Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

1 Comment

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

June 12, 2010 · 103 Comments

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Well, the Obama Administration certainly has not let the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig crisis go to waste, using it as a smokescreen to silently assault and further diminish American citizens’ personal freedom.

While the nation has its eyes and ears focused on the blame game ping-pong match between President Obama and BP top brass, President Obama on Thursday, June 10, quietly announced a new Executive Order establishing the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.”

You will "change" to my liking!You will “change” to my liking!

Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

According to the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out ” lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.”

The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications detailed in Sec. 6 (c) focus on:

  • smoking cessation;
  • proper nutrition;
  • appropriate exercise;
  • mental health;
  • behavioral health;
  • sedentary behavior (see Sec. 3 [c]);
  • substance-use disorder; and
  • domestic violence screenings.

Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.”

Let’s consider who the President has sought advice and mentoring from in the past:

  • Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League calls a “Messenger of Intolerance,” and
  • Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960′s domestic terrorist group ”Weatherman” that was “responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.”

Now, President Obama is going to seek medical advisors who will be charged with modifying lifestyles and behaviors of those citizens he deems unhealthy? “Paging Dr. Kevorkian! You’re wanted in the White House STAT by President Obama!”

Whether you are a child, a parent, a worker, or retired, the President’s approximately 25-member “Advisory Group” will soon be present in every aspect of Americans’ lives, as the Executive Order prescribes in Sec. 4 (b). Specifically, our new so-called lifestyle behavior modification advisors will be actively carrying out the President’s orders in:

  • worksite health promotion;
  • community services, including community health centers;
  • preventive medicine;
  • health coaching;
  • public health education;
  • geriatrics; and
  • rehabilitation medicine.

President Obama’s sweeping plan to enforce “lifestyle behavior modification” is chock full of open-ended target areas, especially when it comes to issues of “mental” and “behavioral” health, “proper nutrition,” “sedentary behavior,” and “appropriate exercise.” The President’s Executive Order is a blatant and forceful attempt to adjust the way Americans young and old think, behave, eat, drink and whatever else free will used to entitle our nation’s citizens to enjoy as prescribed by the Founding Fathers.

If you are feeling stressed-out, sad, confused, hungry, thirsty, bored, or tired, do you honestly trust President Obama and his “Advisory Group” to act in your best interests.

Nanny State Liberation Front.net


Obama’s Plan to Appoint Pay Czar Draws Fire

Comments Off on Obama’s Plan to Appoint Pay Czar Draws Fire

Well the fascism insanity  continues doesn’t it. A “pay czar” accountable only to the president with no Congressional oversight, we don’t know their salary, they don’t have to report on their spending and that’s the real purpose of “czars” isn’t it, to not be accountable and they’re appointed, not elected by the people. What is happening to “checks and balances”?  In addition, this czar wants to impose “pay caps” not only on businesses that accepted TARP money, but those that didn’t as well, coming to all “public” companies in the financial sector. Where in the Constitution does the executive  branch get this power over the private sector? Can you quote me the Article and section it’s in?

Obama’s Plan to Appoint Pay Czar Draws Fire

President Obama is expected to offer Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg a government job unlike any other in U.S. history: pay czar.

Obama is creating the position, formally known as special master for compensation, to institute his administration’s guidelines and limits on executive pay for companies that took bailout money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. (And those that didn’t take TARP money I might add.)

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made it clear Tuesday the government wants influence in what companies pay their top executives.

“We need to help encourage substantial reforms and compensation structures, particularly in the financial industry,” he said.

But the top House Republican, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, calls the whole idea of a pay czar “absolute lunacy.”

“I just can’t get over the fact that the American public is going to put up with this because at the end of the day, this is not the government’s business,” he told FOX News.

Other critics of the plan say it is going to hurt already ailing businesses because they won’t be able to woo top management.

“If you keep these kinds of limits on, you’re going to see a talent drain from some of these companies that really need the talent,” said government affairs consultant Peter Peyser of Blank Rome Government Relations.

And business lobbying groups are concerned that other companies that didn’t take any TARP money eventually may have their pay scales regulated, too.

“There is a tendency to over-regulate, and if they do so they will stifle the financial service industry,” said Scott Talbott, a lobbyist with Financial Services Roundtable, which advocates for large financial firms.

But supporters say businesses that took taxpayers dollars should not balk at limits on executive pay.

“They should be thankful that the government stepped in when the private sector would not step in to help their economic viability,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.(yeah, that’s why a lot of the companies tried to immediately give the money back and the gov’t wouldn’t let them.)

