I meant to get to this last week, but “historian” Douglas Brinkley is so forgettable as a writer that it all slipped my mind. But, it’s a slow news day, so let’s take a look at the temper tantrum this hack threw when he visited the House Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 22, shall we?

Brinkley was there to provide his, uh, “insight” into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, testimony that Alaska Rep. Don Young called “an exercise in futility” because the hearing wasn’t going to be changing anyone’s mind about the subject. I’d have to agree that anything including hack Brinkley truly is an exercise in futility. He’s one of the worst writers of popular history out there.

The fireworks began when Rep. Young accidentally called Brinkley by the wrong last name. This sent the scribbler off into paroxysms of pique and spurred him to interrupt not only Rep. Young, but also Committee Chair Doc Hastings when he tried to restore order.

Rep. Young later told the Washington Post’s Amy Argetsinger that he thought that Brinkley was just trying to get publicity with his outburst.

But I disagree with the Congressman. Brinkley is a hack of the first order and has a left-wing agenda. He likely went into that committee hearing with a chip on his shoulder already and was looking for anything to show that he was the newest Captain Planet that wanted to keep drilling for oil out of his wildlife refuge.

Writer Douglas Hackley has also urged President Obama to use his fiat powers to turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into a national monument. This would take any possibility of drilling for oil right off the table.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Obama does this, too. President Obama has shown a fondness for simply “declaring” things into law and is not fond of actually following the law making process. He’s said on numerous occasions that he is looking for ways to get his agenda put into action “without Congress,” and that means without YOU, the people. Let’s face it, you, Mr. and Mrs. America, you have sent your congressmen to Washington and if Obama is pushing his agenda without those duly elected representatives he’s doing so without your input as voters. He cares neither for your opinion nor that of your elected representatives. This is the single most arrogant man we’ve ever had in the Oval Office.

Anyway, back to Brinkley, it should not surprise anyone that he was hot to display his own arrogance and lack of decorum. He is well known as one of the worst writers of popular history in the field. It should also not surprise that he is appealing directly to Obama over your representatives — including those that actually live in the state that Brinkley wants millions of acres declared off limits to use.

It should be remembered that this writer of hackneyed hagiography was one of the cadre of historians that Obama invited to a secret dinner at the White House only months after he assumed the throne. Obama was obviously trying to influence these historians to write the proper history of his regime when all is said and done.

But of those agenda driven writers, Brinkley is the worst of the crew. And it’s not just my biased opinion, either. Even left-wingers have said that Brinkley’s work leaves a lot to be desired.

Brinkley Is well known for having belched out a wholly uncritical take on John F. Kerry’s life during the Senator’s doomed run for the White House against George W. Bush in 2004. The book was little else but sunny campaign puffer that was worthless as a work of history. Before that, Brinkley prostituted himself all over TV as the chief mourner for John Kennedy, Jr. when he flew himself to his death in 1999. Brinkley’s over-the-top celebration of Kennedy and the writer’s ubiquity on TV during those days were so bad that Kennedy’s George Magazine even removed him from their masthead as a contributor. Brinkley was so ridiculous that even the lefty Slate.com once wrote, “Even amid this week’s staggering hyperbole, Brinkley’s emotional profligacy has distinguished him.”” Not a compliment, to be sure.

Brinkley is also one of those slavishly devoted Obamaites that constantly compares Obama to the most famous men of history — even though Obama has done little to rate the praise. In 2011, for instance, Brinkley said that Obama was somehow just like Martin Luther King.

In all, given his history of political activism and his penchant for loosely sourced hagiographic fiction, none of Brinkley’s lack of civility at a mere Committee hearing should surprise us. The only surprise here is that anyone takes him seriously at all.

I cannot support Mitt Romney in this coming GOP primary. The one reason why can be summed up simply as this: he flip flops. Romney has more flip flops than a California beachfront. Mitt has been proven a man without anchor adrift in a sea of issues that push him and pull him with the tides. Even worse, maybe, is that he jumps from one ship to the other on those political tides with the sole purpose of scoring a political win. So, how could I say that such a rudderless sailor could be an OK president?

Well, there is one way that a shiftless Mitt Romney might be good for both the country and the conservative cause but it certainly isn’t because he cares at all about conservative issues. It isn’t that he’ll champion them himself, either. But think about this. What does an unmoored boat do but drift with the tide? This is where, if played correctly, Romney could actually work for conservatives.

