Scam Alert – Obama and his "Bait and Switch" ploys

By Denise Simon

Is there an exemption in the law books where “truth in advertising” applies to campaigning or is just lying during a speech a crime? Obama told us in 2008 that the use of ‘signing statements’ used by then President G.W. Bush was a power grab and a means to make end-runs around Congress. Obama told us he would obey the U.S. Constitution and in fact he took a sacred oath to do just that on his way to assume the office of President himself.

7/30/05 – “Recess appointments ‘the wrong thing to do.’ “‘It’s the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job,’ said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of Foreign Relations Committee.” (Powerline)

8/2/05 – “A recess appointee is ‘damaged goods… we will have less credibility.’ “To some degree, he’s damaged goods… somebody who couldn’t get through a nomination in the Senate. And I think that that means that we will have less credibility…” (Powerline)

Was that just rhetoric then, but now is now? Is that a ”bait and switch” ploy on Americans who voted for him based on the initial advertisements?

Bait and switch is a deceptive sales technique in which a store advertises its product or service at a very low price to lure customers into the store and induce the customers to buy a more expensive product by telling you that the advertised product is no longer available or is of poorer quality. Bait and switch is a crime in most of the states and if damages are proved, it can be the basis for a personal lawsuit for false advertising.”

Obama has now violated many campaign pledges and promises he used to get votes based on the ‘bait’ of “hope and change”.  Now that same cunning characteristic has been carried forward during his tenure at the White House and he blames the Republicans to justify doing what he once swore not to do, and castigated others for the very same act.

Then he takes the ultimate plunge saying: “If Congress won’t act, I will!” Mr. Obama needs a civics lesson, it’s called ‘separation of powers’ and was built into the system he swore to defend. The reason its there is to prevent an executive from doing just what he wants to do, by fiat. If Congress won’t act, like the Senate not passing a budget in over 1,000 days, it his party not doing the work, why, for political victory, an end-run! He asks for a one-year extension on the payroll tax holiday, then slams the Republican House for not accepting two months.

Its always ‘bait and switch’ to Obama and his Democrat Congressional henchmen; Americans and our system are the ones harmed however. The master salesman, and that is all he is, has lured you into his store, and is selling you higher priced baubles, all the while telling you its a much better product. Don’t buy from those rascally Republicans, buy from me instead, and don’t pay attention to that pesky old rag, the Constitution, or any laws. Trust me!

The dreaded ‘signing statement’ that was once so bad:

Most recently, within the last two weeks, Obama attached a signing statement to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Back in 2010, he attached a signing statement to the Iran Comprehensive Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act. Yet, he started off by placing a signature to a signing statement in January of 2009, to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The ‘switch’ is on!

The list is long, so when you have the inclination, click here to see a full list of his signing statements.

What is Constitutional?

Obama said himself, that he will decide what is in fact Constitutional, after all he was a Constitutional lawyer himself, but just in case he no longer has a law license, he can check with his wife, right? Well no, they both allowed there licenses to expire. Okay, well there are key White House lawyers in several offices, just pick a floor; how about Valerie Jarrett or one of the 22 others he has hired at the White House. Not good enough? Okay well, there is always the Department of Justice, which has an estimated $30 billion dollar operating budget and an unknown quantity of lawyers due to the classification of departments and the revolving door to help him.

There are additional examples of power grab events by Obama, other end-runs around Congress. Where to start, how about:

Now, as of yesterday, January 4, 2012, Obama publically reveals that he has moved on a recess appointment for Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while in fact, the Senate was not in recess. There were three additional recess appointments as well, that are assigned to the National Labor Relations Board.

The appointees include Democratic union lawyer Richard Griffin, Democratic Labor Department official Sharon Block and Republican NLRB lawyer Terence Flynn. The board lost its quorum and much of its decision-making ability on Tuesday when the term of Democrat Craig Becker—an earlier recess appointee—expired. These appointments allow it to fully function again. The moves return the board to its full slate of five members for the first time since August 2010. (WSJ)

Oh, but we are at war with the Taliban, at least we were, right? Well Vice President Biden says no, so the White House and the State Department have invited the Taliban to tea and to trade favors, oh wait, trade commanders in prison at Gitmo, oh wait, no trade at all, just a release. Additionally, add in some allowance and operating money as a gift from Hillary Clinton and the Taliban is happy and free in Qatar in their new headquarters location.

This is enough to make any Patriot sick, angry or motivated, or at least should be. It is easy to sit in front of a keyboard and learn, the hard part is to be a true Patriot and take action with the rights bestowed to all of us.

For more fuel for that tummy ache, read on here:

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

Daily Caller

By Paul Skousen

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length.

#10. — 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love and honor those who put themselves in harm’s way for our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article 1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for the general welfare, NOT for individuals or preferred groups. The states may reward heroes if they so choose.

#9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America’s internal affairs.

#8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market’s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations.

#7. – Czars: The moniker for appointees who report to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article 2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint managers, but those managers may not have any regulatory, legislative or law-making powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet members without having to go through a vetting process or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1.

#6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article 1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare activity.