Maloney said she doesn’t think the pay czar would regulate private businesses that didn’t take bailout funds. But that’s some of the mystery here. No one is really sure how far this position will go. The new guidelines are expected to be announced Wednesday.


Tea Parties: Tax Day Anger Becomes Everyday Anger


Tea Parties: Tax Day Anger Becomes Everyday Anger

Herman Cain at Las Vegas Tea Party

The Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media and the flaming liberal media are attempting to downplay the organized anger expressed by hundreds of thousands of people on April 15 at Tax Day Tea Parties across the country.

The president issued a press release on tax day restating all the platitudes he has touted ever since he was running for president. As usual, his rhetoric does not match the agenda being steamrolled through Congress by his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The Democratic National Committee issued a statement on Thursday, April 16,which acknowledged people’s frustrations and suggested that “what’s clear is that the overwhelming majority of folks support President Obama’s plan to get the economy back on track, and provide 95 percent of working families with tax relief, because they are not going to accept ‘more of the same’ as an answer.”

People not accepting “more of the same” is an accurate message of the tax day events, but overwhelmingly supporting President Obama’s plan is a joke.

Here are some of the signs at the Las Vegas tax day event where I attended:

“Stop the spending. Stop the bailouts. Stop the tyranny”

“Got change? Hide it before Obama taxes it!”

“The only thing wrong with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Is that overwhelming support? And is the $8 a week for a single worker and $13 a week for a working couple tax relief? That’s the tax relief for 95 percent of working families the president and the Democrats are talking about.

And of course Speaker Pelosi weighed in with equally misleading statements when she said, “This tea party initiative is funded by the high end – we call it Astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.” Translated, let’s talk about class warfare.

I have warned readers in the past that when liberals disagree with a conservative, or when they are in denial of the facts, they change the subject. Casey Hendrickson of KXNT 840 AM out of Las Vegas appropriately calls this maneuver a WMD – a Weapon of Mass Distraction.

USA Today’s lead headline the day after the rallies read “Thousands rally at Tax Day Tea Parties”. Adding up the mostly understated news reports of crowd sizes in over 2,000 events around the country would suggest hundreds of thousands is more accurate. But the liberals are not counting.

And a flaming liberal publication, People’s Weekly World Newspaper, claimed that “Tax Day Rallies cry ‘Tax the Rich!’”. What planet are they from?

I attended the Las Vegas tax day rally, which attracted 2,500 people, and I did not see one sign that said to tax anyone more. I did not see one sign that proclaimed overwhelming support for the “Obama Plan” of trying to spend our way out of this financial crisis. And I did not see one sign that said “socialism now”.

But I saw lots of signs that were clearly not in support of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi direction of the country. Lots and lots of those signs!

Mr. President, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi, the anger is directed at y’all! You have ignored the message and the people again.

It’s not just tax day anger anymore. It is now everyday anger.

WSB radio.com

Secrecy From the Obama Administration

Comments Off on Secrecy From the Obama Administration

What about all that transparency in government?

The Obama administration is looking more and more like the Bush administration to me. The more things change, the more they stay the same. COPYRIGHT TREATY CLASSIFIED AS “NATIONAL SECURITY” ?

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Copyright treaty is classified for ‘national security’.

Last September, the Bush administration defended the unusual secrecy over an anti-counterfeiting treaty being negotiated by the U.S. government, which some liberal groups worry could criminalize some peer-to-peer file sharing that infringes copyrights.

Now President Obama’s White House has tightened the cloak of government secrecy still further, saying in a letter this week that a discussion draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and related materials are “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”

The 1995 Executive Order 12958 allows material to be classified only if disclosure would do “damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.”

Jamie Love, director of the nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International, filed the Freedom of Information Act request that resulted in this week’s denial from the White House. The denial letter (PDF) was sent to Love on Tuesday by Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House’s Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Love had written in his original request on January 31–submitted soon after Obama’s inauguration–that the documents “are being widely circulated to corporate lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. There is no reason for them to be secret from the American public.”

The White House appears to be continuing the secretive policy of the Bush administration, which wrote to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (PDF) on January 16 that out of 806 pages related to the treaty, all but 10 were “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”

In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed a memo saying FOIA “should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure.”

Love’s group believes that the U.S. and Japan want the treaty to say that willful trademark and copyright infringement on a commercial scale must be subject to criminal sanctions, including infringement that has “no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain.”