In fact, a President Romney could be good for Congress no matter which side of the political divide is in control. And control is the word, too.

For far too long Congress has been slowly giving away its Constitutional powers to legislate. Through sloth and selfish re-election needs Congressmen have been allowing the courts to take an unconstitutional role in determining our legislation as well as standing aside as one president after another grabs power unto the executive branch that he wasn’t supposed to have — the latter of which both left and right have complained about for decades.

Up until today we’ve had presidents with strong ideological principles that serve as the guide by which they’ve made policy. Clinton had a liberalism tempered by some centrism, George W. Bush the opposite. Reagan came to Washington with specific ideals on what he wanted to achieve and Obama has too, though in the entirely opposite direction as Ron’s.

But Mitt Romney is a marshmallow. He’s been on every side of every issue throughout his decades as a politician. These days, of course, he’s edged toward conservatism and this gives conservatives an “in” if you will.

I am not suggesting that Romney will stay with these principles. A recent Romney apology by Michael Gerson weakly claimed that because Romney has switched to conservative ideals this time around he’d look too foolish to switch again. But that is simply poppycock. Once a flip flopper always a flip flopper. He’ll easily justify the next flip flop and it will only be Gerson left looking foolish.

So, here is the good news. The fact that Romney is easily led by the political winds gives Speaker Boehner as well as Congressional conservatives the opportunity to become an unmoored president’s pilot. If Boehner and conservatives make their issues winners, this will lead President Romney by the nose down the right path.

The best thing is it gives Congress the opportunity to again take back some of its powers and begin to right the ship of state (if I can get nautical again for a moment).

But it will take a concerted effort to push these conservative issues. None of this working with the left business will do. Romney, will likely start bending his newfound conservative ideas the first time the intelligentsia at The New York Times squawk at his policy ideas. He’ll likely rediscover his linguine spine the second some Democrat calls his conservative policy ideas “racist.” He’ll suddenly want to “work with” every left-winger that comes down the pike.

But because he has no real principles he’ll be apt to pushes from conservatives, as well. If we mount a strong campaign of conservative ideas, budget cuts and all, we can keep a President Romney on the straight and narrow. But it will require a very active Congress not a Congress content to let everyone else take the lead so that at election time they can point fingers everywhere else.

Conservative ideas are winners with the voters. We’ve seen many issues come our way in the last few decades. Abortion is becoming less popular every year. Pro-Second Amendment issues are such winners that the Democrats hardly even talk about their gun banning ideas any more. People are down on unions, agree that government is too large, and think that taxes are too high. These winning issues can only get stronger if Congress pushes them hard. And a weak President Romney will give conservatives the opportunity they need to push his presidency in the right direction.

But I’ll leave you with this reiteration: the left will have the very same opportunity to push a weak-willed President Romney. So, we can’t just sit back and enjoy a win if Romney should happen to win both the GOP primary and the 2012 general election. The second Romney enters the White House our work must begin in earnest. Don’t wait for this flip flopper to take the lead. Push him, conservatives, push him. If you don’t you’ll be on the outside looking in as Romney is bent, twisted, and mutilated by the political left.

I’ll work to defeat Mitt Romney in the primary. But if he wins I’ll work to make his presidency a conservative one despite him.

One of the reasons that our economic recovery has been so slow is that the Obama administration has opened a continuous avalanche of regulations affecting jobs, hampering businesses, and costing all of us billions in lost revenue, taxation, and waste. But there is a bill in the House called the REINS Act that could help tamp down this avalanche, save us all money, help bring back the creation of jobs that aren’t being created now.

The full name of the act is the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act and that is a pretty straight forward name for the legislation as its premise is that regulatory agencies are so out of control and the costs they impose on the people have become so onerous that Congress has to step in and place limits on this untrammeled power. (H.R. 10 and the Senate’s similar bill S. 299)

The bill was introduced two years ago by Kentucky Representative Geoff Davis (R) who got the idea from a constituent who confronted the Representative on the costs of regulation. Davis’ bill would require an up or down vote by Congress and the President’s signature on all regulations that will cost Americans $100 million or more to implement.

