Obama’s Gangster Government Operates Above the Law

obama_angry_2012_8_6

Obama’s Gangster Government Operates Above the Law

By Michael Barone – February 14, 2013

Presidents’ State of the Union addresses are delivered in the chamber of the House of Representatives in the Capitol. The classical majesty of this building where laws are made symbolizes the idea that we live under the rule of law.

Unfortunately, the 44th president is running an administration that too often seems to ignore the rule of law.

“We can’t wait,” Barack Obama took to saying after the Republicans captured a majority in the House and refused to pass laws he wanted. He would act to get what he wanted regardless of law.

One example: his recess appointments in January 2012 of three members of the National Labor Relations Board and the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that the NLRB recess appointments were unconstitutional.

The decision, written by Judge David Sentelle, noted that the Constitution speaks of “the recess,” not “a recess,” and reasoned that it could only be referring to the recess between annual sessions of Congress.

Obama, like many presidents before him, interpreted the phrase as referring to any recess during which Congress is not in session. But he went one step further.

When Harry Reid became Senate majority leader in 2007, he started holding pro forma meetings of the Senate every three days and stating that the Senate was not in recess. George W. Bush, who had made recess appointments before, stopped doing so.

Bush took the view that, since the Constitution says that each branch of Congress makes its own rules, the Senate was in session if the Senate said so. Obama took the view that he would decide whether the Senate was in session. Who cares what the Constitution says?

As Sentelle pointed out, Obama’s view would entitle the president to make a recess appointment any time the Senate broke for lunch. “This cannot be the law,” the judge wrote.

Critics of his decision argue that under it the recess appointment power would be vanishingly small. But under Obama’s view, the Senate’s power to advise and consent could effectively vanish.

The Framers contemplated that the Congress would take long recesses (as for many years it did) and that it could take months for senators to return to Washington to act on appointments.

It’s plausible that the Framers would have considered recess appointments unnecessary in an era of jet travel. It’s not plausible that they would have approved of getting rid of the Senate’s power to vote on appointments altogether.

Meanwhile, decisions of the NLRB and the CFPB are in legal limbo, pending a Supreme Court decision. Hundreds of thousands of people and are affected and millions of dollars are at stake. There is a price for not observing the rule of law.

There are other examples. For several years, the Obama administration has refused to obey a law requiring the president’s budget to be submitted on a certain date. As Budget Director, Treasury nominee Jack Lew refused to obey the law requiring him to issue a report in response to the trustees’ report on Medicare.

During the 2012 campaign, the Pentagon told defense contractors not to inform employees that they may be laid off if the sequester took effect as required by the WARN Act.

They were even told that the government would pay any fines for not complying. What law authorizes that?

Similarly, Health and Human Services has stated that the federal government can fund health insurance exchanges run by the feds for states that refuse to create their own exchanges. But nowhere does the Democrats’ hastily crafted Obamacare legislation say that.

In spring 2009, we got our first glimmers of this modus operandi. In arranging the Chrysler bankruptcy, administration officials brushed aside the rights of secured creditors in order to pay off the United Auto Workers.

University of Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel pointed out that this violated the standard rules of bankruptcy law established, interestingly, during the New Deal.

“We have just seen an episode of gangster government,” I wrote at the time. “It is likely to be a continuing series.”

It looks like that’s one prediction I got right. This president, like all his predecessors since Woodrow Wilson started delivering these speeches in person, looks magnificent in the temple where laws are made. But he doesn’t seem to consider himself bound by them.

Mario’s note:

I believe that gangster government can be stopped. I don’t believe we are nearly as liberal as they claim.  Has America truly become left wing or is it an Obama/media/fraud driven mirage? I am skeptical because many of the sources reporting this leftist transformation are also the ones who crusaded for these changes. And as I said in an earlier blog, there were many things about election night that did not pass the smell test.

Laugh at me if you want but the real force behind all of this is “OUR ANCIENT FOE” as Martin Luther called him.  Satan hates American Exceptionalism because of its unmatched record of sending the Gospel to the world and for protecting Israel.  Satan’s agenda for the world requires the removal of the American firewall.

No matter how you wish to spin it, the “New America” under Obama will not preach the Gospel to the World the way she once did and she is stepping away from Israel. For Lucifer it is Mission accomplished.

It is hard for me to believe that a majority of our youth were that bamboozled.   What the giddy liberal youth who were fooled do not get is that by voting against the things that made our nation great they are making bankruptcy  inevitable.  They literally voted against their own future.

The point is that we have suffered far more than a political loss; we have suffered a supernatural attack.  I am deriving a strange hope from the ashes of that fact.  Since it was a supernatural attack, it will mean that God must bring us a supernatural counter attack.

Hear me when I say this:  There are millions of Christians praying for revival.  God will hear them. 

Whoops: PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ Turns Out to Be True

lying blog

Whoops: PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ Turns Out to Be True

12:25 PM, JAN 18, 2013 • BY MARK HEMINGWAY

Last month, PolitiFact selected its “Lie of the Year.” Given PolitiFact’s dubious record of singling out Republicans for lying far more often than Democrats, you probably could have guessed the winner of this particular sweepstakes was a Mitt Romney campaign ad:

It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign — that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep’s parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.

“Public expressed collective outrage”? That’s essentially wishcasting on the part of PolitiFact, nor are they accurately representing what Mitt Romney said in the ad. In fact, here’s PolitiFact’s original “fact check” on the matter:

[Mitt Romney] Says Barack Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China” at the cost of American jobs.

Ok. Now here’s what the Reuters reported earlier this week:

Fiat (FIA.MI) and its U.S. unit Chrysler expect to roll out at least 100,000 Jeeps in China when production starts in 2014 as they seek to catch up with rivals in the world’s biggest car market. …

“We expect production of around 100,000 Jeeps per year which is expandable to 200,000,” [Chrysler CEO Sergio] Marchionne, who is also CEO of Chrysler, said on the sidelines of a conference, adding production could start in 18 months.

So, yes, it’s confirmed that Jeep will be producing cars in China. According to the Toledo Blade last November:

Currently, Jeeps sell in more than 120 countries around the world, including China. They’re nearly all built in factories in the United States.

By expanding Jeep production to China, instead of increasing Jeep production in the U.S., it’s safe to say Jeep (or more properly, Fiat, which now owns Chrysler) is choosing to create more jobs overseas instead of in America where taxpayers bailed the company out.

Now one could argue—and I suspect many pro-free trade, pro-globalization conservatives would make this argument—that expanding production overseas is good for Jeep, and what’s good for Jeep in the long-run is ultimately good for the jobs they sustain in the U.S. job market. And if you dig deep into the PolitiFact ruling, that’s their essential objection to Mitt Romney’s ad: It implies that it would be better for Jeep to create more jobs in the U.S. in the short-term, instead of expanding overseas production. So in the end, PolitiFact’s beef with the Romney ad was an entirely argumentative disagreement about what course of action Jeep should take, not a factual objection to Romney’s true statement that Jeep was going to start building cars in China. However, disagreeing about the implications of manufacturing Jeeps in China doesn’t justify calling Romney a liar for accurately stating Jeeps would be manufactured in China. PolitiFact didn’t even dispute that, and even conceded the “Lie of the Year” was built on a “grain of truth.” Rather, PolitiFact explicitly argued producing Jeeps in China is a good thing:

The production of cars in China is a sign of Chrysler’s growing strength in overseas markets. It would like to build Jeeps in China to sell in China. It is not outsourcing American auto jobs.