Kudo to Sen. Ron Johnson

Here is why:

“On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans’ throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.

It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president’s Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.

The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans “created under” ObamaCare or “offered through an Exchange” established under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law’s benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.

Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That’s when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer—magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.

Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law—even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.

The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.

Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.

I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.”


ReasonableCitizen says “Hear!Hear!”

President Obama Unaware…News at 11 pm every day

Every week the news media reports a White House Insider ( aka “leak”) saying that President Obama was “unaware”. I was planning to write a post about it but so many people beat me to the punch that I thought  I would just link to the best of them:

News Busters

American Thinker

And then I thought of future headlines:

President Obama unaware of Mrs. Obama and children

President Obama unaware that he was lost on White House grounds

President Obama unaware of Constitution

President Obama unaware that President Reagan can’t remember anything from his Presidency either.

President Obama unaware he affirmed his unawareness last week when he  remarked on the topic today.

President Obama unaware of this blog

( Ok, that last one might actually be true but it is unlikely to be a headline)

HR 368 rule change…Eric Cantor: unitary executive?

Just watch the video first.

This leaves Eric Cantor, as majority leader, as the only person who can unblock this stalemate. And he is meeting with the President. My guess is that they are learning ‘who has it my way or the highway’.

I think default is possible now. No one can afford to lose face in this struggle.

I am now convinced that Republicans and Democrats are stress testing our Republic, our financial system, and the world. They wish to see how far they can go to break the system. Stress testing. I just hope they do not intend to failure test the system. The difference between stress test and failure test is that stress testing has a limit at which you stop testing. A failure test is to test until the thing breaks.

Woe to all. But here we are with one day to go and nobody is worried. The plan to make the American government look incompetent is successful. When the government decides who gets paid and who does not when shut down, we will see the full power of the Executive Branch on display. They alone will decide under some Emergency Powers to choose who wil be paid and who will not. That is the beginning of the phase to show the civilian government is corrupt.

Each party will favor itself and Americans will be upset. At the right time, the military (instead of the police) will assert themselves into quelling domestic riots. That is the end of the beginning.

President Obama’s Handicap in RealPolitik

Raised by a woman and then married into a matriarchal society, President Obama values relationships more than progress. He goes along to get along because he was nurtured that way.

Now he is in the real world of manly politics and he is unsuccesful because there are no women dictators, female Muslim Chiefs, or European matriarchal societies. President Putin sneers at President Obama. And even Angela Merkel does not accept the President as a manly world leader.

I am not saying that women cannot be world leaders, my goodness , we have plenty of examples of great female leaders. My issue is that President Obama is a man and does not comport himself like one on the world stage. He is flexible and adjusting as a dutiful wife would be. How can other manly men trust him if he adjusts his brassiere instead of his jock strap?

Ladies, I am not saying that being raised by women is a handicap, we all love our mothers and are better men as a result of a good mother or a good wife. But stereotypes exist among men that men should act as men with each other and should not be pursuing relationships based on likabilty but more upon respect.

I have no doubt that President Obama is a man. He should act like one on the world stage.

The Federal Nudge Squad…

The federal government is hiring what it calls a “Behavioral Insights Team”  that will look for ways to subtly influence people’s behavior, according to a  document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there  could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team  could make government and society more efficient.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White  House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal  departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services  and the Department of Agriculture.

“Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work  better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals,” reads the government  document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply  for positions on the team.

The document was emailed by Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on  social and behavioral sciences, to a university professor with the request that  it be distributed to people interested in joining the team. The idea is that the  team would “experiment” with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking  behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more  in energy costs.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/govt-knows-best-white-house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-behavior/#ixzz2aYpwioY3

There is a difference between advocating a behavior and nudging a person’s behavior. I like the first and abhor the second. To me the issue is about respecting the individual. Federal nudging does not do that.

I believe that Reasonable Citizens are rational actors capable of determining what is in their best interest. Attempts to influence their behavior is unacceptable. Efforts to provide valid infornation to establish a basis for decisions is acceptable.

Tell me what I ought to know to make a decision but don’t tell me only what you think I should know to act the way you want.

You can imagine how unsuccessful nudging will be dealt with: More money to nudge, more power to nudge, and more damn nudging over all.

This government is full of lesser men, don’t nudge me.



President Obama suspends the law?

The President has a Constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the land but if nobody enforces it then does it matter? I think so.

Two weeks ago, President Obama chose to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. He does not have that authority. It was a law passed by Congress and he has to follow it. But this anti-Constitution President just decided not to enforce it. Shame on him. No other President has negated a law simply because he thought it ought not to be done at this time.

The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” Imagine the outcry if Mitt Romney had been elected president and simply refused to enforce the whole of ObamaCare.

This is not the first time

Mr. Obama has suspended the operation of statutes by executive decree, but it is the most barefaced. In June of last year, for example, the administration stopped initiating deportation proceedings against some 800,000 illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16, lived here at least five years, and met a variety of other criteria. This was after Congress refused to enact the Dream Act, which would have allowed these individuals to stay in accordance with these conditions. Earlier in 2012, the president effectively replaced congressional requirements governing state compliance under the No Child Left Behind Act with new ones crafted by his administration.

