Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional

Obama is now wanting to add a Health & Insurance czar….that is close to 20 czars. Remember these guys have a lot of power and are only accountable to the president and that is the problem. What is a “Czar”? A Czar is a monarch, an Emperor or a King who answers to no one except God. Was Obama elected as our GOD? Does the Constitution give the President the right to appoint Czars? No, it forbids this. According to Article II, Section 2, the President does not have the right to appoint public Ministers without the Advice and Consent of the Senate. No Senate hearing were ever held to evaluate or approve Obama’s czars. He has simply appointed them and Congress said nothing.

Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased. ( I might add can you say “socialism/fascism “?)

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.

Ever since this practice of appointing czars began years ago, it has always been considered possible that they are all unconstitutional.

But President Obama has taken this to an unprecedented level, to the point where these appointments are dangerous to our constitutional regime. This has become too much for the longest-serving senator in U.S. history to stomach. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate.

Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)

And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.

Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.

White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify.

But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.

The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.

Fortunately, there is a remedy. Any person on the receiving end of an order from any of these czars has standing to challenge their constitutionality in court. Any person whose pay is deemed excessive by Kenneth Feinberg, or affected by any other czar, could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and have a court both invalidate the order and hold that the position itself doesn’t legally exist. Then everyone could just ignore these czars, because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to tie our shoes.

Let the lawsuits begin.

560wind.Townhall.com

State of Tennessee Outsourcing Call Center Jobs to India

It isn’t unheard of for industries to outsource jobs and send them overseas. But if the state recently put unemployed Tennesseans to work for Tennessee in a state-run call center in Perry County, why is the state still outsourcing a huge amount of call center work overseas?

Perry County struggles to be a portrait of the American dream. Patriotism waves strong even as prosperity fades and factories close. The county’s unemployment rate is the highest in the state and one of the highest in the nation.”We need the jobs here in the country, not out of the country,” said restaurant owner Betty Bell.

//

Her restaurant is one of the few places that’s surviving in a county where fewer people are finding work.”It’s noticeable from the kids at school to the grocery store to everywhere in town,” said Bell.In an effort to help jump-start the county’s economy, the state opened the call center using stimulus money.The 14 part-time operators will help Tennesseans with unemployment claims, but the state needs operators for other spots, too — spots that aren’t being filed with Tennesseans. These jobs are being filled by people who live outside of the United States.The state has a lot of call centers, but at least one is on the other side of world in India. And that’s where the additional jobs are going.

The state has a lot of call centers, but at least one is on the other side of world in India. And that’s where the additional jobs are going.The state is looking at extending a contract to keep the call center and the jobs that go with it in India.

Read entire article @ WSMV.com

Talk Show Hosts May Be Accomplices Under Hate Bill

Just like Steve has always said…………here it comes……HATE SPEECH……the states should stand on the 10th amendment on this one as well. It appears this article is combining two bills together, one the Hate Crimes Protection Bill and the other the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (HR 1966).

he Hate Crimes Prevention Act which has passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin is now facing hearings in the Senate. There are already similar hate crime laws in place, however, this bill imposes much stronger federal enforcement, which is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. It grants greater power to federal prosecutors to prosecute hate crime laws by prosecuting those who have been found innocent by local or state courts. The current bill will extend special privileges to gays and transgender individuals that are currently only granted to ethnic and religious minorities. The most dangerous part of the Bill which is a direct assault against the First Amendment is that it allows for the prosecution as accomplices in a hate crime for talk show pundits that the person who commits the alleged crime claims to influence their actions.

Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

Reverend Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network says that “this means that if any pastor, talk show host or guest, or anyone communicating on radio or the internet is repeatedly “hostile” to the practice of homosexuality and “intends” to cause “substantial emotional distress” in homosexuals, leading to repentance, he is guilty. The speaker doesn’t even have to succeed in causing such conviction for sin, even though he will be especially guilty if he does. In either case, the federal government is empowered under this bill to invade any state to prosecute the “bully” of the airwaves.”

This Bill is the first major step to stripping away our rights to freedom of speech in the 1st amendment. Recently the Plains State ADL Director denounced the 1st Amendment by saying that “freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence.“In many western nations, an individual can be prosecuted by the government for certain speech.

Though we still have the First Amendment we are headed in that direction of Europe and Canada where people can be prosecuted for thought crimes. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have aggressively promoted hate crime legislation. These organizations have endorsed Europe and Canada’s policies on prosecuting what they deem as hate speech. The ADL openly advocates for their model anti-hate law.  In 1988 the ADL gave out an award to law student Joseph Ribikoff for writing a proposed hate crime bill that would criminalize hate speech against gays and minorities.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ADL Washington counsel Michael Lieberman spoke in support of the Hate Crimes Bill. “We have no illusions about this legislation,” Lieberman testified. “We know that bigotry, racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism cannot be legislated out of existence. A new federal law that finally addresses all victims of hate crimes will not eliminate them.”

Examiner.com

The Declaration of Independence was approved JULY 4, 1776.

