Obama the Thugfather, on Oil, Internet, Free Speech, Health "care", and Immigration

1) Our Caudillo President As I write this on Monday night, there are rumors around that BP will agree to President Barack Obama's demand that the oil giant "voluntarily" put about $30 billion into a fund to be administered by the government to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. Now, no one disputes that this is a real disaster and that BP acted irresponsibly in commissioning Trans-Ocean and Halliburton to drill for oil in waters so deep that if a failure occurred there would be no way to fix it -- at least until major damage had been done. BP, Trans-Ocean, and Halliburton, as well as the individuals involved, have much to answer for. But the action of the President in demanding this immense transfer of the stockholders' wealth without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides. The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM. When I called the White House press office to ask under what law or regulation Mr. Obama was acting, I was told he did not need a law. If the government put a lot of money into GM, it could call the shots at GM, I was told. But under what authority, I asked. "None needed," was the final answer (emphasis mine). …The same goes for Mr. Obama's demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling. There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand. Mr. Obama's demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional act. Of course, every President tries "jawboning" to restrain steel company price increases or something similar. But to create specific enactments and actions without any authority -- now Mr. Obama's specialty -- is so at odds with the law of the land that it terrifies me. These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator. If you want to know why business has pulled in its horns and hunkered down, and why people at tea parties and elsewhere are scared, look no further than Barack "I Am The Law" Obama (emphasis mine). See: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/16/the-caudillo-president 1a) Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White House Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is under fire from the White House and the Beltway media for his statement to BP today: “I’m only speaking for myself. I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize. I do not want to live in a county where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, [it is] subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown.” Barton should have been apologizing to the American people, not BP, but other than that he is 100% correct. What happened in the White House yesterday was a “shakedown” of Godfather-like proportions. Lets review: 1) BP agreed to pay $20 billion over four years to an “independent” party; 2) BP immediately identified $20 billion in U.S. assets that could be liquidated should BP not be able to pay on time; 3) BP received no assurances that the ultimate economic damages would not be higher; 4) BP is still liable for all individual and state claims in court; 5) The fund is completely separate from any environmental damages, which the Obama administration says could top $30 billion; 6) BP paid another $100 million for workers made unemployed by President Obama’s indefinite ban on offshore oil drilling; 7) BP received no assurance that the White House would not ask for more money if the ban becomes permanent. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/17/joe-barton-is-right-there-was-a-20-billion-shakedown-in-the-white-house/ 1b) Bachmann: Obama Exceeding Constitutional Authority in Ordering BP to Surrender Funds--'It's All About Extortion' Washington (CNSNews.com) – Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Tuesday that President Barack Obama is exceeding his legitimate constitutional authority in telling BP it must set up an independent fund, not controlled by the company, for compensating victims of the Gulf oil spill. She described the administration's policy as an action "that's all about extortion." "Private companies need to be held accountable but not necessarily to the executive branch," said Bachmann. "It seems to me there’s a misreading of the Constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House on what the extent of executive power is. They don’t seem to understand that and it—now it seems that it’s all about extortion--and that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and that’s not what the Executive is supposed to do. There is a real misreading of jurisdictional limits, and they continue to stretch those limits beyond all bounds." …The conservative from Minnesota said she was particularly bothered by the call President Obama made Monday--later reiterated in his Oval Office address Tuesday night--for BP to set aside money for reimbursements to victims of the Gulf oil spill that would be administered independently, taking control of the money away from the company. “The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund, and now it appears we’re going to be looking at yet one more gateway for more government control, more money to government,” she said. “If there’s a disaster, why is it that government is the one who always seems to benefit after a disaster?” The proposed fund that the administration wants BP to create would go to reimburse individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast that make claims as a result of the oil spill. But the money, which belongs to BP stockholders, would be taken out BP's control and the administration has not clearly stated what due process of law would be observed in distributing the money (emphasis mine). The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified specifically to prevent the government from taking or redistributing private property without due process of law. The amendment says: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67800 1c) A Brand of “Independence” Only Obama Could Love President Barack Obama promised in his Oval Office speech that an “independent third party” would be responsible for overseeing the distribution of $20 billion in funds set-aside to compensate those harmed by the BP oil spill disaster. Apparently, though, “independence” is all in the eye of the beholder. When that beholder is President Obama, an “independent third party” can apparently be someone from his own administration who serves at his will and direction. Enter Kenneth Feinberg, a