As Davis’ REINS Act website explains:

For too long, Congress has delegated much of its constitutional authority to Executive Agencies. This has allowed Executive Branch agencies to implement rules that are sometimes ineffective, redundant, time consuming, costly, and even counterproductive. In addition, it has allowed previous Congresses to limit their accountability for such rules by front-loading the benefits of legislation and back-loading the costs.

The REINS Act would restore congressional responsibility and accountability in the regulatory process so that the elected representatives of the people can be held accountable. This will ensure that new major rules serve their intended purpose and do not place unnecessary burdens on the job-creating businesses that our economy needs to grow.

This is actually a sort of cause for me, that Congress has given away its powers to everyone but other Congressmen! Congress has allowed its powers to be slowly chipped away by allowing the the courts to take power and the president to take power away from it. It’s time Congress reasserted its rights.

This is a good start for Congress to reassert its authority. Call your congressman and tell him to support the REINS Act now.

For more information, the Heritage Foundation has a webpage on the REINS Act.

Phil Kerpen has a warning for you, America. He wants to alert you to the fact that Barack Obama is using his powers to create regulations to undermine Congress, ignore voters, and “radically transform America.” But Kerpen also has some good news. There’s a way to stop this left-wing assault on our country. You can find out what that something is in his new book, Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America — and How to Stop Him.

For this book — his first if I am not mistaken — Kerpen, the Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity, has decided no less than to save the Republic. Of course, it’s an uphill battle to beat back the war that has been launched against America for sure.

Why is it an uphill battle? Because the way our country is being torn down is happening in the most subtle way possible. Worse, it is all being done with such ersatz legality, a legitimacy so seemingly ironclad, that most Americans are completely unaware of what is happening. And when they are aware of it they imagine there is nothing wrong with it all.

That and the way this destruction is happening is not the sort of glamorous outrage that makes for exciting news coverage. In fact, it’s quite dull. After all, the way the country is being undermined is through long-winded, legalese-filled, opaque regulatory changes. Red tape. Underhanded, jargon-heavy rules, quietly implemented without fanfare or the light of day revealing them for that matter.

Like I said, Kerpen has an uphill battle not only to alert Americans to what is happening right under their very noses, but to excite them enough to do something about it.

Through the bulk of his book Kerpen outlines the way that our Americanness is being smothered in paper with the thousands of pages of new regulations that Obama is weekly churning out from his administration.

Kerpen details the way the Obama administration, guided by a hardcore, left-wing ideology, is attempting to take control of the Internet, is trying to eliminate private property rights, is destroying the business sector in favor of big labor unionization, is using the outsized fear of global warming to ramp up a socialist-styled enlargement of government control on all fronts from the EPA to our energy sector, and more. In each case, Kerpen notes that this regulatory overreach is directly contrary to our American character and our core ideals.

Kerpen also notes that this bacchanalia of regulations and the subsequent growth of the power of the president was even something that the left was exercised about during the eight years of the George W. Bush era. Unfortunately for the veracity of the left, all their concerns of an un-American growth of executive power have been wholly forgotten merely because they like the direction of the obscene overreach implemented by Obama. No end of hypocrisy there, eh?

Kerpen also points out something I’ve been saying for years. Yes, it is true that presidents have for decades been slowly stealing power from the other branches of government. But our elected representatives and senators are equally at fault for not zealously protecting their privileges. They’ve stepped aside and allowed this all to happen. Why have they done this? In my opinion, because it is the easier road traveled. After all, if they abdicate power to the president then they have less need to make tough decisions and stand for delineated positions and that makes their re-election easier!

Anyway, the final chapter gives us a roadmap to pruning these obscene powers stolen from the Congress and the people by this most leftist president in American history. But, it too has a warning. Just “doing the right thing” and voting is not enough. We must not only vote for representatives that will endeavor to take back their power to legislate from an out of control executive branch, we must follow up and force these elected officials to follow through on the charge we’ve handed them.

Seems like a good idea to me.

If you are interested in the way the left — and even some on the far right — have used the presidency to steal power from we the people and our elected representatives, get this book and read it. Then go forth and make a change we really can believe in.

It’s the 2012 Republican field’s first real moment in the foreign policy spotlight — the dilemma over how to respond to the apparent success of President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya.

So far, the strategy for nearly all the candidates is: don’t.