#5. — Cash for Clunkers: The government offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2 billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put many people into additional debt by encouraging them to purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought during these hard economic times. The government has zero authority to selectively give individuals tax money for purchases of vehicles, according to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense.

#4. — TARP Funding: The original 2008 act authorized $700 billion to bail out banks and other institutions. The government has no business rescuing private financial institutions from bad judgment and risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for Congress to grant financial aid or loans to private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups.

#3. — Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow of violent illegals into its sovereign territory, a derelict federal government turned around and sued. At issue was the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities. The federal government claims the right to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should haul the federal government before the Supreme Court for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion.

#2. — Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due.

And the worst violation of the Constitution over the past two years is …

#1. — Health Care Reform: Health care reform was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said that the government has no power “to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

The string of constitutional violations supporting the judge’s rejection is long and shocking:

For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article 1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state lines.

______________

Edited by Scott W. Winchell

Blackhole date for news, Fri. Dec. 23 – Obama's "signing statement"

Editor’s Note – The signing statement below was generated by Barack Obama and his staff at the White House and released two days before Christmas. Possibly the one day, more than any other, that anyone could release objectionable or dilatory information so no one would notice, especially the main stream media outlets. Fridays are normally the day to do such things, and this year, that Friday was the beginning of the Christmas holiday.

How convenient, especially when you consider just how ridiculous the arguments are as displayed in that ‘signing statement’. By signing the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012” he effectively turned the entirety of the bill into law, but since it did not agree with his ideology and campaign promises, he attached the statement listed below.

In the statement, he repeatedly raises Constitutional issues that he and his staff feel impedes upon his ability to do his job, and that there are clear issues impinging on the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches.

Again, selective enforcement, this from the “most transparent administration, and fourth best Presidency ever”.

This is demonstrative of every facet of his administration – trot the Constitution out when it serves your purpose, stomp all over it when it does not. If we do a mere surface examination of the past three years he has been in office, its clear that there is a very large disdain for the Constitution except when needed for political means.

If he were so concerned about the ability to do his job, and the separation of powers, why does his DoJ sue states, decide not to sue criminals, and run crazy schemes like Fast & Furious that is still stone-walling Congress. All this and more while his party has yet to pass a budget in the Senate; for over 1,000 days? It is totally disingenuous!

There goes that left-handed signing statement pen - my way!

This bill was passed, under horrible political wrangling, all to keep the government working, but only as he sees fit – ‘rule-of-law’ has no meaning anymore, and this administration and his party just say: “We don’t need no stinking badges!” Everything these people do stretches credulity to its breaking point, and at every juncture, no matter the issue, its politics first, second, third…and its everyone else’s fault!

Statement by the President on H.R. 2055

AJC Blog

By Jamie Durpee

Before President Obama left for Hawaii to join his family on a Christmas vacation, he signed into law a package of budget bills for the current fiscal year – but he also let Congress know that a few provisions would not be observed by his administration.

These are called “signing statements” and have a times been rather controversial – mainly depending on which party is in control of the White House.

In other words, if it is your President, the signing statement is okay – if the other party controls the White House, then signing statements are usually bad.

This latest Obama signing statement has to do with Guantanamo detainees, the deployment of U.S. military forces overseas, restrictions on diplomatic work, the assignemnts of executive branch officials and restrictions on the use of money at the Library of Congress and in other agencies.

Put on your legal hat and sift through this signing statement:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2055, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.” This bill provides the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation’s Government.

I have previously announced that it is the policy of my Administration, and in the interests of promoting transparency in Government, to indicate when a bill presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of H.R. 2055 raise constitutional concerns.

In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.

The Congress has also included certain provisions in this bill that could interfere with my constitutional authorities in the areas of foreign relations and national security. Section 113 of Division H requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress 30 days in advance of “any proposed military exercise involving United States personnel” that is anticipated to involve expenditures of more than $100,000 on construction. Language in Division I, title I, under the headings International Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, disallows the expenditure of funds “for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national,” unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress. In approving this bill, I reiterate the understanding, which I have communicated to the Congress, that I will apply these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

Certain provisions in Division I, including sections 7013, 7025, 7029, 7033, 7043, 7046, 7049, 7059, 7062, and 7071, restrict or require particular diplomatic communications, negotiations, or interactions with foreign governments or international organizations. Others, including sections 7031, 7037, and 7086, hinder my ability to receive diplomatic representatives of foreign governments. Finally, section 7041 requires the disclosure to the Congress of information regarding ongoing diplomatic negotiations. I have advised the Congress that I will not treat these provisions as limiting my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations.

Moreover, several provisions in this bill, including section 627 of Division C and section 512 of Division D, could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials in the execution of their statutory responsibilities. I have informed the Congress that I will interpret these provisions consistent with my constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

Numerous provisions of this bill purport to condition the authority of executive branch officials to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are constitutionally impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws. Although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees appropriate and serious consideration, our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. In particular, section 1302 of Division G conditions the authority of the Librarian of Congress to transfer funds between sections of the Library upon the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have advised the Congress of my understanding that this provision does not apply to funds for the Copyright Office, which performs an executive function in administering the copyright laws.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 23, 2011.