It is unacceptable for a President to choose which laws to enforce.

Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president’s unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects. As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress “would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”

Can no one prevent President Obama from acting like a king? Who will prevent the next one from acting the same way and choosing which laws he/she will support? It is a dark day in America.

The New John Kerry? Harummpf

All of a sudden Sen. John Kerry is senate-supported to become Sec’y of State.By all but three senators? How can this be?

During his campaign for President, Sen. Kerry fumbled the campaign football so often that he began to look pathetic. Then after the campaign, his VP running mate was found to have an illegitimate child from his ex-mistress. Kerry is an incredibly bad judge of character, yes?

So what has changed that qualifies Kerry to be Sec’y of State? Is his judgment any better? Is this some type of compensation for reasons unknown? Perhaps it is to get him out of the Senate in order to put his seat up for election?

To go from Hillary Clinton to John Kerry is astonishingly ignorant and short-sighted.

I suspect that President Obama cannot abide any conflict. He has purged his circle of anyone who will not kowtow to him. From the purge of generals a few months back to Hagel and Kerry, I suspect that President Obama is choosing phlegmatic personality types like himself.

Perhaps the question is “Why is Obama surrounding himself with weaker men in the wrong positions?” Does his ego demand so much adoration that he cannot stand strong leadership?

The ‘Federal Dossier and Database for Gun Control’

President Obama is making darn sure that there is a federal dossier on every American by collecting information from all federal agencies, from medical sources, and from individual states. He has done this by Executive Order for the purpose of taking guns away from every one. Why else would he burden every law abiding citizen, every federal agency, every medical and mental health facility, plus build a federal database registry for gun control purposes all because of a madman’s shooting? If you have a better explanation for his actions, let me know.

First, it begins with every citizen who has any public record with any federal agency. FOID is a good place to start, yes? But because gun owners already have FOID cards, the efforts will be to ensnare all citizens into the database. They will have a ‘federal dossier for gun control’ established. All federal activities from every agency will be collected into a single dossier for each citizen. FBI, ICE, Armed Forces, National Security, Department of the Interior, State Department, every freakin’ federal agency save the IRS will examine what data it holds and provide same to the Federal Dossier and Database for Gun Control. (What good is a gun control database if it doesn’t have your name in it? Hmmm?)

Second, state and local, mental health and/or specific medical records will  have patient names and summaries of their mental health state, medicines taken, drug abuse violations, drug usage or overdose, and any medical or mental health evaluation and/or history of same, added to the database to thicken the Federal Dossier about you. (What good is a database if you aren’t in it when it is checked?)

Third, the President will provide money to states to entice them to forward all state criminal records of investigations (innocent or guilty) to the Federal Dossier. From domestic abuse to drug usage and fist fights in high school, all state law enforcement authorities will report all criminal investigations to the Federal Dossier.(Not just trials…investigations…)

Fourth, the President already authorized and directed the Attorney General of the United States of America to determine which combination of federal agency records, patient medical issues, patient mental health issues, and state law enforcement records, in some algorithmic and alchemic combination, identify you as a ‘dangerous person’ within your federal record. Dangerous persons, as we know,  should not have a gun. I reckon there will be different categories of dangerousness developed.

Fifth, every law enforcement organization, before returning any gun that they took from you for any reason, will be required to run a background check in the Federal Dossier to determine if you ‘qualify’ to have your guns returned. And if you don’t qualify: too bad, so sad, they keep them.

Sixth, the federal government will craft a letter telling federal gun dealers how to run background checks using the new Federal Dossier and Database for Gun Control. Punitively, of course, if they fail to do it correctly or completely, or if they fail to record that you actually purchased a gun or several guns. (What good is a gun control database if it doesn’t tell people you have a gun to be controlled and what its serial number is? Hmmm?)

Seventh, require that any gun connected to any law enforcement investigation be traced backwards to its original purchase so that if you break the law by selling your gun to a private party without a background check, you can be arrested or fined even if the person you sold the gun to did not commit the crime. It will make you feel guilty that the gun you owned a decade ago was used in a crime after being sold three times. And they will punish you as a contributor to the crime by placing a mark in YOUR federal record forever as failing to control your gun sale to a third party. (What good is a gun control data base if it doesn’t have serial number traceability?  How do they know what guns were bought and sold illegally if they don’t track serial numbers? Hmmm?)

Eighth, maximize prosecutions over gun control failures to send a message that gun control is serious business. Make gun control failures a felony. Failure to control guns will be just as criminal as using guns to commit a crime.

Ninth, establish a responsible gun ownership program to make every gun control failure a teachable moment and to facilitate naïve media articles to put fear in the minds of reasonable people that the negatives of gun ownership outweigh the positives… and possibly outweigh even  the constitutional right to possess firearms.

Tenth, if you are ‘qualified’  for responsible gun ownership, but subsequently develop a series of factors that move you to a ‘dangerous person’ level,  they will come and take your guns away before you hurt yourself or someone else. (They will say “It only makes sense right? We have to protect some ‘unknown but probable’ person you may kill tomorrow by taking your guns away today.”)

