Obama-Rule: We Don't Need Congress, I have a Pen!

Editor’s Note – Although we have known for ages that Obama has been usurping power via the pen, the podium, and the phone, now he actually admits it. The timing is especially interesting since the “Recess Appointment” case is underway at the Supreme Court. This is an obvious thumb-in-the-eye gesture to his foes and the court itself. That means he is thumbing his nose at you, the American citizens of all stripes.

Obama is openly saying that he does not need “no stinking Congress or Courts”, he is the Supreme Leader! So, it appears that all those labels foisted upon him in like regard are true: Messiah, Dear Leader, Anointed One, and so on…all couched in the “helping the people” jargon, while usurping the power of the people!

"See this pen, this is all I need!"
“See this pen, this is all I need!”

Obama: I will use my pen and phone to take on Congress


President Obama seems ready to work around Congress in 2014, telling reporters before his first Cabinet meeting of the year Tuesday that he stood ready to use two tools, a pen and a phone, to provide help for Americans.

“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating,” the president said.

“I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life, nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme: making sure that this is a country where, if you work hard, you can make it,” he added.

He encouraged Congress to extend unemployment insurance and pass some form of immigration reform, and said he has plans to meet with university presidents to talk about college affordability and CEOs to talk about hiring the long-term unemployed.

"....and I have plenty of pens!"
“….and I have plenty of pens!”

The president has found himself at odds with Republicans since he was first elected in 2008. Although there has been bipartisan legislation in the past, the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives made those moments few and far between and looking for other ways to affect his agenda. Still, he said he would work with both parties and both chambers of Congress to continue the economic recovery, and he predicted “we can see a lot of improvements this year” if everyone works together.

But House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, seems no more inclined to go along with the president’s policies today than he has for the past several years. “The American people have a right to continue to ask the question, where are the jobs? The president’s been in office now for five years. It’s time for the president to admit that his policies are not working,” he said.

Boehner added that many Americans lost their health plans or access to their doctors with the implementation of Obamacare despite promises from the president that they wouldn’t.

“If these statements by the president turn out not to be true, why would anyone think his economic policies are going to turn out any differently? Boehner asked.

Asked about the recent chemical spill in West Virginia, Boehner said it was not a reason to seek more regulations.

“We have enough regulations on the books, and what the administration ought to be doing is actually doing their jobs. Why wasn’t this plant inspected since 1991? I am entirely confident that there are ample regulations already on the books to protect the health and safety of the American people. Somebody ought to be held accountable here,” he said.

Biden's 'Dog and Pony' Show and the Executive Pen

Editor’s Note – As Joe Biden and his ‘task force’ crew conduct their dog and pony show on gun violence, it is clear to most in America that there are foregone conclusions already in place – executive conclusions. The fact that the NRA will be interviewed tomorrow is just a singularly large “dog act” in the process. You can suffice it to say though, that the ‘Executive Pen’ will be in frequent use soon after along with a major legislative push. Here is what Joe Biden said yesterday:

“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “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.”

In fact, before the Sandy Hook incident, several other Executive Orders and legislation forced down our throats gives us clues as to what is ahead. Even in the PPACA (Obama Care) Law, the NRA successfully had language added to help prevent the gun control issue from becoming a health care issue. We ask why would anything to do with the Second Amendment be in that law? Here is what is reported by the Blaze:

The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”

As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):

We can already see where the pen has been used to make it especially onerous for gun dealers in southern border states. When the Federal Government does not enforce the laws equally, we have tyranny. Why is it legal to use executive powers in only four states to control private business that is not exacted on the other 46 states and territories? Read the following article and consider the “equal protection clause” in the 14th amendment.

Judges look favorably on Obama gun reporting rule

By David Ingram – Reuters

(Reuters) – A federal appeals court signaled on Wednesday it was prepared to uphold a regulation designed to detect the sale of semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels, one of the few gun control measures put forward so far by the Obama administration.

Gun retailers and manufacturers, including a trade group based in Newtown, Connecticut, scene of the December 14 school massacre, say the rule is burdensome and violates federal law.

It requires stores in the four U.S. states bordering Mexico to send a notice to federal law enforcement whenever someone buys two or more of rifles during any five-day period.