AS WE CELEBRATE THE 4TH OF JULY REMEMBER THESE THINGS:

John Hancock signed first, saying “the price on my head has just
doubled.”

Benjamin Franklin said “We must hang together or most assuredly we
shall hang separately.”

Of the 56 signers:

17 served in the military;

11 had their homes destroyed;

5 were hunted and captured;

Abraham Clark had two sons imprisoned on the British starving ship
Jersey;

John Witherspoon’s son was killed in battle;

Francis Lewis’ wife was inprisoned and died from the harsh treatment;

many, such as Thomas Nelson and Carter Braxton, lost their fortunes;

and 9 died during the War.

When Samuel Adams signed the Declaration, he said:

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be
obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of
the sun, let His kingdom come.”

John Adams said:

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding
generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be
commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion
to God Almighty.”

John Adams continued:

“I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost
to maintain this Declaration…

Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and
glory…

Posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction, even though we [may
regret] it, which I trust in God we shall not.”

The American Minute .com

Arizona Looks to Outlaw Global Warming Legislation

Maybe more states will start doing this to put brakes on our out of control federal government. Another states rights and sovereignty issue under the 9th and 10th amendment. Sounds like a good idea.

Arizona may become the first state to ban costly legislation based on climate change theory.

One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts

Climate change is a controversial topic.  Some believe man is causing the world to warm.  Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels.  A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D’s, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.

Arizona is now close to becoming the first state to outlaw climate change legislation.  The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change.  The bill is now awaiting House approval.

The bill will likely pass and be signed into law thanks to a switch in power.  Formerly, Janet Napolitano (D) was governor of the state, but she left to join Barack Obama’s Cabinet.  Napolitano was replaced by Jan Brewer (R), who has not indicated a strong desire to support AGW theorists.

If Senate Bill 1147 passes it will block rules passed by the DEQ that set harsher emission standards.  The proposed increases were hastily pushed through by the former governor, despite complaints from industry leaders.  It would also end work on “cap and trade” carbon legislation, which has been opposed by the utility industry.  Such a scheme could help to raise power prices for the state’s citizens significantly.

A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions.  The legislation, which has also received criticism for potentially hurting farmers, is currently making its way through a Democrat controlled House and Senate, awaiting Barack Obama’s approval.

DailyTech.com

Bureaucrats Will Carry Out Mandatory Home Inspections Under Climate Bill

Well now we’re learning why 300 pages were added at 3 a.m. and the Congress wasn’t allowed time to read this bill. The climate bill  will legislate home inspections by government regulators who will demand to audit every aspect of your property under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma,  said that the “razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate.” Let’s hope he’s right.

H.R. 2454 is a 1400-page promise to audit every aspect of your home and life under the guise of creating jobs, clean energy and a sustainable world. However, before we get into the bill lets examine the way it’s been handled.

The secrecy of the bill and the speed of which the legislation is being railroaded is quite alarming. The last two times I’ve seen this was with the Patriot Act and TARP legislation.

Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Times that no one was allowed to read the Patriot Act, and for that, we received one of the most anti-American legislations we’ve ever seen.

TARP had similar shenanigans, it was rushed through the house, no one could read it.

There are several problems with this bill, however I’ll only address the first two, as the third is self-explanatory;

1)  The bill makes the assumption that man-made climate change is undisputed and widely accepted as fact.

2)  The bill unleashes bureaucrats to audit and judge your lifestyle.

3)  The bill will drive the last remaining manufacturing jobs out of the country to unregulated countries.

Home Audit: A Look into the Future

The bill states every home owner will receive an energy audit. What is a home energy audit? It is an intrusive visit made by the bureaucrats at the Home Energy Team or a similar group.  They will examine and report the way you live your life directly to RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network)

. Light fixtures, socket types, spas, hot tubs, windows, appliances, walls and roofs will all be under review. Energy tests will be conducted throughout your house. At the end of the visit you will receive a report and a rating. The report will focus on the changes you need to make and the rating is called a HERS rating (Home Energy Rating System). RESNET will perform the audits through authorized contractors. RESNET has adopted the Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standards. The standards set the national procedures for home energy ratings.

According to RESNET, an audit consists of:

Comprehensive Home Energy Audit - A level of the RESNET Home Energy Audit process defined by this standard to include the evaluation, diagnosis and proposed treatment of an existing home. The Comprehensive Home Energy Audit may be based on a Home Performance Assessment (“Comprehensive Home Performance Energy Audit”) or Home Energy Rating (“Comprehensive HERS Audit”), in accordance with the criteria established by this Standard. A homeowner may elect to go through this process with or without a prior Home Energy Survey or Diagnostic Home Energy Survey.

Here is an in-depth breakdown of the audit:

704.1.2.3 The Home Energy Survey Professional shall request copies of utility bills or

written permission to obtain the energy use information from the utility company, and use

them to produce an estimate of generalized end-uses (base, heating, and cooling).

