Brent Bozell to Media: Tell the Truth About Obama’s Assault on Religious Freedom, Millions Served by the Catholic Church

Editor’s Note: What follows is a letter that NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center president Brent Bozell sent to the presidents of the news divisions of ABC, CBS, and NBC as well as to CNN president Jim Walton. It has also been carbon copied to 10 leaders representing various Catholic and Protestant faith organizations.

The broadcast and cable television networks need to report the current, unprecedented assault against freedom of religion in this country, as well as the millions of Americans who would be left out in the cold by the Obama administration if it does not rescind HHS’s recently issued insurance mandate requiring contraceptive coverage.  As our statistics and analysis below outline, they are not, and it’s a glaring double standard.

First, allow us to offer perspective on whom this new mandate affects. There are more than 65 million Catholics in the United States. Collectively, they operate more than 7,000 Catholic schools to educate children of all faiths and backgrounds. They also manage hundreds of health care facilities. In fact, one in six patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital.

All of these institutions and countless other Catholic-run charities will be forced to close their doors – or forfeit their most fundamental and deeply held religious beliefs if the Obama administration’s new mandate is not rescinded. The mandate forces these religious institutions to provide insurance covering sterilizations, abortion-causing drugs and artificial contraceptives, all of which fly in the face of Catholic teaching.

Yet to date, the broadcast networks have nearly ignored it. In contrast, in reaction to a decision that would affect vastly fewer potential patients, the networks pounced on the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision (now overturned) to cease a measly $480,000 in a grant to Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider

Since the mandate was finalized on January 20, 2012:

• ABC and NBC waited 16 days to cover the anti-Catholic ruling, finally citing the new rule on “This Week” and “Meet the Press” on February 5.
• CBS waited 10 days to mention it on “This Morning” and provided no subsequent coverage.
• CNN briefly mentioned the rule when it was announced on January 20th, then didn’t bother to mention it again for 10 days.

That stands in sharp contrast to the decision of the private Komen Foundation, when these same networks almost instantly piled on with publicity that helped fill Planned Parenthood’s coffers and added to the pressure that forced Komen to reverse.

In fact, as of February 5th, ABC, CBS and NBC covered the Komen controversy six times more than the anti-Catholic HHS law.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan has said this new law “is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom” and bishops across the country have issued the strongest letters in memory condemning this assault on religious liberty.  Indeed, non-Catholic institutions across the country have joined the Catholic Church in condemning the administration, so you have no lack of experts and interviewees to discuss this outrage on-air.

The double standard is clear for all to see.  You are ignoring the attack on the freedom of religion by the Obama administration, but coming to the aid of Planned Parenthood because you agree with them.

Your network must cover the administration’s insurance mandate accurately and comprehensively for what it is – an unprecedented assault against religion and a devastating blow to the millions of American school children, sick, elderly and poor of all religious faiths that are served by these Catholic institutions.  If you refuse, and limit your networks to reporting about the Komen Foundation’s decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood, then you cannot be seen as anything but an anti-Catholic, pro-abortion advocate.

Report both sides.

Sincerely,

L.Brent Bozell III

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/02/06/nb-publisher-bozell-media-tell-truth-about-obamas-assault-religious-fr#ixzz1ldWZqLak

http://ow.ly/1FHzh2

Obama’s Osawatomie Speech Exposes Obama’s Belief System, and It’s Not American

December 11th, 2011

Quoting Charles Krauthammer: This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez. But with high unemployment, economic stagnation and unprecedented deficits, what else can Obama say? Krauthammer’s entire article can be found in The Washington Post, or Investors Business Daily.

Who is this Chavez fellow Krauthammer refers to? A Marxist dictator.

Or the comparison to the Godfather made by Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577084292119160060.html with this quote:

The Osawatomie speech sounded like what you’d expect to hear in Caracas or Buenos Aires. As in: “The free market has never been a license to take whatever you can from whomever you can.” (Applause.) And: “Their philosophy is simple. We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”

The sounds of a Marxist central planner ring in that statement.