The measure applies only to high-caliber, semi-automatic rifles that can use a detachable magazine.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which regulates gun sales, adopted the rule in 2011 amid rising cartel violence and at the urging of gun control groups for President Barack Obama to act.

Thousands of firearms are thought to cross the border illegally into Mexico each year, and semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are a favorite of drug traffickers, the ATF said in a report last year.

Mexican authorities recovered more than 68,000 U.S.-sourced guns from 2007 to 2011, the ATF said.

The rule applies to retailers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas who, perhaps without realizing it, could be sources for those firearms.

Gun stores “have to create a new system to keep track of that,” Richard Gardiner, a lawyer for retailers Foothills Firearms LLC and J&G Sales Ltd, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Federal law does not allow law enforcement to require that system, he said, calling it burdensome because store workers do not always know which of the guns they sell are covered.


The court’s three judges, though, repeatedly doubted whether the rule creates much additional work.

“I don’t remember the record containing any evidence of confusion,” said Judge Harry Edwards.

ATF has a special phone number for retailers to call if they have questions, such as whether the rule covers a particular rifle, but few people have called, government lawyer Michael Raab told the court.

“Any dealer worth his salt” should know whether most guns he sells fit the criteria, Raab said, echoing the wording of a lower court judge.

Gardiner responded that evidence of the rule’s burden is unnecessary because it is a government overreach.

The court is expected to decide within the next few months.

Gun rights advocates have also argued that the ATF measure could lead to a federal database of guns, which they fear would infringe on their rights. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have tried to cut off money to enforce the regulation.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gunmakers and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, is based in Newtown, where gunman Adam Lanza killed his mother, 20 children and six school employees before shooting himself in one of the worst U.S. school shootings.

Lower court judges in Texas and Washington have upheld the ATF rule, which is an example of steps Obama can take outside the proposed gun control laws he is expected to send to Congress this month.

The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc, et al, v. B. Todd Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 12-5009.

Faithfully Executing…illegal orders

Editor’s Note – The Dream Act passes – by executive fiat. If the idea was sound, and if it only needed a policy enforcement change, he would have done so. The problem is, he announced it with an Executive Order. The only conclusion is it was an election season move. He has completed ignored his oath of office, again, and this move does so much damage, and is so illegal, and unconstitutional.

If it was a good idea it would have gone through Congress, but even his own party’s members would not pass the so-called Dream Act. If it was such a good idea, why did it take three and a half years? Again, this man will say and do anything to get re-elected – even if it means making the economy for all Americans tougher. The young are already struggling, now they have another wall in front of them while seeking employment, at any level.

Why bother taking the oath of office? Since he did, he threw it out the window along with the Constitution anyway! So Faithfully Executing...

When will America see through this reprobate? That oath only mattered in 2009, when they did it twice to achieve legal status, now its just a bunch of words, unworthy of his second thought. Just like the way he treats the Constitution – as if it were just another piece of paper.

Below this article is an amazing video from a series, this one directly addressing Obama’s actions on Friday.

The story behind Obama’s immigration order

By Brian Bennett and Christi Parsons

Gathered around a conference table one day in late April, Democratic senators had a specific request for White House aides: take a closer look at using executive power to shield young illegal immigrants from deportation.

One week earlier, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had told reporters about his plans to propose a scaled-back version of the Dream Act -– legislation designed to provide help to young immigrants. Democrats were skeptical that Rubio could gain his own party’s support for that idea. But seated in the big conference room next to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid‘s office, the senators  pressed aides to the president to do more.

The White House officials responded that the Department of Homeland Security already had been discussing how to refine its deportation practices so officials could focus on the most serious cases.

The idea, they believed, had merit.

Over the next several weeks, administration officials reexamined the issue, diving into the legal precedents governing the president’s authority over immigration enforcement.

Since the second year of the administration, officials at the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration enforcement, had operated on the understanding that, even without Congress overhauling  immigration policy, executive officials could make certain decisions on a case-by-case basis when carrying out deportation law.

