain Sight……? (icanbeatobama.com)
• “Allen West is denigrating the millions of Americans who voted to elect Congressional Progressive Caucus members…” (althouse.blogspot.com)
• Rep. Allen West goes too far in Commie comment (miamiherald.com)
• Allen West says many Dems in Congress are communists (kaystreet.wordpress.com)

Obama Ban on Youth Farm Chores Part of Larger Power Grab [Updated]

By Kurt Nimmo | April 25, 2012 | Infowars.com

Dredging up Dickensian horrors of child labor, the Obama administration has ordered the Labor Department to apply child labor laws to family farms. The new rules would make it illegal for children to perform a large number of labor tasks that have been performed by farm families for centuries. Traditionally, adults and children alike helped with planting and harvesting in the spring and fall, but the federal government is now determined not only to make this a historical footnote, but a criminal offense.

Under the rules, children under 18 would be prevented by the federal government from working “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials” and prohibited “places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

In addition to making it far more difficult for families to work their farms, the new rules will revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA and replace them with a 90-hour federal government training course, the Daily Caller reports.

In other words, the federal government will forcibly insert itself in the business of teaching animal husbandry and crop management, disciplines traditionally passed on by families and local communities.

Government apparatchiks will now oversee the business of local farming the same way Stalin did when he collectivized farms and “socialized” production at gunpoint in the Soviet Union. Resistance by farmers and peasants to Stalin’s efforts resulted in the government cutting off food rations, which resulted in widespread famine (the “terror-famine in Ukraine” killed around 12 million people) and millions were sent to forced labor camps.

The Labor Department’s effort to further erode the family farm falls on the heels of an unconstitutional executive order Obama issued last year establishing so-called rural councils.

“According to this new executive order, the Obama administration plans to stick its itchy little fingers into just about every aspect of rural life,” the Economic Collapse Blog noted at the time. “One of the stated goals of the White House Rural Council is to do the following….”

Coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.

Obama’s plan to make life miserable for family farmers coincides with an effort by the United Nations under Agenda 21. Section one of the executive order mentions “sustainable rural communities,” language right out of Agenda 21. (For more on the draconian aspects of Agenda 21 and the plan to roll back modern civilization under the aegis of “sustainability,” see Rosa Koire’s Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21.)

The federal government has recently moved to clamp down on family farms. For instance, last year the Department of Transportation proposed new burdensome rules for farmers. Incidentally, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council.

“In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment, and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business,” writes Mike Opelka. “The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).”

Late last year, House Republicans moved to prevent the EPA from further burdening farmers with a rule that would ban “farm dust.” Outrage in response to the proposed regulation came fast and furious and EPA boss Lisa Jackson was forced to back down as Democrats complained that the government was not targeting small family farms with the proposed regulation.

A concerted effort by the federal government to attack small family farms cannot be denied. Infowars.com has covered dozens of efforts, including the attack on Rawesome Foods in California, numerous efforts by the feds to attack raw milk and dairy farmers (including attacks by the FDA on Amish farmers), and a recent effort by the Department of Natural Resources in Michigan to destroy open-range pig farms.

In addition to attempting to micromanage – and run out of business – family farms through federal labor regulations, the government is trying to insert itself in the relationship between parents and their children.

The ongoing attacks on family farming are not merely misguided efforts by control freak bureaucrats. They are part of a larger “comprehensive plan of action” to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations to institute “sustainable development,” a philosophy designed to bring humanity under tight control of the global elite.

As George H. W. Bush said on September 11, 1990, the plan is “based entirely on social control mechanisms.” For the elite, controlling food – especially healthy and natural food produced by family farms – is a primary objective in their plan for global conquest.

Update:

Govt backs off new limits on child labor on farms

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under heavy pressure from farm groups, the Obama administration said Thursday it would drop an unpopular plan to prevent children from doing hazardous work on farms owned by anyone other than their parents.

The Labor Department said it is withdrawing proposed rules that would ban children younger than 16 from using most power-driven farm equipment, including tractors. The rules also would prevent those younger than 18 from working in feed lots, grain bins and stockyards.

While labor officials said their goal was to reduce the fatality rate for child farm workers, the proposal had become a popular political target for Republicans who called it an impractical, heavy-handed regulation that ignored the reality of small farms.

Related Articles

• Feds Want to Require License to Drive Farm Vehicles
• Farm Aid Letter to Congress on Banker Bailout
• Farm Aid’s Nelson, Mellencamp, Young and Matthews Urge Congress to Redirect Bailout to Working Men and Women, Farmers
• US Wind Farm Being Paid NOT to Produce Power
• Martial Law? Rep. Sandy Adams fears Obama power grab
• Family Farm Ordered to Destroy 50,000 Pounds of Cheese
• Ron Paul: Obama’s Libya War Power Grab Impeachable
• Federal Reserve Power Grab Bill Moves to Senate
• FDA & federal judge shut down Amish farm for selling raw milk
• Obama’s NDAA Power Grab vs. Bill of Rights: Infowars Nightly News
• Hedge Farm! Hedge Funds Buying Up Farms for Doomsday Food Price Scenario
• Nation’s food system nearly broke

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]