Democrat, Obama administration pay czar, and now-overseer of the $20 billion BP trust fund. Unfortunately, his only true independence is from congressional approval and from the will of the American people (emphasis mine). What’s more, he’s not independent from President Barack Obama. That’s dangerous, considering the extent of Feinberg’s unchecked power and nature of his job. As Russ Ferguson writes in The American Spectator: “Czars have almost unlimited power and are not subject to Congressional oversight like their cabinet-member counterparts. That means the payment of claims under the new $20 billion escrow account will be another set of money that is controlled solely by the President. This is yet another instance of this President extending his reach. Another instance of upsetting the careful balance of powers our forefathers so prudently placed in our founding document.” Feinberg has made a living out of picking winners and losers — he managed the fund that compensated families of 9-11 victims, he did the same for victims of the Virginia Tech shooting, and he set the pay for top executives who received federal bail-out funds. President Obama spoke of his confidence in Feinberg’s ability to dole out the BP dollars, stating, “And I’m confident he will ensure that claims are administered as quickly, as fairly, and as transparently as possible.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/17/a-brand-of-independence-only-obama-could-love 1d) Morning Bell: A Crisis of Competence Nearly 31 years ago, on July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter told the American people from the Oval Office: “Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.” Last night the American people heard almost the exact same speech from President Barack Obama: “I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens. … The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.” Unbelievable. Nothing about cleaning up/stopping the spill and everything about campaigning for his own leftist agenda. The leftist agenda is what prevented this drilling from being done safely in the first place - way out where it is unsafe to drill instead of closer to shore. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs billed the speech as an “inflection point,” where the President’s initial response would be replaced by more decisive action. But this is now day 57. Where has the decisive action been up to this point? The Obama administration has not been working in a coordinated fashion. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House, as well as the Coast Guard, have been putting out confusing and contradictory statements since the disaster began. Federal regulatory red tape has gotten in the way of the cleanup, including: 1) missed opportunities to burn off more of the oil because of overblown air pollution concerns; 2) holdups in the use of dispersants; 3) permit delays in allowing the state of Louisiana to create artificial barriers against the encroaching oil slick; 4) failure to waive regulatory prohibitions against foreign assistance; and 5) failure to approve barges and booms in time to block oil from reaching Alabama’s Magnolia River. Instead of providing leadership and properly coordinating the response, the Obama administration has chosen to shift blame and politicize the disaster, including: 1) “not-at-all veiled shot[s] at the Bush Administration” for the state of the Minerals and Management Service; 2) vague threats of criminal prosecution from Attorney General Eric Holder; 3) a moratorium on offshore oil drilling which could kill 120,000 jobs in the Gulf alone; and 4) pushing caps on carbon dioxide emissions which have no hope of cleaning up a single drop of oil spilled. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/16/morning-bell-a-crisis-of-competence 1e) The President's Oil Reserves Lie Tuesday night, following a tour of the Gulf Coast area, the President of the United States addressed the nation regarding the state of the BP oil spill. In his speech from the Oval Office, President Obama spoke regarding our nation's dependence upon oil and how we need to break that dependence. During his speech, the president made a statement that was blatantly false. The president noted, "We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserve. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water." We are not running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. In fact, it is due to the president's party of extreme environmentalists that BP had to drill some forty miles from the coastline in deep waters to extract oil. Imagine if this oil leak had happened in the shallow waters off of the East Coast or even, dare we say it, in the pristine ANWR region. How much easier it would have been to cap the leak and clean up the oil? Consider our nation's vast oil reserve resources that are currently unavailable for use due to government ownership of the land or outright bans on drilling in certain areas. According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries (emphasis mine). That's three hundred years, Mr. President. We are not running out of oil reserves -- it's just that those oil reserves have been declared off-limits due to decades of environmental lobbying of our politicians, especially those on the Left. This lobbying has driven the likes of BP and others out deep into the Gulf of Mexico to extract the nation's needed oil. Note the following statement from the article: ... untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today's levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil (emphasis mine). See: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_presidents_oil_reserves_li.html 1f) BP Oil Spill: Against Gov. Jindal's Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has spent the past week and half fighting to get working barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. By Thursday morning, against the governor's wishes, those barges still were sitting idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore. "It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor told ABC News while visiting Buras, La. "Literally, [Wednesday] morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges." Sixteen barges sat stationary Thursday, although they had been sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk. See: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379 2) Engulfing the Internet Despite opposition by a House of Representatives majority