704.1.2.5. Minimum Procedures for an In-Home Energy Survey:

704.1.2.5.1.1 R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation

704.1.2.5.1.2 Square footage and approximate age of home

704.1.2.5.1.3 Type of windows: glazing type(s) and frame material(s)

704.1.2.5.1.4 Type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system(s)

704.1.2.5.1.5 Type of ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation, and any

indications of previous duct sealing

704.1.2.5.1.6 Type of foundation is crawl, basement, or slab

704.1.2.5.1.7 Checklist of common air-leakage sites indicating likely opportunities for leakage reduction

704.1.2.5.1.8 Estimated age and efficiency of major appliances such as

dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines and dryers

704.1.2.5.1.9 Number and type of hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs in portable lamps suitable for energy efficient re-lamping

704.1.2.5.1.10 Visual indications of condensation

704.1.2.5.1.11 Presence and location of exhaust fans, and determination of whether they are vented outdoors

704.1.2.5.1.12 Number and type of water fixtures (e.g. faucets, showerheads)

704.1.2.5.1.13 Presence and type(s) of combustion equipment; identification of visually identifiable evidence of flame rollout, blocked chimney, and corroded or missing vent connector.

There is no doubt homes need to be more efficient, however, this audit will drain the pockets of the unlucky people whose houses are older and/or cheaply made due to builder irresponsibility. Let’s say your builder used cheap windows, very little insulation or a high-water toilet, the cost of those upgrades will be in the thousands of dollars. By making the recommended changes, you will receive a tax credit for improvements made under the energy star program.

Please note, most rebates are 30% of cost, maximum $1500. Good luck if your central air is deemed unacceptable.  After the upgrades are completed, you must have the auditors back out to your property for a final inspection. Early reports of denying audits carry a misdemeanor charge and a $2000 fine for each count.  The more you deny, the more you pay.

As mentioned before, we do need clean energy, less fossil fuel, more efficient homes and cars, but not this way.  Make no mistake, we do have real environmental crises; drugs in the water, cloning, species extinction, genocide and genetically modified food are all very real.  Let’s focus on those, before you focus on the kind of faucet I have in the bathroom. Recycle, walk, ride a bike from time-to-time, open your windows, tune-up your car and plant a garden, but please, stay out of my house!

Contact your Senator and tell them to vote this down or you’ll vote them out.

Examiner.com

OK, so we’re buying less gas, so………

Fuel tax could be replaced with by-the-mile road tax

| The Kansas City Star

The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.

Besides the technological advances making such a tax possible, the idea is getting a hard push from a growing number of transportation experts and officials. That is because the traditional by-the-gallon fuel tax, struggling to keep up with road building and maintenance demands, could fall even farther behind as vehicles’ gas mileage rises and more alternative-fuel vehicles come on line.

The idea of shifting to a by-the-mile tax has been discussed for years, but it now appears to be getting more serious attention. A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the “best path forward” to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion.

The decision by the 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was unanimous, which surprised Robert Atkinson, the group’s chairman. But he said it became clear as the commission’s work progressed that a road tax on miles traveled was the best option.

“If you’re committed to the system being improved then it was a no-brainer,” he said.

Even Helen’s had enough

 

Helen Thomas finally woke up at the briefing with Robert Gibbs long enough to smack him around some about the “openness” of the Obama administration.  Hey, even the old dog gets a biscuit every once and a while:

Hey, not my burger!

Don’t think they’re going to continue to meddle in your lives all you closet libs?  Still think Democrat was the way to go.  Here’ s one from the Washington post.  Best hang on to your cheap bulbs.

White House announces new lighting standards
By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM

 

WASHINGTON — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Republicans took issue with Obama’s pitch.

“Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We have to admit there’s a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need.”

The White House added the event to the president’s schedule at the last minute, just three days after the House narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that in phone calls to reluctant Democrats in endangered districts, Obama “affirmed his commitment to support the policy position that they were taking in helping to explain to their constituents and to the American public the great benefit of this bill.”

The measure’s fate is less certain in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to block a certain filibuster.

Still, in an interview with a small group of reporters, Obama energy adviser Carol Browner said: “I am confident that comprehensive energy legislation will pass the Senate.” But she repeatedly refused to say exactly when the White House expected the Senate to pass the measure, and she wouldn’t speculate on whether Obama would have legislation sent to his desk by year’s end.

The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday. Obama has spent the past few days pressuring the Senate to follow the House while also seeking to show that the administration is making quick, clear progress on energy reform without legislation.

In February, the president directed the Energy Department to update its energy conservation standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and microwave ovens. Laws on the books already required new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation.

The administration already had released new standards on commercial refrigeration. Lamps were next.

O’s new numbers…ruh roh!

Are they finally wising up?  Here’s the latest poll on “O’s” popularity as of July 1 in Rasmussin.  Looks like the parrrrrrrrrrrr-teee is over!

 

 

 

 

PRINCETON, NJ — A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party’s views as being “too liberal,” from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party’s losses in that year’s midterm elections.