Presidential Petulance

Obama's response to the Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070 strikes me as nothing short of petulant. The law's provision that was upheld (8-0 by the way) merely directs the manner in which Arizona law enforcement will cooperate with federal authorities in the manner already directed by federal law! Obama's response, to suspend agreements between AZ law enforcement and the DHS and to set up hot lines so that citizens with a grudge against law enforcement have a forum. Really? That's some real leadership during tough times. When the going gets tough, the President skirts the law.

You Can Be A Snitch for Obama

The President has called on his American subjects to snitch on those who distort his record and call him a girly man. Here is a snippet of an email I received today:

Friend --

If you're someone who cares about seeing a campaign focused on substance between now and November 2012, I need you to become a part of one of our most important teams.

It's called AttackWatch.com, and it launches today.

Here's the deal: We all remember the birth certificate smear, the GOP's barrage of lies about the Affordable Care Act, and the string of other phony attacks on President Obama that we've seen over the past few years.

There are a lot of folks on the other side who are chomping at the bit to distort the President's record. It's not a question of if the next big lie will come, just when -- and what we're prepared to do about it.

AttackWatch.com is exactly what it sounds like: a resource that allows us to nip these attacks in the bud before they show up on the airwaves and in emails -- and then fight back with the truth.

By signing up, you'll be on the front lines -- you'll hear about false claims as soon as they come up, and we'll count on you to spread the truth to your friends and personal networks and let us know about new smears whenever you hear them.

Will you sign up now to be a part of AttackWatch.com?

Well, I don't think so. But I did report The Liberator Today blog in an attempt to goose my visitor statistics. The @BarackObama twitter account promoted this abomination, so clearly the President approves. Way to go, I look forward to him commenting on my blog.

Michele Malkin has the goods on how this was similar to the efforts to stifle debate on Obamacare. By the way, the birther charge was not supported by the majority of Republican web sites and the everything we thought was bad about Obamacare turned out to be true. Plus after we passed the bill we found more even more to not like about it.

What is wrong with the President's judgement? It wouldn't be that hard to collect this kind of information about stealth email attacks and blog sites without encouraging a snitch campaign. I keep track of his distortions and stealth email attacks without anyone snitching to me. Instead he just arouses suspicion that he is a would-be dictator.

Anyway, have some fun with the #attackwatch hashtag on twitter and make some reports for giggles on the attackwatch.com web site. Just clear your cookies after you do so, they are tracking you.

Finally - Congress Gets A Little Spine

Both Democrats and Republicans in the House seem to believe that the President is acting outside the bounds of law and the constitution with respect to Libya, passing a resolution calling on the President to take the actions necessary for Congressional approval of Libyan operations. Finally, I had begun to despair that the Congress would assert its authority. Despite the constitutional implications of the issue, I didn't think that the courts could resolve this particular issue, so absent action by the Congress, nothing would be done. Make no mistake, the resolution that was passed was non-binding, so they have not really exercised their full constitutional prerogative. But it is a worthy start. As the Washington Times article points out, 91 Democrats, over half the House caucus voted for at least one of two competing resolutions that were presented. The bipartisan nature of the debate should concern the President.

The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did.

Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.

Despite the rebuke, the administration continues to act as if they have done nothing wrong. It is part of a train of abuses that can lead to dictatorship. We should keep the pressure on the Congress to end the charade that our involvement is not part of a war.

Obama Dictator

I remember that far left conspiracy theorists told us that no matter who won the 2008 elections we would continue to live under the fascist dictatorship of George W. Bush. They were half right. We seem to have gotten a President who feels no compunction about abusing the limits of his office.

The Hipster-Dufus in Chief, after hanging out at Facebook with Mark Zuckerberg and commenting on how young folks get their news from non-traditional outlets (like him wink-wink). His administration promptly punished SF Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci for using a smart phone to video a protest at an Obama event. Then they promised to punish anyone for reporting on the punishment. Then they denied the threats. What idiots, antagonizing one of their few reminaing reliable constituencies, the press.

Libya. We are at war. There has been no notification to the Congress. Impeachable offense.

Obama's appointees purport to tell Boeing where in the United States they may manufacture airplanes. (Hint: its not in right-to work states.) Shane Atwell asks Can you hear the shackles clicking closed on your legs? Meanwhile the same NLRB is going to sue Arizona and South Dakota for requiring secret ballot votes before unions before a union can be certified. Funny how elections are pesky things when you don't get the outcome you want.

From Politico: The president “abrogated” section 2262 of the budget compromise law, which prohibits using appropriations for the salaries and expenses of certain White House czars. What is it about this part of the constitution "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . ." that the President doesn't understand? More from Politico's Sollenberger and Rozell:

Obama is essentially telling Congress he will avoid confirmation hearings by appointing czars. He also is taking congressional appropriations used to pay their salaries and expenses, even if lawmakers clearly state in law those positions are not funded. Such reasoning represents the height of presidential hubris — and shows an utter contempt for Congress as a co-equal branch.

Not to mention contempt of the constitution.

And that's really the issue. No recognition for constitutional limits = road to dictatorship.

Previous posts have documented any number of other instances of dictatorial overreach, the hits just keep on coming.

It's not like we weren't warned. Valerie Jarrett: (H/T: Moonbattery)

However, giving--given, really, the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.