and a bipartisan group of Senators, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday is expected to proceed with plans to impose federal government regulation of the Internet (emphasis mine), which would essentially treat broadband networks -- and the companies that invested more than $200 billion in private capital to deploy them -- as utilities. The commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, and his staff have insisted that imposing federal regulations originally written in the 1930s for the telephone is the only way the Obama Administration can gain the "kind of oversight and control that we need," says an FCC staffer with ties to another Democrat commissioner. "Look at the Gulf oil spill, that's what happens when we let corporations just do their own thing without any accountability. We can't allow that to happen with the Internet. We won't allow it." No, we can’t allow that to happen to the Internet, can we boys and girls? UNBELIEVABLE! The vote to continue the review and comment process at the FCC is expected to be a party-line vote, with the two Republican commissioners voting against the proposed regulatory scheme. Under the Obama Administration's plan, the FCC would be able to enforce so-called "net neutrality" rules, allowing the federal government to set how broadband and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) manage the networks. By bringing broadband and the Internet under FCC regulatory oversight, the FCC would also be able to impose policies related to speech or online business models. "The American public really has no idea how devastating these policies are going to have on free speech and the Internet," says a Republican Senate staffer. "If they are able to impose these regulations, they would be able to impose a host of different regulations that would limit free speech online and essentially give the left the upper hand. First the auto industry, then health care and the financial services industry, now this." See: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/17/en-gulfing-the-internet/ 3) NRA exemption shows campaign disclosure bill's cynical, fatal flaws The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections. The NRA "carve-out" reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment's precise language: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Congress can't help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents' mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle. For its part, the NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind. Since the court's January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them. To foreclose that possibility, the Disclose Act would impose onerous and complicated "disclosure" restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221_pf.html 4) Hillary Clinton: Yes, Obama is filing a lawsuit against the Arizona law Hillary Clinton was interviewed by NTN24 out of Quito, Ecuador on June 8, and was asked about how the Obama administration was handling the Arizona law. She answered frankly, that the justice department, under Obama’s direction, will bring a lawsuit against the Arizona law. See: http://www.therightscoop.com/hillary-clinton-yes-obama-is-filing-a-lawsuit-against-the-arizona-law 5) What to Expect in Next Year’s Health Benefits Offerings RIGHT about now, as you’re dusting off your beach gear, may seem the wrong time to talk about next fall’s open enrollment for health insurance. But now is when big employers are busy assembling their benefits packages for 2011. And this year, they are having to factor in the new health law’s requirements, said Pearce R. Weaver Jr., a senior vice president at Fidelity Consulting Services. Not to rain on your beach parade, but come fall you’ll probably be asked to absorb even bigger cost increases than in the last few years. Although most of the new law’s big changes do not take effect until 2014, there are some provisions employers must comply with by next year. That includes extending health insurance coverage to uninsured dependents up to age 26, eliminating any lifetime or annual caps on coverage and paying 100 percent of some preventive care. As in years past, employers are also grappling with how to offset rising health care costs. Recent years have brought an average cost increase of about 9 percent, said Tracy Watts, a partner at Mercer Health and Benefits. In most cases, companies have been able to absorb about 6 percentage points of those cost increases a year, passing the rest onto employees. This year Ms. Watts estimates that changes made in response to the health law will add an extra 2 to 3 percent in cost increases, pressuring employers to engage in even more cost-sharing with employees — whether through higher premiums, co-payments or other out-of-pocket costs. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/health/12patient.html?ref=health 5a) Administration: 51% Of Companies’ Health Plans Won’t Pass Muster Internal White House documents reveal that 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage by 2013 due to ObamaCare. That numbers soars to 66% for small-business employers. The documents — product of a joint project of the Labor Department, the Health and Human Services Department and the IRS — examine the effects new regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans. …Under interim regulations, current employer-based coverage would not be grandfathered and hence subject to the health care laws’ consumer provisions if: * The plan eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition. * The plan increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above the level at which it was on March 23, 2010. * The plan increases the fixed amount of cost sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points. * The plan increases co-payments as a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5. * The employer’s share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010. According to the report, by 2013 51% of all employers — 66% of small employers (3-99 employees) and 45% of large employers — would have to relinquish current coverage. In a worst-case scenario, 69% of firms would lose their grandfathered status. This could pose a serious threat to President Obama’s claim that if you like your coverage, you’d get to keep it (emphasis mine). Do ‘ya think? See: http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1830-administration-51-of-companies-health-plans-wont-pass-muster 5b) Senate fails to spare doctors from Medicare cuts WASHINGTON – After a week of partisan wrangling, the Senate on Friday passed legislation to spare doctors a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments looming for months. But the last-ditch effort came too late. Moments after the Senate acted, Medicare announced it would begin processing claims it has already received for June at the lower rate. The reason: the House cannot act on the fix until next week. That means doctors, nurse practitioners, physical therapists and other providers who bill under Medicare's physician fee schedule will have to resubmit their claims if they want to be made whole, with added paperwork costs both for the providers and for taxpayers. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100619/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_spending 6) Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: 56% now disapprove of president’s performance The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. …Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove. The president’s approval rating has held steady in the 46% - 47% range for six months and it remains to be seen whether this new low is merely statistical noise or the start of a lasting change. See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll 7) Obama Administration Secretly Working With Russia to Limit US Missile Defense The Obama administration is secretly working with Russia to conclude an agreement that many officials fear will limit U.S. missile defenses, a key objective of Moscow since it opposed plans for a U.S. missile defense interceptor base in Eastern Europe, according to American officials involved in arms control issues. According to the officials, the administration last month presented a draft agreement on missile defenses to the Russians as part of talks between Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov. The secret talks and possible agreement have triggered alarm among pro-missile defense advocates who are concerned that the administration, in its effort to "reset" ties with Moscow, will make further concessions constraining current and future missile defenses. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/16/inside-the-ring-382424672/ 8) White House Presses Congress to Weaken Iran Sanctions After securing a mild sanctions resolution at the U.N. Security Council against Iran earlier this week, the Obama Administration is now lobbying Congress to dilute pending Iran sanctions legislation. The administration wants the authority to waive penalties against companies that sell gasoline or other refined oil products to Iran if those companies are based in countries that have cooperated in imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran. This is viewed by many in Congress as another concession to Russia, China, and European countries that have resisted American efforts to impose much tougher sanctions on Iran. The administration’s schizophrenic policy on Iran has long been apparent to Capitol Hill observers, but increasingly has frustrated even members of the President’s own party. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who has been a leading advocate of stronger sanctions on Iran, complained that “The administration doesn’t carry out the laws that are on the books, and they want the new law to be as weak and loophole-ridden as possible.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/11/white-house-presses-congress-to-weaken-iran-sanctions 9) EXCLUSIVE: Alert Issued for 17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned. The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," written by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas and obtained by FoxNews.com. …Afghans are not the only foreign military who have gone AWOL from Lackland, Emery said. "In 2009, the Defense Language Institute English Language Center reported two other students from countries other than Afghanistan went missing," he told FoxNews.com. "They include one Iraqi who requested asylum in Houston and one Djiboutian whose status is unknown. To date in 2010, one student from Tunisia and one from Guinea Bissau have gone AWOL in addition to the Afghani student [Aryan] who went AWOL in January. See: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/17/afghan-military-deserters-missing-air-force-base/ 10) Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC2) Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk Last week, Democrat Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC2) attended a fundraiser headlined by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was asked by some students on the street whether he supported the “Obama Agenda.” He didn’t take it well. See: http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2010/06/14/long-hot-summer-begins-congressman-attacks-student/ 11) Pastor tests IRS by endorsing candidate A South Dakota minister says he wants to do for religious freedom what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did for civil rights. The Rev. H. Wayne Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, last month endorsed GOP state Sen. Gordon Howie in the South Dakota governor's race, in defiance of the Internal Revenue Service and a federal court ruling and in hopes of producing a landmark constitutional test case. At issue is an IRS regulation called the Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, that says that 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the section of the tax code under which most churches file, cannot endorse a specific political candidate and retain its nonprofit classification. "Why is it that I cannot walk with my Master, my Lord, in speaking on government issues?" asked Mr. Williams, citing the example of other religious leaders such as King, John the Baptist and biblical prophets, all of whom involved themselves in political issues. …The court ruled on the Johnson Amendment in a 1992 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that a church does not have a constitutional right to endorse a political candidate, but can speak on political issues. Although the original idea was to prevent entanglement of church and state, Mr. Stanley said, the Johnson Amendment winds up giving the state oversight of the content of churches' political speech in order to determine whether it constitutes "endorsement" of a candidate. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/15/pastor-tests-irs-by-endorsing-candidate/