There’s an important word in there: apparent. The accompanying picture for the story has the caption “While they may be tired of foreign wars, Americans may welcome a positive outcome in Libya”. The thing is, we first must have one. Nothing is settled in Libya. The rebels haven’t yet won. We don’t know what will happen if they do. Al Qaeda is involved with the rebels, to what extent is unknown. Their draft constitution says that Sharia law is the “principle source of legislation.”

For the most part, the GOP has offered only a slow and muted response to the collapse of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime, which seems to spell the end of a dictator who has plagued the United States for decades.

Where’s the Democrat response? We aren’t hearing about that, are we? Probably because quite a few Democrats were dead set against getting involved in yet another war of choice, to use their phraseology. Remember, 10 Congressman, including Democrats John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Michael Capuano, are suing the Obama admin. for going to war without Congressional approval.

Ben Smith calls this a victory for leading from behind. Over at the NY Times, the columnists haven’t gotten involved as of yet to crow a bit about Obama abdicating America’s role, but, Mark Landler finds time to say that For Obama, A Moment To Savor, If Briefly. Remember, though, back during and before the “days, not weeks” comment (which became 5 months), much of the media was portraying Obama as a ditherer, as a “Where’s Waldo” president. They took him to task for not bothering to talk to the American people, and instead sending Sec. Of State Clinton to speak on Libya. The Obama admin. told us this wasn’t really a war-war, just some random launching of courtesy bombs.

I guess when a maybe possibly sorta win by Obama acting as the third string quarterback is about all he has to hang his hat on, the media needs to give him some props. Which is funny for a guy who constantly whined about not getting the US involved in wars of choice. But, since his domestic policy has been a complete and utter disaster….

(Just for reference, I actually supported intervention in Libya through air power means. Of course, that was before I knew that hard core Islamists were involved with the rebels. Which has nothing to do with Obama)

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

In a surprise announcement, the Obama administration said it will review the deportation cases of 300,000 illegal immigrants and might allow many of them to stay in the U.S., a decision that angered immigration hard-liners and pleased Hispanic advocacy groups.

Under the plan, federal authorities will review individually all cases of immigrants currently in deportation proceedings. Those who haven’t committed crimes and who aren’t considered a threat to public safety will have a chance to stay in the U.S. and to later apply for a work permit.

The shift could help counter growing discontent among Hispanic voters and immigration advocacy groups about record deportations; audits of businesses that have pushed undocumented workers underground; and the lack of progress toward overhauling the immigration system under President Barack Obama.

The announcement comes as several states seek to pass laws to crack down on illegal immigrants, including millions who flocked to the U.S. before the recession to take blue-collar jobs in construction, agriculture and hospitality.

A senior administration official described the move as an effort to better use limited immigration-enforcement resources and to alleviate pressure on overburdened immigration courts. The idea, this person said, is to “identify low-priority cases…and administratively close the case so they no longer clog the system.” The official added that such cases could be reopened by the government at any time.

While the announcement doesn’t address illegal immigrants who aren’t involved in deportation proceedings, it could benefit them indirectly. “They will be less likely to enter the caseload to begin with, so we can focus on folks in the caseload who are high priority,” said the administration official.

Critics described the decision as a step by the administration toward offering amnesty for illegal immigrants. “The Obama administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), head of the House Judiciary Committee.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which lobbies against legalization, said: “In essence, the administration has declared that U.S. immigration is now virtually unlimited to anyone willing to try to enter—subject only to those who commit violent felonies after arrival.”

Others welcomed the move. Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a nonpartisan advocacy organization, described it as a “step forward” and a “sound policy decision that uses valuable law-enforcement resources to remove those who once caused harm but keeps contributing members of the immigrant community here.”

The majority of agricultural workers are in the U.S. illegally. “We hope this is a move toward an immigration solution that works for agriculture,” said Jason Resnick, general counsel of Western Growers, a California-based association that represents produce growers. “Even in this time of great unemployment, we are not seeing domestic workers apply for jobs.”

Ordinarily, illegal immigrants can’t get work permits, and most never apply for fear of opening themselves up to deportation. The new plan would enable some to get permits, said the administration official, who didn’t elaborate other than to say decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nevada) outlining the plan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that an interagency working group would execute a “case-by-case review of all individuals currently in removal proceedings to ensure that they constitute our highest priorities.”