They knew the standard Obama and his top aides would apply. The president, a constitutional lawyer, believed that creating a special class of people entitled to particular rights was something only Congress could do. At the same time, however, if prosecutors could agree on how to exercise their judgment on a case-by-case basis, without any guarantees, that would be permissible as part of their discretionary power, according to a senior administration official familiar with the decision.

The White House had accepted that principle in two legal memos, one written in 2010 and the other in 2011, which underscored the leeway agency officials had on when to pursue a case and when to drop it.

The sheer volume of cases means the government can’t prosecute every single violator of immigration law, said one senior administration official, so enforcement agencies always have to pick and choose which cases to pursue based on the seriousness of each one.

This spring, officials considered how that principle could be applied to help the young immigrants who would be covered by the proposed Dream Act  or, as the president had begun to call them, “the dreamers.”

By early June, Homeland Security officials had come up with criteria that would target the right population: young people who had been brought to this country before they turned 16, and whose promise and loyalty the country could least afford to lose.

Aides did not say when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano signed off on the idea, but they said the policy was substantially completed by the beginning of June.

The announcement this week comes after a tough run of luck for Obama, as he struggles to persuade Americans to stick with his economic plans despite dismal jobs figures.

He is also preparing to speak next week to NALEO, the national association of elected and appointed Latino leaders, amid a presidential race that will turn in part on whom Latino voters support.

The Obama – Friday’s actions explained simply:

NDRP E.O. and the push to hold info on Americans longer, why now?

Editor’s Note – Like everyone else, SUA was peppered with questions regarding the Executive Order Obama released last Friday on the White House Web Site (see it here: Executive Order 12919) that amended the National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) of the Defense Production Act of 1950.

Most thought immediately that Obama was preparing us for Martial Law, and in light of events over the past few years and his track record, all are watching with a leery eye.

The "Executive Order Pen", oft used, oft questioned - B. H. Obama

The following article gives us a good primer on what it is, and what it could mean. The writer does “don the tin-foil hat” as he calls it to draw some conclusions, and we could add many more, but you be the judge, especially concerning the timing.

But keep in mind that the DoJ is trying to extend the time information on Americans can be held, with the Attorney General being the arbiter over the process.

We at SUA have been calling for Eric Holder to resign or be arrested for his doings, so in totality, everything this administration does raises questions and doubts, especially concerning our civil rights. Read the whole story about keeping the intelligence files longer here, and this is the snippet that concerns us most:

Currently, the center must promptly destroy any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism is evident.

The new guidelines, which may be approved in coming days, have been in the works for more than a year, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

The guidelines are likely to prompt concern from privacy advocates. Senior Justice Department officials said Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who must approve the guidelines, will ensure that privacy protections are adequate. Also, keep in mind the NDAA language recently passed about holding Americans.

Worried yet?

The Executive Order Controversy

By Joe Herring

American Thinker

On Friday, 3/16/2012, President Obama issued an executive order called “National Defense Resources Preparedness” (NDRP), posting it on the White House’s official website.

Almost immediately, the blogosphere exploded with the news.  Citizens began calling their TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers, demanding coverage.  At the time of this writing, the furor has yet to abate.

The NDRP traces its origin to the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, which attempted to establish a framework for placing the nation on a “war footing” as quickly and in as efficient a manner as possible should events warrant.  In an age of highly industrialized warfare, the basic building blocks of military success are composed of mundane elements such as supply chains, resource availability, parts, access to raw materials, and skilled labor.

Over the years, the DPA has seen many revisions, and the executive orders issued to implement those revisions presupposed an imminent threat of war.  In 1994, then-President Clinton issued Executive Order 12919, which expanded the provisions of the DPA rather dramatically, declaring its applicability to peacetime.

The need for the DPA is legitimate.  A great deal of our energy infrastructure, utilities, and financial system are in fact entirely private enterprises, not public/government entities.  Getting the government running again in the event of a catastrophic attack is one thing, but not providing the same reconstitution effort for the privately owned elements of the nation’s infrastructure would still leave us without electric power generation, food distribution, etc.

In the event of cataclysmic war or a natural disaster of similar scope, we could not afford to wait on the private sector to recover at an ordinary pace with purely private funds.  Under such circumstances, the need would be urgent and the resources few.