Or try this little ditty on from The Canada Free Press: “Osawatomie is more than a place whose name is hard to get the tongue around; more than the location where President Barack Obama outed himself as a Marxist in Tuesday’s defiant speech.” This article is a real eye opener: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadafreepress.com%2Findex.php%2Farticle%2F43080%3Futm_
source%3DCFP%2BMailout%26utm_campaign%3D7d364b1203-Call_to_Champions%26utm_medium%3Demail&h=7AQFuS4hCAQFW9TwDUg
r2s6T9Goo5m7TAWo9yf1u2OZpUGg

I know this will take some effort and an open mind, but please read just these three articles if you want to understand the inner belief system of Barack Obama.

Why should this be important to you? The future of America, and your children are at stake.

For me the most immediate concern is the ability of millions of Americans to work and feed their families. Barack Obama’s big government agenda has the economy stagnant, there’s record unemployment, more people in poverty, on welfare, on food stamps in history as a result. The housing market is is depressed and cannot recover. New home construction is in a depression. There is a crushing debt being added at the fastest pace in history with private sector crushing consequences.

There is no recovery and now we know why. President Obama believes more in Marxism than the uniquely American form of limited government and free market capitalist economy. How do we know? Obama said so in Osawatomie; “Limited government and free market economies don’t work and never have. ”

From Investor’s Business Daily at investors.com comes their analysis of the five big lies in Obama’s speech:

• Tax cuts and deregulation have “never worked” to grow the economy. There’s so much evidence to disprove this claim, it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s begin with the fact that countries with greater economic freedom — lower taxes, less government, sound money, free trade — consistently produce greater overall prosperity.

Here at home, President Reagan’s program of lower taxes and deregulation led to an historic two-decade economic boom. Plus, states with lower taxes and less regulation do better than those that follow Obama’s prescription.

Obama also claimed the economic booms in the ’50s and ’60s somehow support his argument. This is utter nonsense. Taxes at the time averaged just 17% of the economy. And there was no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Departments of Transportation, Energy or Education, and no EPA. Had Obama been around then, he would have decried it all as un-American.

• Bush’s tax cuts on the rich only managed to produced “massive deficits” and the “slowest job growth in half a century.” Budget data make clear that Obama’s spending hikes, not Bush’s tax cuts, produced today’s massive deficits.

And Obama only gets his “slowest job growth” number by including huge job losses during his own term in office. Also, monthly pre-recession job growth under Bush was about 40% higher than post-recession growth has been under Obama.

• During the Bush years, “we had weak regulation, we had little oversight.” This is patently false. Regulatory staffing climbed 42% under Bush, and regulatory spending shot up 50%, according to a Washington University in St. Louis/George Washington University study. And the number of Federal Register pages — a proxy for regulatory activity — was far higher under Bush than any previous president.

• The “wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century.” Fact: the federal income tax code is now more progressive than it was in 1979, according to the Congressional Budget Office. IRS data show the richest 1% paid almost 40% of federal income taxes in 2009, up from 18% back in 1980.

• We can keep tax breaks for the rich in place, or make needed investments, “but we can’t do both.” Not true. Repealing the Bush tax cuts on the “rich” would raise only about $70 billion a year, a tiny fraction of projected deficits. With or without the Bush tax cuts, the country can’t afford Obama’s agenda. [end IBD excerpt]

Or this from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/morning-bell-whitewashing-history-obama-style/ an excerpt:

Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President’s portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work and his absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that has failed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior. [emphasis mine]

But in President Obama’s mind, it is others who offer ideas that don’t work, not him. He points to “a certain crowd in Washington” that argues for tax cuts and reduced regulations, calling it “a simple theory” that “fits well on a bumper sticker” but “has never worked.”

Correction, Mr. President. It has worked–time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr. Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesian economic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they have throughout history.

It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.

It didn’t. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama’s presidency, and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era. [end Heritage excerpt]

Barack Obama who cannot run on his record is gambling his reelection on enough Americans having lost faith in our founding, limited government, free market economies, and will embrace his Marxist vision. Obama says he will bring fairness and save the middle class (which ironically his policies are destroying). The “Fundamental Transformation of America” he announced just prior to his 2008 election can be completed. [emphasis mine]

The two choices for which direction and the future of America are now crystal clear.

Obama’s big totalitarian central government ruling through executive order, higher taxes for wealth redistribution eliminating property rights for certain citizens (we are no longer created equal) to implement the Obama version of fairness, and a bureaucratic state run by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat central planners dictating over private sector activity and crushing small business with regulation.