Administration officials said low-priority cases likely to be shelved include individuals brought to the U.S. as children by their parents, undocumented spouses of U.S. military personnel and immigrants who have no criminal record.

“This process will allow additional federal enforcement resources to be focused on border security and the removal of public safety threats,” Ms. Napolitano said in the letter.

Current immigration policy aims to deport illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes, but critics say it is snaring too many immigrants who have committed only minor offenses, like traffic violations, or who have called the police to report a crime. Controversy over a key element of the policy, the Secure Communities program, is threatening the president’s relations with the Hispanic community.

This week, there have been protests in several cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta, prompted by the surge in deportations and administration plans to expand the program.

More than 390,000 people were removed from the U.S. in each of the last two years, surpassing previous years. Immigration courts are so jammed it can often take more than a year for a judge to rule on a deportation case.

U.S. immigration policy has eclipsed the economy and jobs as the top issue for Hispanic voters, according to a national poll released in June. To Hispanic voters, Mr. Obama has touted his support for an immigration overhaul that would put illegal immigrants on the path to legalization, and has bemoaned a lack of support from Republicans.

The immigration issue is a critical one for Mr. Obama as he prepares for reelection. He won 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008. Republicans are unlikely to significantly increase their share of the Hispanic vote, but Mr. Obama needs Latinos to turn out in large numbers.

An effort to pass the Dream Act, which would allow certain young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children to stay, failed at the end of last year and has little chance in the Republican-controlled House. The prospects for comprehensive immigration legislation, which would provide a path to citizenship for a broader group of illegal immigrants, are even worse.

Hispanic lawmakers have called on the Obama administration to hold off deporting any young people who would qualify for legal residency under the Dream Act. Last month, four House Democrats wrote Mr. Obama arguing that most of those being deported “are not criminals and pose no threat to our country’s security.”

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

PRESIDENT OBAMA should announce that he will raise the debt ceiling unilaterally if he cannot reach a deal with Congress. Constitutionally, he would be on solid ground. Politically, he can’t lose. The public wants a deal. The threat to act unilaterally will only strengthen his bargaining power if Republicans don’t want to be frozen out; if they defy him, the public will throw their support to the president. Either way, Republicans look like the obstructionists and will pay a price.

So, the people would supposedly rally around King Barack? Hey, remember when Liberals had a problem with Bush supposedly acting in a unilateral manner?

Where would Mr. Obama get his constitutional authority to raise the debt ceiling?

This should be good – Constitutionality in Liberal World

Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.

So, if Obama thinks it is a necessity of state that everyone drive a hybrid, could he order that? But, that provision in the 14th, not to mention many other parts of the Constitution, puts it squarely at the feet of Congress, not the president, to pass the laws. The President does not pass laws: he is Constitutionally bound to follow the laws that Congress passes, after he signs them. Section 5 of the 14th lays it out. Perhaps a liberal should read the whole thing at some point.

When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession.

A deadlocked Congress has become incapable of acting consistently; it commits to entitlements it will not reduce, appropriates funds it does not have, borrows money it cannot repay and then imposes a debt ceiling it will not raise. One of those things must give; in reality, that means that the conflicting laws will have to be reconciled by the only actor who combines the power to act with a willingness to shoulder responsibility — the president.

So, this is like the Civil War, and Obama can just decide to do whatever he wants? And, yeah, that excerpt is the entire rationale as put forth by uber liberals who are …… wait, law professors from the U Of Chicago and Harvard?

Obama should give this a whirl, then we could have something else to focus on: impeachment.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Obama’s duplicity is renowned. Obama’s long-hyped “shovel ready jobs” to rebuild America’s infrastructure turned out to be a joke that elicited an on-camera chuckle from Obama. Obama’s latest ploy is to play “nice Boehner vs. bad Republicans,” as if John Boehner is a doofus. After publicly sweet talking Speaker Boehner for “doing his best,” he derides Boehner’s Republican caucus for adhering to the will of a 76% majority of Americans who do not want the debt ceiling raised. Obama ignores voters’ demands for major spending cuts – especially on bloated agencies like the EPA, DOE, and endless other government bureaucracies with costly overlapping functions. Obama talks “jobs” while implementing socialist policies that undercut job creation and damage people of all ages and color. Obama prefers to call taxes “revenue.” He condescends, hoping Americans “don’t get” that in order to stimulate job growth, incentives through less taxes must be given to job creators. With all of his save America talk, Obama is quietly and quickly implementing policies that are catastrophic to this nation.