The issue is how to balance the necessity of granting sufficient power to the only entity large enough to do the job — government — while still maintaining the private ownership and control of the means of production and the economy as a whole.

The Executive order issued by Obama on 3/16 is largely a restatement of the 1994 Clinton order with a few functional changes.  It moves the authority for implementing the provisions of the DPA from the director of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not exist at the time of Clinton’s presidency.  There have been pedestrian additions of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, to the purview of the secretary of energy (as well as a curiously specific redefinition of bottled water as a “food resource” rather than a water resource), but nothing is particularly out of step with the order Obama’s EO supersedes.

So what is the problem?  Well, considering that the authority of the DPA has never been meaningfully exercised, and that the pre-emption of authority claimed by the Clinton-era EO 12919 has been similarly dormant, why would the Obama administration choose this particular time to update an obscure and unused authority?  It is this question many believe must be asked and answered, and sooner rather than later.

In an attempt to provide that answer, allow me to don an appropriately stylish tinfoil hat before I present a plausible scenario.

1) In early March 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is the position of this administration that international organizations such as NATO or the United Nations have at least as much, if not more authority to deploy U.S. troops, with or without congressional notice or permission.

2) A week later, the NAACP petitioned the U.N. Human Rights Council to involve themselves in our election process — specifically our November presidential election, in order to monitor the vote for instances of voter suppression.  It is the fantasy of the NAACP that laws requiring presentation of a photo ID to cast a ballot are in actuality thinly veiled efforts to keep the poor, elderly, and non-white populations from voting, presumably for Obama.

3) Attorney General Eric Holder has spent his tenure creating a hair-trigger system of race-conscious prosecutions, most notably in reference to cases involving voter fraud.  His previous employee, J. Christian Adams, has built a second career from simply exposing the injustice of Holder’s Department of Justice.

4) Most recently, Holder struck another blow against the concept of verifiable voting by forestalling Texas’s proposed Voter ID law, saying it “goes against the arc of history.”  Aside from the attorney general basing his decisions on perceived “historical arcs” rather than clear and established law, the end result is the same: the creation of an air of uncertainty surrounding the upcoming election.

Now (as I adjust my tinfoil hat to a jauntier angle), let me tie these points together.

By employing repetitive reporting of “uncertainty about the reliability of the presidential election tally” by the major media, compounded by expressions of the same uncertainty by administration officials, the left could install that narrative amongst the segments of the population that  pay little or no attention to the day-to-day practice of politics.

Could the NAACP then, with support from the Department of Justice and the administration, make the case to the U.N. that the election was in fact tainted, and subsequently persuade the member nations of the U.N. to declare the election invalid?  It is possible, and such a declaration is certain to bring chaos to the streets of every major city in our country, as well as a great deal of smaller ones.  To restore order, the president might need to deploy troops.  Should the Congress resist the move, the administration might simply appeal to the U.N., which could request/order the deployment of troops by a willing and complicit Secretary Panetta.

And of course, President Obama would simply continue in office, for the sake of stability, until this could all be sorted out.

Perhaps it now makes sense for the administration to have updated an unused executive order, preparing their legal argument and framework for the imposition of peacetime martial law.  Liberty, once lost, is seldom regained.

Yes, it is far-fetched, but it is also distressingly possible.  The sad fact in America today is that we have a president so disdainful of our foundational law and freedoms as to make the far-fetched seem queasily reasonable.

The timing of this executive order is jarring, even if the specific changes to the order are not.  The power it conveys is staggering and cannot be safely entrusted to a single branch of government, much less to a single man.  The Congress needs to reassert control over the exercise and implementation of the Defense Production Act before it can be utilized by a power-hungry cabal of leftists eager to fundamentally transform America.  There is a door no one has locked, and our home is not secure.  Close the door, lock it, and throw away that key.