All the antithesis of our founding and what made America great, which I repeat; Obama says never worked.

Or choosing leadership who believes in the Constitutionally prescribed limitations upon government, separation of powers, a free market capitalist economy that provides equal opportunity for all, individual liberty, and property rights. In other words a free nation of individuals unencumbered by big government that led to the highest standard of living in world history, and can lead America back to prosperity.

However there is hope. A CBS News Poll released Friday shows that 41% of Americans think the president has done a good enough job to be reelected while 54% don’t think so. Only 33% approve of how he has handled the economy while 60% disapprove. 75% of Americans now say America is headed in the wrong direction. Thank God the message is getting out over the Obama cheerleaders in the main stream media. CBS cheerleaders have been hoisted by their own petard with their own polling.

If America chooses Obama then we are destined to follow in the footsteps of all other socialist welfare nation states, and will be abandoning the world’s last great hope for freedom of the individual. All one needs do is look to the European socialist states collapsing before our very eyes. Obama is channeling another Marx, Chico Marx who said; Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?

.

 http://wp.me/pLu72-OR

As radicalism creeps in, credibility retreats from OWS

Read what the illustrious Ann Coulter has to say, especially about her correct recitation of our honored history.

THIS IS WHAT A MOB LOOKS LIKE

I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want — as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore — which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd — besides the smell of patchouli — is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic.

They chant: “The world is watching!” “This is how democracy looks!” “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!”

At the risk of acknowledging that I am, in fact, “watching,” this is most definitely not how democracy looks.

Sally Kohn, a self-identified “community organizer,” praised the Wall Street loiterers on CNN’s website, comparing the protest to the Boston Tea Party, which she claimed, “helped spark the American Revolution,” adding, “and yes, that protest ultimately turned very violent.”

First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body–pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere’s nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)

Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse — say, voting — were unavailable.

Our revolution — the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 — was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.

George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.

In that document, our Christian forebears set forth in blindingly clear terms their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution, and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.

The rebel armies defending that declaration were not a disorganized mob, chanting slogans for the press and defacing public property.

Even the Minutemen, whose first scuffle with the British began the war, were a real army with ranks, subordination, coordination, drills and supplies. There is not a single mention in the historical record of Minutemen playing hacky-sack, burning candles assembled in “peace and love,” or sitting in drum circles.

A British lieutenant-general who fought the Minutemen observed, “Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob will find himself very much mistaken.”

By contrast, the directionless losers protesting “Wall Street” — Obama’s largest donor group — pose for the cameras while uttering random liberal cliches lacking any reason or coherence.

But since everything liberals do must be heroic, the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd insists on comparing themselves to this nation’s heroes.

One told Fox News’ Bill Schulz: “I was born to be here, right now, the founding fathers have been passing down the torch to this generation to make our country great again.”

The Canadian environmental group behind Occupy Wall Street, Adbusters, has compared the Wall Street “revolutionaries” to America’s founding fathers. (Incidentally, those who opposed the American Revolution fled after the war to … Canada.)

The — again — Canadians exulted, “You sense they’re drafting a new Declaration of Independence.”

I suppose you only “sense” it because they’re doing nothing of the sort. They say they want Mao as the president — as one told Schulz — and the abolition of “capitalism.”

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election.

That’s what democracy looks like.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Perry signed into TX law the DREAM Act well before we saw the federal version.  In the accompanying picture to this article, Kevin Crouch notes how “members of ACORN proudly [surround] him and his pen.”

Clearly, Rick Perry is NOT the Constitutional Conservative we need in the Oval Office!

(Hat tip Larry)

http://kevincrouchofficial.tumblr.com/post/9722694154/acorn-and-perry-sittin-in-a-tree

http://wp.me/pLu72-On

Where was God on 9/11?

Have you ever thought, “Where was God on 9/11 when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked?” Well, I know where my God was on the morning of September 11, 2001, and He was very busy!

He was discouraging people from taking those four flights. Together they could accommodate more than 1,000 passengers, yet there were only 266 aboard. He was on those four flights giving the terrified passengers the ability to stay calm. Not one of the people who was called by a loved one on one of the hijacked planes mentioned that passengers were panicked, nor was there any screaming in the background. And on one of the flights, God gave strength to the passengers to overcome the hijackers.