About Those Death Panels - More Overreach

The left is on the defensive over federal funding to incentive doctors to counsel patients to forgo aggressive end of life treatment, aka "death panels." I am not arguing that doctors shouldn't have a discussion about end of life treatment and patients make their wishes known ahead of time rather than in extremis. Good planning is good planning. But here is why I object to the regulations: (For a full explanation of the issues see the BWD article and read the comments.)

• Under what sane system can the administration impose regulation explicitly rejected in the law by the Congress? (This is why this example gets the coveted dictatorial overreach moniker.)
  
• The regulation provides for unlimited number of discussions, albeit only annually. At some point how does this differ from your doctor bullying you?
• The left argues, as they always seem to when caught in some shenanigans, that this rule was first implemented under Bush. As if George Bush was suddenly elevated to paragon status by the left. I point out that under Bush doctors could only be reimbursed for this once.
  
• Why did Democrat Earl Blumenauer tell supporters of the rule to keep it quiet?
• Those supporting the regulation refuse to admit that the government has a financial interest in encouraging patients to forgo treatment. You can argue the merits of the regulation, but denying the government's financial interest is dishonest. And frankly, that's what gives average Americans the creeps. If the administration can incentivize the discussion, what's to stop them from incentivizing the outcome. What lack of awareness causes the left to be blind to this?
  

If you disagree, please comment.

Which Is the More Outrageous TSA flaws or DHS response

Temple of Mut has been warning us that TSA measures for airport security have not been implemented using an appropriate risk assessment methodology. From her blog:

As a safety professional, I have been doing RISK ASSESSMENT for years. Essentially, it is the concept whereby different factors that could impact a business are reviewed, and the resources to eliminate or minimize a hazard are selected based on a) How harmful the hazard is; b) How often the hazard is faced; and, c) The amount of materials/training/work it will take to eliminate/reduce the risks associated with that hazard.

Now Drudge has a headline linking to an article about a pilot blowing the whistle on the stupid ways that security is implemented at our nation's airports, echoing the Temple's criticism.

Here's a little YouTube:



Look at the heavy-handed manner in which the Feds (and Big Sis specifically) respond to criticism. So my exit question, which is more outrageous, the mindless tactics and kabuki theater of our airport security or the the federal government's heavy handed response to questioning. Also, in a nation where the federal government and local law enforcement can't agree on how to process illegal aliens arrested for felonies, how is it that county sheriffs can seize this man's pistol four days after he posts some Youtube critical of the a federal agency? I mean, what the hell, you can't even get that kind of cooperation to take down Mafia dons.

Feel the power of the dark side, young jedi pilot.

Dictatorial Overreach

Dictatorship can be characterized as the capricious rule by the political party in power rather than rule by impartial law. Obama is setting a pattern of attempting to imitate Hugo Chavez in abusing the powers of the executive branch to undermine the rule of law and play favorites.

Obama started his Presidency thinking he had been elected Mayor (of Chicago), not President. Look at the arrogant tone from two years ago.


The most recent and most egregious examples of overreach include:

"I'm making a list. . ."

• Obamacare implementation. Everyday we are surprised by some new waiver or re-interpretation of the law that we were previously unaware of. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Katherine Sebelius is alternately bullying insurance companies, Chicago style or issuing blanket waivers from the law depending on her mood, apparently. 222 favored unions and businesses have received waivers on the types of coverage they can provide. This is a feature, not a bug, as the administration has built a system that allows it to play favorites and thereby reap political support in return for those waivers. Explain how the Soviets fundamentally operated any differently.
• Regulation of Power Plants for CO2. The EPA has announced that it will move forward with regulation to limit greenhouse gases from power plants and refineries. However, their approach exceeds their authority. If CO2 is truly to be regulated, then the EPA must apply the rules evenly across the board to everything that emits above certain limits. That would include every vehicle on the road. Further, they have yet to prove in court that CO2 is a hazard, since it is already in the atmosphere. The only court case, Massachusetts v EPA, specifically called on the EPA to regulate automobile emissions for CO2 or show cause as to why they would not. So the EPA's decision doesn't even accord with the only Supreme Court case on the subject.
• Net Neutrality. As I previously pointed out, the FCC is clearly exceeding their writ, according to both the Congress and the Courts. But why let that stop a naked power grab.
• Gitmo detainees. I criticized Bush for the conduct of military tribunals to try unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, because Congress had not passed the necessary regulations to allow a lawful tribunal to proceed. But in 2006, Congress passed the appropriate law. However, that-hack-Holder (all one word) decided he was going to hold civilian show trials. I say show trials, because the administration stated that the prisoners would not be released even if found not guilty. This was to show the supposed superiority of our civilian courts. In the latest twist ". . . the Obama administration is working on an executive order authorizing the indefinite detention of certain terrorism suspects the administration deems too difficult to put on trial but too dangerous to release." Even George Bush wasn't so cruel. Why can't they apply the law that was passed? No seizing power for the executive is much more the Chicago Way practiced by the One.

Maybe we will make this a regular feature, as the administration has certainly set a trend. Sorry to those who think I exaggerate the threat, but this is how dictatorship can come about, through the steady erosion of the rule of law and constitutionality.