And that is how the Federal Government will have a dossier on every citizen in the US, how they will use the “process” to take existing guns away and make it  intolerable, onerous, and odious to possess a gun.

This will take less than 20 years by my estimation and Congress doesn’t have to lift a finger. All by Executive Order because this *cough* constitutional scholar President doesn’t have a clue what a constitutional right is.

Scared yet? You should be. Read the NYT for yourself.

How do I know this from the NYT article? Because that is what I would do if I wanted to take guns away and I had those tools at my disposal. With a Congress that sits on its butt with its fingers up its collective nose AND with a Supreme Court that fails to restrain the federal government on anything it does unless the court case is 20 years old, both you and I don’t stand a chance against runaway federal agencies.

(Just imagine that you are a returning vet from Afghanistan. You are classified as a ‘dangerous person level 1’ because you have killed in combat and are familiar with guns. You suffered from PTSD upon returning but have been treated and released. You don’t have a job but you want to buy a gun. Should you be “allowed” to purchase one with your life history and  your possible threat to others or yourself…. hmmm? That’s my point.)

The Obama Terrorist Algorithm

The Atlantic has a flowchart of the process to determine if you are a terrorist and what your fate will be.

“Over the past two years, the Obama administration has begun to formalize a so-called “disposition matrix” for suspected terrorists abroad: a continuously evolving database that spells out the intelligence on targets and various strategies, including contingencies, for handling them. Although the government has not spelled out the steps involved in deciding how to treat various terrorists, a look at U.S. actions in the past makes it possible to reverse-engineer a rough decision tree for certain types of suspects.”

The decision points include: Are you in the US currently or outside the US? Is the subject important enough to warrant overseas action? And perhaps ultimately does  lethal force apply if you are a threat? Everything makes sense except it does not ask if the person is an American citizen or if the Constitution applies.

We know that a decision matrix had to be in place but had not speculated on what it would contain and to whom it would apply. Apparently, others have done that thinking already.

I am curious about something. The Soviet Union  and the US were in a Cold War for decades. No such algorithm was in place for the conflict that occurred and Americans lost no liberties and were not subject to the surveillance we are today. Makes me wonder if Armand Hammer were to fly his famous airplane to known terrorist encampments (like he flew to Moscow) would Hammer have been rendered like others have been? Would he have been shot down as a terrorist sympathizer? Or detained for weeks?

The Bill of Rights was to place restrictions on what the Federal Government can do. Looks like we need to remind our Congress and our President that institutionalizing the execution or incarceration of  people without a trial is wrong. It is precisely because the President is involved that the process itself is unholy and anti-American and unconstitutional.

So take a moment now and see if you meet the criteria of the Obama Terrorist Algorithm. Are you in any US database and suspected of being anti-US?

1. Are you in the US right now? If so, you will be arrested.

2. If not, are you returning to the US soon? If so, we will wait for you.

3. Can a reliable government arrest you and turn you over to US custody?

4.Are you important enough to warrant action although you are outside the US?

5. If so, is capture possible? And are you an operational leader?

6.  Are you an immediate threat?

The institutionalizing of this is egregious. Why can’t this be kept secret and buried in the CIA where it belongs?

When the expectation is that the President is choosing who to kill and capture around the world, we have become a criminal government.

Guantanamo and the Fourth,Fifth, and Sixth Amendment

Barack Obama may become the Un-Constitution President. At the dizzying pace that he shreds the Constitution with his professorial disrespect for America, it is easy to see that his legacy will be the destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Here he goes again adding more sheets of the Constitution to the Executive Branch shredder:

1.”In the case of Guantanamo, the legislation bars the transfer of detainees into the United States for any purpose, including trials in federal court. It also requires the defense secretary to meet a series of rigorous conditions before any detainee can be returned to his own country or resettled in a third country.”

2.”Previously, the government could simply transfer out a detainee who had pleaded guilty and served his time without meeting stringent congressional reporting requirements. But the 2013 act removes that exception and requires the defense secretary to certify that such detainees will not be a future threat. The Pentagon has not been willing to provide that kind of certification for any detainee, including those cleared for release.”

3.”Obama issued a signing statement with the law that asserted his constitutional right to override provisions where he believes Congress has infringed on the powers of the executive.”

In real life (on Earth rather than Bizarro), the first item breaks the 4th, 5th , and 6th Amendments. A person has been seized and is prevented from being freed. He is not accused of a crime and is not subject to a trial.

4th: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The second item breaks the 5th Amendment:

5th. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And the third item is balderdash. The President has no constitutional right to override provisions of any law after he chooses to enact it. He can assert his constitutional right to veto the proposed law but he cannot retroactively assert his right to violate the law. In fact, President Obama can be impeached under Article II Section 1:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Obviously, he is not using his best ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution if he signs a bill and asserts a future right to override what is unconstitutional. He is enabling the destruction of the Constitution when he passes something into law that he thinks is unconstitutional.