God was also busy creating obstacles to prevent people who worked in the WTC from getting to work on time. The work day had begun, more than 50,000 people worked in the two towers, yet only 20,000 were at their desks. On that beautiful morning, God created scores of unexpected traffic delays, subway delays, and commuter train delays. A PATH train packed with commuters was stopped at a signal just short of the WTC and was able to return to Jersey City. And far more meetings were scheduled elsewhere than was usual.

God held up each of the two mighty towers for a half hour so that the people on the lower floors could get out. And when He finally let go, He caused the towers to fall inward rather than to topple over, which would have killed so many more people. The foundations of six surrounding buildings were demolished by the fall of the towers, but God held them up for many hours until all the occupants were safely evacuated.

And when the WTC and Pentagon buildings went down, my God picked up almost 3,500 of His children and carried them to their home for all eternity. He also sat down and cried that 19 of His children could have so much hate in their hearts, that they did not choose him, but another god that doesn’t exist, and now they are lost forever.

WTC original cross

He sent people trained in dealing with earthly disasters to save those that were injured. And he sent in thousands of others to help in any way they were needed. And He brought people together across the world in a way that moved thousands to tears and hundreds of thousands to prayer—and caused millions to turn to the one true living God.

He still isn’t finished. Every day He comforts those who lost loved ones. He is encouraging others to reach out to those who don’t know Him or believe in Him. He is giving the leaders of our great nation the strength and conviction to do the right thing, to follow His will, not a popular poll.

So if anyone ever asks, “Where was your God on 9/11?” you can say, “He was everywhere! And, in fact, he is everywhere today and every day.” Without a doubt, this was the worst catastrophe most of us have ever seen. I can’t imagine getting through such a difficult time without God at my side. Without God, life would be hopeless.

http://wp.me/pLu72-NO

The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive Orders

By Publius Huldah
August 30, 2011

On election night, November 2, 2010, Rep. John Boehner said in his victory speech:

…While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. … [emphasis added]

Next morning, Ezra Klein commented in the Cult of the President lives on:

I’d like Boehner to show us where in the Constitution it says that the president sets the agenda for the government.

But Boehner is not as astute as Ezra Klein, and does not know that it is our Constitution which sets the “agenda” for the federal government.  The agenda the Constitution sets restricts the federal government to war, international relations & commerce; and domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: a monetary system based on gold & silver, weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a bankruptcy code, and mail delivery (Art. I, Sec. 8, cls.1-16). ¹

And because none of the House Republicans seem to know that our Constitution sets the agenda, and don’t know that our Constitution also enumerates the powers delegated to the President, they are allowing Obama to carry out his “agenda” to transform our Country into a fascist dictatorship.

What are the Enumerated Powers of the President?

The powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution.  In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks,

…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?…[emphasis added] ²

The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the dolts in Congress don’t make them obey it!

Well, then!  Here is the complete list of the President’s enumerated powers:

Art. I, Sec. 7, cls. 2 & 3, grants to the President the power to approve or veto Bills and Resolutions passed by Congress.

Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to the executive Branch – the Treasury Department – the power to write checks pursuant to Appropriations made by law – i.e., by Congress.

Art. II, Sec. 1, cl.1, vests “executive Power” [see below] in the President.

Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause, sets forth the President’s Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.1:

• makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces when they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. ³

• authorizes the President to require the principal Officers in the executive Departments to provide written Opinions upon the Duties of their Offices.

•  grants the President power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, ⁴  but he can not stop impeachments of any federal judge or federal officer.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 grants to the President the power:

• to make Treaties – with the advice and consent of the Senate. ⁵

• to nominate Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, federal judges, and various other officers – with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 3 grants to the President the power to make recess appointments, which expire at the end of Congress’ next session.

Art. II, Sec. 3:

• Imposes the duty on the President to periodically advise Congress on the State of the Union, and authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems wise.

• Authorizes the President, on extraordinary Occasions, to convene one or both houses of Congress [e.g., when he asks Congress to declare War]; and if both houses can not agree on when to adjourn, he is authorized to adjourn them to such time as he deems proper.

• Imposes the duty upon the President to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.

• Imposes the duty upon the President to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and

• Imposes the duty upon the President to Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That’s it! Anything else the President does is unlawful and a usurpation of powers not granted.

