Archive for the ‘President of the United States’ Category

Yesterday, May Day, International Worker’s Day, was declared by the president to be Loyalty Day:

We have held fast to the principles at our country’s core: service and citizenship; courage and the common good; liberty, equality, and justice for all.

This is our Nation’s heritage, and it is what we remember on Loyalty Day. It is an occasion that asks something of us as a people: to rediscover those ageless truths our Founders held to be self-evident, and to renew them in our own time. We look back to Americans who did the same, from generation to generation — citizens who strengthened our democracy, organizers who made it broader, service members who gave everything to protect it. These patriots and pioneers remind us that while our path to a more perfect Union is unending, with hope and hard work, we can move forward together.

Yes, the common good, democracy (mob rule, not a republic), and organizers who broadened democracy and reduced the republic, all us moving forward together.  These are things the pioneers worked for.

pioneer all hail the young pioneers worthy next generation

Just different pioneers.

In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.”

Loyalty day was established back in 1921 in contrast to May Day, but it’s easy to see the changes it goes through depending on who’s president, and how now it’s sounding more and more like International Worker’s Day.

From The Weekly Standard:

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here’s the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

I love how our president is so concerned about the “rights” of doctors. He is so concerned about those rights that he is ready and willing to enable doctors to gather information on individuals, that some how will not violate patient privacy laws, that sure looks like it infringes on every citizens right to bear arms. How is a doctor going to know if a family owns weapons? Is it any of that doctor’s business? I know if my doctor ask me about guns and etc. I will walk straight out of his office and find myself another doctor. Don’t get me wrong if someone’s life is in danger, a doctor does need to get involved, what the president is suggesting though is outright spying on citizens and reporting information directly to the federal government.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

From the Washington Times:

President Obama is using the national debate over gun violence to push for further action on his health care law…. Mr. Obama, unveiling his gun proposals Wednesday barely a month after the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn., will make it clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police.

Those are some of the 23 executive actions Mr. Obama plans to take whether or not Congress acts on his broader recommendations, the White House said.

Other moves including offering incentives for schools to hire police; finally naming a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and requiring federal authorities to trace all guns recovered in their criminal investigations.

Mr. Obama also will call on his secretaries of education and health and human services to hold a national dialogue on mental health.

The entire list of the actions Mr. Obama is taking comprises:

1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The original article is here.

 

President Barack Obama and Vice President Jose...

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The link to Matt Drudge’s site is here.

 

This is getting serious folks, Joe “foot in the mouth,” Biden has now stated that,

 

The president is going to act…. There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required….

So the question is now, does Congress play dead and allow this to happen like they did with the President using an Executive Order to legislate from the White House and make the DREAM Act a reality?

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Let’s preface this appropriately by a quote from Sportsmen for Obama:

President Obama supports the rights of gun owners as guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and believes that the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms.

Today from The Hill, as quoted on Meet The Lawbreaking Press:

President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.

The president is putting his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms.  Contrast that with what the Constitution says: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Now read the full weight quote again.  This president is violating his oath of office as much as if he said he were putting his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on free speech.

“I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it,” Obama said in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”

Disarming the innocent does nothing to change anything.  But again, this isn’t about guns, it’s ultimately about control.

But he has also called on Congress to move quickly to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines.

I’ve addressed “Why High Capacity Magazines” just recently, but to touch on it in the shortest way possible, would you end up the victim of a home invasion robbery by five guys, would you rather have 6 rounds, 10 rounds, or 30 rounds?

“I’ve been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,” the president said.

And banning handguns, and all guns that don’t belong to his government.  Yeah, we know.  “Shall not be infringed” means “a ban, banning these other things, background checks to exercise a right are all things I have historically supported.”  Yes, his oath of office is as meaningless now as it was when he was an Illinois senator.

“I’d like to get it done in the first year.  I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden’s task force is putting together as we speak. And so this is not something that I will be putting off.”

Translation: “I have to do this before people catch on to it and realize it’s a feel-good measure that does nothing but expand government power.  I put Joe Biden in charge because he’s a mindless ideologue who doesn’t care about facts, and doesn’t listen to the other side, and can be trusted to ram this crap through and f*** the citizen back into the serf they should be.”

“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me.  I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.  And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” he said.

Wait, what?

We joke sometimes about how Malia’s getting to the age now, and boys start calling and, you know, sort of, I always talk about how one of the main incentives for running again was continuing Secret Service protection to have men with guns around at all times

It’s not really a joke, though.

guns make us less safe obama hypocrisy

And the president who sent thousands of guns to narcoterrorist cartels to kill our Mexican neighbors then goes on:

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said.

Of course, the leftist-logic solution to this is…

ban all the guns

And of course, with regards to this statement:

“I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” Obama said. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

David Gregory, who interviewed him, and is a gun law breaker himself, has kids who go to school with Obama’s kids.  And they have 11 armed guards at the school.  The rest of you, the little people, don’t need your kids protected.  Guns are bad, m’kay, while the President and David “High Capacity Stupid” Gregory, have a squad of armed security who specialize in CQB.

secret service cqb

Because now, as it was for the thousands of years of human civilization before the American experiment began, laws are once again for you, not for the elites.  Welcome back to serfdom.