In a stealth move to by-pass Congress, President Obama is resurrecting his Cap-and-Trade “green” agenda through harsh EPA regulations and fines that are budget-busting for homes and businesses. Keenly aware of this egregious power grab and political corruption, Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is calling for the dissolution of the EPA. Heed the British warning.

An ocean apart, Obama is hoping that the “green” devastation being faced by the British will escape notice. As Barack Obama makes claims of a better life and future for Americans, his administration is surreptitiously mounting mountains of regulations via executive order and the EPA that will kill jobs, crush the economy and impose fines on families failing to comply. As Obama presses hard-and-fast for his socialist, global-warming “green” initiatives to be forced on Americans, the Brits are bailing. Their economy is being savaged by their “politically correct” green policies based on fraudulent science. Brits are already facing the choice between food or fuel as U.K. families face “fuel poverty.” The Brits are now speaking out and rebelling:

Bringing in a carbon “tax” will push thousands more families into fuel poverty without reducing emissions, a think tank has claimed. Express and Star, 28 June 2011 (emp. added)

The public backlash against wind farms is the inevitable and inexorable consequence of a costly, unpopular and completely pointless policy that is butchering Britain’s green and pleasant landscape without having any effect on the climate… By opposing wind farms, a growing number of neighbourhoods and communities are protecting both their local environments and their purses from blind exploitation -– Benny Peiser, President of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, Daily Mail, 11 July 2011 (emp. added)

(What happens when the wind calms down?) “We will thus be landed in the ludicrous position of having to spend an additional £10 billion on those 17 dedicated power stations, which will be kept running on “spinning reserve”, 24 hours a day, just to make up for the fundamental problem of wind turbines. I’m afraid we are in the hands of very dangerous children, upon whose deranged wishful thinking a large part of our country’s future depends.” — Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 3 July 2011

The fact is that these green taxes, part of David Cameron’s politically-correct promise to lead the ‘greenest government ever’, are imposing a punishing burden on families and businesses struggling to cope with tough economic times. For all our sakes, ministers must drop their dogma about climate change — the science of which remains shrouded in doubt — and, wherever possible, give the country a break from green taxation. — Editorial, The Daily Mail, 7 July 2011 (emp. added)

Many of the climate levies on our bills are regressive taxes. They are not reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is a scam – it just transfers emissions from Britain to China and India where they don’t have to follow the same pollution laws… — Labour MP Graham Stringer, 9 July 2011 (emp. added)

When promoting his “green” agenda, one cannot forget Obama’s heartless comment that coal companies will just “have to go bankrupt,” without regard to the desperate poverty that would be thrust upon our nation’s coal mining families or Obama’s dispassionate disconnect from all Americans as he blithely commented that every American family’s energy bill will necessarily “skyrocket.” Clearly, Barack Obama understands the impact of “fuel poverty.” Ignoring the warning from the British reveals Obama’s complicity in the “green” global fraud of global warming and climate-change that will devastate America’s treasury and economy. Unless Congress defunds or dismantles Obama’s EPA, fuel poverty will be a reality for Americans.

See also: GREEN RINOS: THREAT TO AMERICA

GORE SLAMS OBAMA – NOT HARDLY

Most Americans are under the mistaken assumption that we as voters can elect someone to make changes in our government. Whether the government of our city, county, state or that in Washington DC we voters have this romantic idea that we can affect change by electing people to office that will make those changes. The New Jersey Supreme Court, however, has disabused us all of those absurd notions.

Governor Chris Christie was elected to office for one reason, to solve New Jersey’s budget mess. He’s not Mr. Nice guy. He’s not the prettiest face in New Jersey politics. He wasn’t even the state’s most beloved public figure. He ran on fixing the budget and the people hired him to do just that.

But now, even though he was able to get certain budget changes through both houses of his state legislature, even though he has kept his shoulder to the grindstone doing the very job that the people hired him to do, even as he was on the verge of succeeding, the courts have stepped in and torpedoed the effort.

In a 3-2 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the governor to restore $500 million in funding to the state’s “poorest schools” by July 1. So, the wasteful spending perpetrated against the taxpayers by New Jersey’s schools can continue apace regardless of what the voters of New Jersey wanted.