 What is the “executive Power”?

So!  The granting of the “executive Power” to the President is not a blank check giving him power to do whatever he wants.  The “executive Power” is merely the power to put into effect – to implement – those Acts of Congress which are within Congress’ enumerated powers.  Thus, if Congress establishes “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), it is the President’s duty to implement and enforce the law Congress makes. The President is to carry out – to execute – Acts of  Congress.

But note well:  His Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, shows that the President must use his independent judgment ⁶  as to which acts of Congress are and are not constitutional.  Thus, as shown in this paper, “The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges“, the President has the duty, imposed by his Oath, to act as a “check” on Congress (and on federal courts, as well).

Accordingly, when Congress makes a “law” which is not authorized by the Constitution, it

…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution”… Federalist No. 33 (last two paras); ⁷

and since the President’s Oath requires him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution“, the President must refuse to enforce an unconstitutional “law” made by Congress.  Otherwise, he’d be in collusion with the legislative branch to usurp power over The People. ⁸

So, then!  Acting as a check on Congress (and federal courts) by refusing to enforce unconstitutional “laws” (and opinions), as well as the duty of entertaining foreign dignitaries, are the only occasions where the President may act alone. His prime responsibility is to do what Congress tells him.

Article I, Sec. 1 & The Unconstitutional Administrative Law State

Now, you must learn of “administrative law” – i.e., rulemaking by Executive Agencies. ⁹

Article I, Sec.1, U.S. Constitution, says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.

That little phrase is of immense importance. It means what it says, that only Congress may make laws: laws are to be made only by Representatives whom we can fire every two years, and by Senators whom we can fire every six years.

But in Joseph Postell’s “must read” paper, “Constitution in Decline“, he shows that during the administration of the nefarious Woodrow Wilson, Congress began delegating its lawmaking powers to agencies within the Executive Branch.  Since then, Congress passes an overall legislative scheme, and delegates the details to be written by un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrats in the various Executive Agencies.  They write the “administrative rules” which implement the Legislation. The result is the execrable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is accepted, by the indoctrinated members of my profession, as “law”. Go here to see the abominable CFR.

May the President Lawfully Make “Executive Orders”?

The Guiding Principle is this:  The President has no authority to do ANYTHING apart from constitutional authority or statutory authority (assuming the statute itself is constitutional).

1.    So!  Respecting those matters within his constitutional authority & duties, and authority & duties imposed by constitutional statutes, the President may make “orders” – call them “executive orders” if you like.

For example: It is the President’s constitutional duty “to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Thus, he has the duty to enforce [constitutional] laws made by Congress.  How does he enforce the laws?  Sometimes, by means of “orders”.

To illustrate: Say Congress makes a law, as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 6, making it a felony to counterfeit the Securities and current Coin of the United States.  If U.S. Attorneys are not prosecuting counterfeiters, the President should “order” them to do it. Or fire them.

But say Congress makes a law which purports to make possession of shotguns shorter than 18 inches a crime.  Since the President’s Oath requires him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, he is obligated to “order” the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys to refuse to prosecute anyone for possession of sawed-off shotguns. Why?  Because such a “law” is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress in Our Constitution.  It also violates the Second Amendment.

Clearly, such an order to refuse prosecution falls within the President’s constitutional duties (enforce the Constitution), and he is giving an order to people within the Executive Branch. The President is the one who is charged with carrying out the Acts of Congress – he has the “executive Power”.  But because of his Oath, he may not carry out unconstitutional “laws”. That is one of the checks on Congress.

The President may also properly make orders addressing housekeeping issues within the Executive Branch:  Dress codes, no smoking or drinking on the job, he may encourage executive agencies to hire qualified handicapped people, and the like.  Just as if you have a business, you may make orders addressing such matters.

So! Do you see?  The President may lawfully make orders to carry out his constitutionally imposed powers and duties, and powers bestowed by statutes which are constitutional; and he may address “housekeeping” issues within the Executive Branch.

2.   But a President may not lawfully, by means of “orders”, exercise powers not delegated to him by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress.

Yet Obama has issued various executive orders which are unlawful because they are not authorized by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress. Here are two executive orders which are particularly pernicious because they undermine our foundational Principle of “Federalism”, and have as their object the “improper consolidation of the States into one … republic.”: ¹⁰

E.O.13575 – Establishment of the White House Rural Council: This E.O. provides for over 25 federal departments & agencies to run every aspect of rural life!