The Founders disagreed vehemently.

While reading up about the super-convenient timing of General Petraeus being outed as CIA chief just as he was about to testify about Benghazi, I stumbled over this.

The wikipedia entry for it is decidedly unflattering, but that’s not really much of a surprise.  Even though some may be exaggerated, much of it isn’t in question any more at all.  It’s just a matter of “telling the truth slowly”.

Interesting stuff, and interesting to think about the information that we currently know about both Gunwalker/Fast and Furious and Benghazi; not to mention our current presidents’ prior associates and inner circle.  Weird to think about how things that are going on now will be remembered, as well as how some of them already are remembered, or simply forgotten about.

From around the internet:

Yeah… I don’t have enough beer.

Via The Blaze:

From the transcript of the President’s speech in Roanoke, Va.

President Barack Obama delivers remarks to sma...

President Barack Obama delivers remarks to small business owners, community lenders and members of Congress in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy F. Geithner has his back to the camera. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Emphasis added)

Business Owner: Well what if I didn’t have help, what if I am that smart, what if I do put in a 60 or 70 hour week Mr. President? What if I do have the best product out there? What if people like how I run my business better than the next guy?

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. [Emphasis added]

Business Owner: You know what I might have had a good teacher along the way, but did they actually help me start and run my business, their INFLUENCE may have helped me, but did they actually participate in the blood, sweat and tears that got me to the level of success I have experienced today? How did a road and a bridge help me start a business, sir? People had businesses before interstate highways. I did build my business on my own, I planned it, I executed it, I hired others who wanted to work for me, I constantly made my product better and now its the best out there. How dare you sir, tell me that my business is NOT the RESULT of my OWN HARD WORK!

JBH: Ownership of property is the hallmark of the American way. It has made us what we are today, without it we are no better than the next social democracy out there. For the president to make his comment that business owners did not make their own success is a fallacy in the worst sense. It is an out right lie and should be insulting to every business own out there. You business owners are what make the American economy turn without you there would be no American Dream.

Business Owners please remember the following:

  • YOU are the ENGINE of the economy, not government.
  • YOU are the JOB CREATORS, not government.
  • YOU are the INNOVATORS,not government.
  • YOU are the epitome of the AMERICAN DREAM, not government.
  • DO NOT feel guilt, YOU are VIRTUOUS, not government.

For the record on the internet take a look here. For the record I didn’t see the word government mentioned anywhere.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Direct from SCOTUS:

A few positive points to be made about Chief Justice Roberts opinion:

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Concerning the Individual Mandate:

Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product…. The language of the Constitution reflects the natural understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already something to be regulated…. As expansive as our cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they all have one thing in common: They uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity….”The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority…. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him…. The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent.”

Indeed it would and I agree with the Chief Justice on this issue specifically. Congress does NOT need to be involved in any citizen’s decision to buy anything or for that matter to not buy anything. The above reasoning is sound and leads me to believe that the Chief Justice isn’t totally insane for upholding this monstrosity of a law.

Chief Justice Roberts now has this to say concerning the government’s argument that Obamacare is constitutional due to the application of the “necessary and proper clause:”

The Government next contends that Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact the individual mandate because the mandate is an “integral part of a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation…. As our jurisprudence under the Necessary and Proper Clause has developed, we have been very deferential to Congress’s determination that a regulation is “necessary.” We have thus upheld laws that are “‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’” But we have also carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution…. Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms. Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power. This is in no way an authority that is “narrow in scope….” Rather, such a conception of the Necessary and Proper Clause would work a substantial expansion of federal authority. No longer would Congress be limited to regulating under the Commerce Clause those who by some preexisting activity bring themselves within the sphere of federal regulation. Instead, Congress could reach beyond the natural limit of its authority and draw within its regulatory scope those who otherwise would be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Act’s insurance reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.

What the Chief Justice is saying here again echoes his previous comments concerning the “commerce clause.” That if the government had its way and the court had gone with both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause as justifications for the constitutionality of Obamacare that, in short, the federal government could literally come in and regulate any and all decisions an individual can make in their lifetime which sounds just like the Life of Julia. I don’t want government deciding any life issues for me nor do I desire the “Cradle to grave ” help”from the federal government.

Now the Chief Justice handles the governments last defense of the individual mandate:

Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

There it is, the word we have all been waiting for…. Taxes. Remember this:

The President himself rejects the notion that the “fee” that must be paid to the government is not a tax. Now back to Chief Justice Roberts:

The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.”

Who is the government again? The President, the Congress, The Supreme Court. Which branch was responsible for defending Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court. The answer is the Presidency and last I checked Barack Hussein Obama was President, his own solicitor general from the Department of Justice defended the law. The President says via interview that the individual mandate is not a tax, but his solicitor general argues that it is? Which is it Mr. President? Did you lie to us? I am guessing yes.

Cheif Justice Robert goes on to say that it is ok to tax a person based on behavior.  I do not think it is correct to tax a citizen based on his behavior  (owning or not owning a commodity). The question should be asked now, “What else can the federal government tax?”

Enhanced by Zemanta