Now some New Jersey commentators are claiming that this is not judicial activism. The decision, they claim, only restored the funding promised by former Gov. John Corzine and his legislature so this is not the courts making new law, they say.

But what else could it be but judicial activism to reach back to prior elections to find old budget schemes all the while ignoring the current administration’s — and therefore the voter’s — wishes. This is an activist court deciding that it did not like the recent election and reaching back to a previous, more favorable — and more left-wing — administration, one that satisfies the court’s desire toward big spending government waste.

Naturally, it doesn’t surprise that this level of wasteful spending makes unions happy, too.

This decision could possibly open the door for every school system in New Jersey to cry poor and run to the courts to stop Governor Christie from altering the obscenely generous funding that former administrations promised them. This ruling will prevent these profligate school administrators from doing what they should be doing: finding ways to cut budgets. Instead of facing reality, they will now have a tendency to pin their hopes on activist court interventions instead of making the hard decisions they must make.

It isn’t just New Jersey we see this sort of left-wing judicial activism happening. Unions in every state are running, to the courts bawling their eyes out about budget cuts and pointing to union contracts “negotiated” with spendthrift legislators that unions had for decades bought and paid for. Unions are desperately trying to save their overly generous pay scales, outrageous pensions, and cushy benefits given by politicians they paid to give them free stuff courtesy of the taxpayer. They are crying “breach of contract.”

Just today another union bought and paid for judge went into action. In Wisconsin, another left-wing, anti-democracy judge struck down the hard-fought policy of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who has been trying to solve his state’s budget troubles. Once again the voters are overruled by an activist judge.

Is a contract gotten by graft one worth honoring? The voters are increasingly saying “no” by voting in officials that will cut back the undeserved riches showered on government union members by past pliant, sold-out pols.

Yet, despite that the people are speaking by voting in those interested in finally getting a grip on the waste seen in every last government all up and down the line, the unions are running to the courts to step in to thwart the voter’s will.

For decades the court system has been acting against the will of the majority of the people. This has not changed in our current debt crisis. It’s time we did something about these activist judges.

Barack Obama’s Executive Order that requires federal contractors to disclose the political contributions they have made is garnering bi-partisan opposition on the Hill this month.

The order would force contractors to reveal any political donations as a condition for being allowed to bid on a contract to work for the federal government. And the order doesn’t only require the company to disclose donations but would also force the directors or company officers to reveal their personal donations as well. Naturally, this same requirement is not forced on unions. (You can see a draft of Obama’s order HERE)

This forced disclosure, however, is not sitting well with either Democrats or Republicans.

Last week 21 Republican House members sent a letter to Obama denouncing this anti-free speech order.

In a letter sent to Obama on Friday, 21 Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), called the proposed executive order “a blatant attempt to intimidate, and potentially silence, certain speakers who are engaged in their constitutionally protected right to free speech.”

This week, top House Democrat Steny Hoyer joined the chorus against Obama’s executive order.

“The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor’s application and bid and capabilities,” Hoyer told reporters at the Capitol. “There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.”

He added, “I’m not in agreement with the administration on that issue.”

Of course, the main problem with this thing is that it wouldn’t take a big stretch of the imagination to assume that Obama would find any contractor that has donated to Republicans to be the sort of contractor that he would not want to hire for federal work. And even if that were not the case, this order might stifle companies preventing them from even applying for federal contracts because they might be afraid that their campaign donations could bring them undue notice based on politics instead of on the company’s track record and success rate at completing contracts.

Further, it simply is no business of the government what political campaigns these companies donate to. There is a little thing called political free speech in this country and we must never be required to go hat-in-hand to government and explain who we support politically before we are allowed to get work.

The DISCLOSE Act that this EO is based on has failed repeatedly in Congress and that is why Obama is lawlessly taking matters into his own hands and trying to implement the rules by presidential fiat.

Even the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is resisting this policy. And that was after the Supreme Court ruled that it was un-constitutional in the first place.

So, Obama is trying to move forward to introduce a policy that has Democrats AND Republicans against it, that has the FEC AND the U.S. Supreme Court against it, yet in the face of all this opposition, he insists on going forward. This is just one more example of how this president wants to rule by fiat and shows that he is certainly contemptuous of nearly every other branch of government.