E.O. Establishing Council of Governors: The effect of this E.O. is to erase the Independence and Sovereignty of the States and consolidate us into a national system under the boot of the Executive Branch.

Joseph Stalin couldn’t do better than this.  These E.O.s are blatantly unconstitutional as usurpations of powers not granted in The Constitution!  So,  Nullify them!

3.   Likewise, executive agencies may not, by means of “administrative rulemaking”, usurp the powers of Congress. (Remember, because of Art. I, Sec.1, all rulemaking by executive agencies is unconstitutional)!

Here are several cases of such unconstitutional rulemaking:

a)  When Congress refused to pass the DREAM ACT, which provided a path to citizenship for certain categories of illegal aliens, ICE had no authority to implement it, in whole or in part, by executive “memo”!  Power over Rules of Naturalization (i.e., who qualifies for citizenship and what are the procedures) are expressly granted to Congress by Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4, which grants to Congress alone the Power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

The President has no constitutional power over immigration & naturalization except to enforce the Acts of Congress respecting those subjects.  Article II, Sec. 3, which imposes upon the President the duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, requires the President to enforce such constitutional Acts of Congress.

But if Congress refuses to make a law respecting naturalization, a President who enacts it anyway,  via “executive order”, or “administrative regulation”, or “administrative memo” by his underlings in the various executive agencies, is acting lawlessly.  His unlawful acts should be nullified, and he should be removed from office for his usurpation.

b) Congress recently did not pass three sinister and grotesquely unconstitutional bills Obama wanted: “Card check“, “Cap and Trade“, and the Disclose Act.  These bills are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted by our Constitution to Congress. Nowhere does our Constitution give Congress authority to make laws about labor unions (“card check”), or to regulate carbon emissions – CO², the stuff humans and animals exhale, and plants & trees need for photosynthesis (“cap and trade”), or requiring people with federal contracts to report their personal political activities to the Executive Branch (“Disclose Act”)!

Since Congress may not lawfully make laws on such subjects, no one can. Yet, Obama is circumventing the Constitution and implementing these three failed & unconstitutional bills by agency rulemaking or executive order!:

The National Labor Relations Board, is implementing “card check” by agency regulation.  Read this.

The Environmental Protection Agency is implementing “cap and trade” by agency regulation. Read this.

And it appears that Obama – in furtherance of his “agenda” to reward his supporters and punish non-supporters – is considering signing an executive order implement the Disclose Act. Read this.

So! Let us sum this up:  The President must always uphold our Constitution. When Congress makes an unconstitutional law, the President must refuse to implement it; and he may, by means of executive orders, instruct people in the Executive Branch not to comply.  E.g., if a President orders the U.S. Attorneys to decline to prosecute persons for possession of sawed-off shotguns, he would be acting lawfully because Congress has no authority to ban them. But the President is violating the Constitution when he implements “card check” by agency rules made by the NLRB; when he implements “cap & trade” by agency rules made by the EPA; and the “Disclose Act” by executive order, because the President and executive agencies (as well as Congress) do not have authority over these objects; and further, no one in the Executive Branch has authority to make “laws”!

What Should we do about illegal Executive Orders & Rules made by Executive Agencies?

A Congress filled with he-men and she-women, instead of ignorant cowards, wusses, and wimps, would impeach obama for his usurpations in signing unconstitutional executive orders, and in circumventing Congress by having executive agencies implement, by means of administrative rules, legislation which Congress did not pass [emphasis mine].  In Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para), Hamilton expressly states that impeachment is an essential check on a President who encroaches on the powers of Congress; and in Federalist No. 77 (last para), points out that impeachment is the remedy for “abuse of the executive authority” [emph. mine].

But since the people in Congress are too ignorant and weak to rid us of the abomination in the White House, the States and Counties must nullify unconstitutional executive orders and administrative rules [emph. mine], or submit to slavery and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Since State and County officials have taken the Oath to support the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, last cl.), THEY ARE BOUND BY OATH TO REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ILLEGAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND ILLEGAL AGENCY RULES [caps mine].