The author writes from Omaha, NE and welcomes visitors to his website at www.readmorejoe.com

Silence, the sound of Liberty dying

By Suzanne Sharer

How can it be possible that the United States of America, the most powerful and benevolent nation in the world, comes to a moment in time where 77% of its citizenry think that their country is heading in the wrong direction? This is a staggering percentage and yet those are the numbers that a recentABC/Washington Post poll published as of September 6th. Now, in my mind, this begs a question; how in the world did we get to the point where over three quarters of Americans are saying that something is seriously wrong with the course that has been set forth by our leaders? If truth be told, most Americans are not feeling very optimistic that this will change anytime soon, if at all!

For too many years, Americans have been busy minding their own business. They have been living their lives and raising their families investing only blind faith in the belief that our elected leaders would always work with our country’s best interest at heart. Most thinking that our political system was failure proof. Sadly, we were just too busy to be bothered with our duty as citizens to stay vigilant.

People who study America’s enemies know that the communist regimes throughout the world have boasted for decades that America would eventually fall without a single shot fired. The fall would come from within as an agenda was silently being allowed to play out; subverting our way of life little by little as people failed to pay attention until one day we wake up to an America we don’t recognize any more. That day is now as 77% of our citizens are finally admitting something is very wrong! It is shameful that all the warnings were not heeded sooner. Mountains of proof were presented to the American people, showing openly who Obama is and who these people are that are support him. We have handed America over to people that hate us, the USA, and everything that makes her stand above all others! Is it any wonder we are going in the wrong direction?

One of the most troubling trends that helped get us here today is that even the people who have seen what is happening, have chosen not to speak out. This is because they have been conditioned to remain silent for fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, racist, or intolerant.

But wait! Since when is it wrong or anti-American to speak out? Don’t we tout freedom of speech in America? Well, apparently in today’s America, it is not ok, and having an opposing point of view is something to keep silent about. This is becoming accepted through one of the more heinous atrocities ever to creep into the political and social fabric of our country, political correctness.

Never has there been anything more offensive to free speech than the indoctrination of this subversive manipulation of our rights to speak and think freely. Even being Pro-American is considered in bad taste. Obama and his handlers have made this an art form, effectively silencing the American people. They knew that they could push this agenda easily, because this was after-all, the election of our first Black President.

While this pervasive indoctrination has been working quite well, but thankfully, it has also served to open the eyes of the many previously blind to such machinations, and just how damaging this technique has wrought harm upon us all.

It is a misconception that our elected officials are not doing any harm, because their words are so charming, but I beg to differ. Our leaders have been very busy. They have been quietly, yet steadily, eroding our rights and Constitution by replacing the rule of law through regulations, Executive Orders, and Judicial diktat, all, right under our noses.

Our Presidents over the years have signed thousands of such documents that side step Congress. In fact, there are so many instances that we barely blink an eye when we hear of one more. Why though, are they totally ignored in most cases? I realize they are always signed without fanfare of announcement but we need to be more vigilant! One such egregious movement in this vein is perhaps the biggest example.

We are letting one of the most dangerous of decrees; the Soros sponsoredAgenda 21 to remain in the shadows. This is something that every citizen needs to be made aware of as its main goal is to change the very core of our country (as in heading in the wrong direction!)

Back in 1992 President George H.W. Bush along with 177 world leaders agreed to support a UN backed global plan for “Sustainable Development”. Then in 1995, President Clinton signed Executive order (EO) #12858 creating a Presidential Council on Sustainable Development. In effect, this inserted the UN plan into America’s political system without the need for any evaluation or discussion by Congress, let alone the American people. Sadly few know of this agenda, one that plans to impose Social Justice or Socialism on us, and the rest of the world. It seems for many people it is still just too hard to believe this could happen. It is hidden away in the silence of secrecy, yet, it is not a secret!

As of August 21st 2011 President Obama has signed ninety four Executive orders. He has signed more of these proclamations in his 2 ½ years in office than any other President has within the same time frame. Including EO 13575 which set up the “Rural Council” a huge victory for Agenda 21 yet barely anybody took notice. No wonder it emboldened him to sign an order for a backdoor amnesty plan. Obama’s direction is now clear; if he cannot get it through Congress (the people), he will pass it by decree. We the People seem to have lost our voices. I would say more than 77% are correct to think this ‘ship of state’ is heading in the wrong direction!

Suzanne Sharer is the new Associate Editor at Stand Up America.