A June 2008 memo (PDF) from the International Chamber of Commerce, signed by pro-copyright groups, says: “intellectual property theft is no less a crime than physical property theft. An effective ACTA should therefore establish clear and transparent standards for the calculation and imposition of effective criminal penalties for IP theft that…apply to both online and off-line IP transactions.” Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for “criminal penalties for IP crimes, including online infringements.”

Last fall, two senators–Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.)–known for their support of stringent intellectual property laws, expressed concern that the ACTA could be too far-reaching.

Read at news.CNET.com

Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility says dismissal ‘eviscerates’ Constitution’s rules for president

Comments Off on Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility says dismissal ‘eviscerates’ Constitution’s rules for president

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has confirmed to WND the case will be appealed.

“It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006 had a relationship to a law firm that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article 2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president,” he said.

“This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility,” he said.

WND Exclusive


Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility

Lawyer says dismissal ‘eviscerates’ Constitution’s rules for president

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California’s general election ballot last year, challenging President Obama’s eligibility to hold office under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on the case.

WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge dismissed it after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.

Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no “duty” to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.

But now Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has confirmed to WND the case will be appealed.

“The judge’s ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution,” Kreep said.

It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006 had a relationship to a law firm that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article 2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president,” he said.

“This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility,” he said.

President Obama

Kreep said the judge’s ruling leaves open the option for any candidate, resident or not, alive or not, to run for the office of president.

“California has a history of removing people from the ballot who are not qualified to run for president,” Kreep said. “The most famous case being Eldridge Cleaver.”

“It is incumbent upon us here at the USJF to continue this fight to learn the truth,” he said.

In the court’s decision to dismiss the case, the judge rejected concerns over the problems that could result if a president was found to be ineligible.

“If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office,” the case explained.

The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president. But then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan “found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president.”

USJF explained that “using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Keyes has been critical of judges’ refusal to listen to evidence in the disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for review should be penalized..

“In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution, they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign people as a whole,” Keyes said.

In a commentary on the dispute, Keyes wrote that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the questions, already raised as an issue by Obama’s lawyers in his case, “confirms Obama’s ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.

“Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won’t accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation,” Keyes said.

“As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world’s esteem,” Keyes said.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state’s procedures allowed at the time?

Read the entire article @ Worldnet Daily.com

Obama Issues Signing Statement On Spending Bill


Well Democrats were highly critical of Bush signing his signing statements on several of bills. (which is unconstitution…the president can’t just say he’s not going to obey part of a law because he doesn’t like it…..he can veto the entire bill only)…..now Obama is doing it and do we hear an outcry?

Democrats often criticized the Bush White House for its use of the presidential signing statement, a means by which the president can reject provisions of a bill he deems unconstitutional without vetoing the entire legislation. Now the approach is back.

President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.

The Founding Fathers provided in Article III of the constitution the president’s remedy. Under Article III, should the president disagree with provisions of legislation passed by Congress, he can veto the legislation, thereby challenging Congress to muster a two-thirds super-majority in each House to override the president’s objections.

The move came two days after Mr. Obama ordered a review of his predecessor’s signing statements and said he would rein in the use of such declarations.

Obama issues signing statement on spending bill

WASHINGTON—Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Barack Obama issued such a directive himself.

Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill that includes billions for items known as earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to projects in their districts. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to curb such spending.

He also issued a “signing statement” in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised “raise constitutional concerns.” Among them are provisions that Obama said would “unduly interfere” with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.

Another provision, Obama said, would limit his discretion to choose who performs specific functions in military missions.

On Monday, Obama ordered a review of former President George W. Bush’s guidelines for implementing bills passed by Congress — the signing statements.

Bush often issued statements when he signed bills, objecting to parts of the legislation. Critics said the statements often showed government officials how to get around a law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.

“There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused,” Obama wrote Monday in a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies. “Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements.”

At the same time, however, Obama did not rule out issuing any signing statements, which have been used for centuries. Rather, he ordered his administration to work with Congress to inform lawmakers about concerns over legality before legislation ever reaches his desk. He also pledged to use caution and restraint when writing his own signing statements, and said he would rely on Justice Department guidance when doing so.

“With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities,” Obama pledged.

Read at Boston.com

I See the War is still On


It’s good to open up this blog and see the action is still happening.  I have been on the road for the past two weeks with my job and unable to post much, but I see that my friend Mike has been going strong!  Thank you Mike, for carrying the porch torch.  I will be posting again shortly, as my email is backed up with some great stuff…please keep reading us, I promise that we’re holding the line and looking out for you!



Older Entries