And of course, WE THE PEOPLE and our businesses must also spit on such illegalities by the Executive Branch. Our “creature” (Federalist No. 33, 5th para, Hamilton), has turned into Frankenstein, and has lost all legitimacy. PH

Endnotes:

¹  In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, says,

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [boldface added]

²  In Federalist No. 48, Madison points out that in our representative republic,

…the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power… (5th para) [i.e., limited & enumerated powers and 4 year terms]

…the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass [than that granted to the legislative branch], and being more simple in its nature… (6th para)

In Federalist No. 75 (3rd para), Hamilton says,

…The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate… [boldface added]

In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton says,

…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules … The judiciary … has no influence over … the sword or the purse …and …must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm … for the efficacy of its judgments. [boldface added].

Read the list of the President’s enumerated powers!  The President’s powers really are “confined” and “carefully limited” to carrying out laws made by Congress and enforcing certain judicial decisions, military defense (a power shared with Congress), appointing officials (subject to Congress’ approval), and entertaining foreign dignitaries. That’s it!

³ Only Congress has the power to declare war (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11)!  See clauses 12-16 showing that Congress has the power to determine the funding for the military, and to make the Rules for the discipline & training of the military and the Militia.

⁴ Re “Offenses against the United States”: I explain here the criminal laws Our Constitution permits Congress to make.  It’s a short list.  Take note, you federal criminal defense lawyers.

⁵ I explain the treaty making power of the United States in two papers here

⁶ During the Terri Schiavo case, Alan Keyes spoke on the radio about the constitutional powers of the President.  I seem to recall that Dr. Keyes spoke of the President’s obligation to exercise his “independent judgment” as to whether an act of Congress or a federal court opinion is constitutional. Whatever he said, he opened my eyes, and enabled me to see the elegant beauty of our Constitution.

⁷  Hamilton also says in Federalist No. 33 (6^th para)

…it will not follow…that acts of …[the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of … [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [T]he clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union [Art. VI, cl. 2]…EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [caps are Hamilton's, boldface mine]

⁸ Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):

…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; … [boldface added]

The President must not collude with the executive or judicial branches to usurp power over The People!

⁹ Most of the existing “federal” executive agencies are unconstitutional.  They meddle in matters which are not the business of the federal government, as power over the matters is not granted by our Constitution to the federal government.  Here are a few of the unconstitutional federal agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Education, Transportation, and Homeland Security.  Likewise for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of National Drug Control Policy,  the National Economic Council, the Small Business Administration, the Council on Environmental Quality, etc., etc., etc.

¹⁰  Progressives have erased the concept of “federalism” from our minds. “Federalism” refers to the form of our government & the division of powers between the national government and the States. A “Federation” (which is what our Constitution creates) is an alliance of independent States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY (i.e., the enumerated powers granted to Congress by our Constitution).  Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government is to have authority over the States.  In all other matters, the States have supremacy, are independent, and sovereign!  Learn more of “federalism” here and here.

Our Framers warned against the consolidation of the sovereign States into one national sovereignty:   In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), Hamilton writes,

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…. [caps are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

Federalist No. 62 (5th para) says,

… the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty.  So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. [boldface mine]

And in Federalist No. 39  (6th para), Madison says,

“But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision….[caps are Madison's]

Madison then gives a brilliant exposition of the “national” and “federal” aspects of Our Constitution.  More than any other Paper, No. 39 addresses the primary political problem of our Time:  The  destruction of “federalism” by eradicating all vestiges of sovereign & independent States.

We are a trusting People easily lead astray.  Make something sound “patriotic”, and we are all for it.  Since 1892, American public school children have been indoctrinated with the statist Lie that ours is an indivisible national government.  This was done by means of the Pledge of Allegiance:  “….one nation … indivisible…”.  Is it any wonder that the author of this nasty bit of poison, Francis Bellamy, was a socialist who worked with the National Education Association to institute this statist indoctrination into the public schools?  This pernicious pledge is why you don’t know, and no one knows, that our Constitution created a “federation” of sovereign & independent States, united only for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. Wikipedia has good info on Bellamy. PH

Here is Aga Khan/Rick Perry Curriculum: Scrubbed from Web, Cache Scrubbed from Google Search

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

http://wp.me/pLu72-NB

Hostility to America’s religious heritage surfaces from coast to coast

 http://wp.me/pLu72-Ng