Obama’s Arrogant Authoritarianism

This is an is an excellent piece I stumbled upon written by Lachan Markay that I happen to agree with and feel it is a must read, please do enjoy.

- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -

Morning Bell: Obama’s Arrogant Authoritarianism

Posted By Lachlan Markay On January 10, 2012 @ 10:05 am In Rule of Law | 181 Comments

^[1]
Last week, President Barack Obama took the latest step on his road toward an arrogant, new authoritarianism with four illegal appointments that entirely trampled on the Constitution’s requirements. More troubling still, the President chose to shred the Constitution all in the name of serving his Big Labor agenda while killing jobs in the process.
The President’s actions once again gave voice to his animating view of governing: doing so is much easier when one isn’t constrained by the Constitution and its checks and balances. “We can’t wait,” the President exclaimed after unilaterally appointing Richard Cordray as director of the newly inaugurated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). He also appointed three officials to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), two of whom had been nominated less than a month before.
The policy implications of the President’s appointments? The CFPB will now have unmitigated authority to issue regulation upon regulation, contributing to the already-crippling red tape that is strangling business in America. And the NLRB will have the power to advance the President’s agenda to bolster unions across the country at the expense of job growth in a smarting economy.
For what, exactly, can’t the President wait? Quite simply, constitutional republicanism — the system of checks and balances integral to American government and political freedom. He grew impatient with the delays that inevitably accompany any legislative action an acted outside the Constitution’s mandated process. But the American people should ask, “Is such action really preferable to a deliberative, if slower-moving, constitutional republic?”
The President’s appointments last week, troubling as they are, are but the next steps on the road to a despotic form of governance that has come to characterize his Administration — and all of liberalism in America today — what authors Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin termed in City Journal this week Obama’s “New Authoritarianism.” ^[2] Frustrated by the unwillingness of the people’s representatives to enact his agenda wholesale, Obama has, from early in his Administration, sought to enact a series of proposals through administrative fiat, not the legislative process:

• The Democrat-controlled Senate rejected his cap-and-trade plan, so Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide ^[3], the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
• After Congress defeated his stealth-amnesty immigration proposal, the DREAM Act, the Department of Homeland Security instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ^[4] to “adopt enforcement parameters that bring about the same ends as the DREAM Act,” as Heritage’s Mike Brownfield explained.
• When the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act–explicitly designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls–was defeated by Congress, the NLRB announced a rule ^[5] that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
• After an innovation-killing Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced — on Christmas Eve, no less — that it would regulate the Web anyway, despite even a federal court’s ruling ^[6] that it had no authority to do so.
• In its push for national education standards, the Education Department decided ^[7] to tie waivers for the No Child Left Behind law to requirements that states adopt those standards, shutting Congress out of the effort.
• Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided ^[8] it would no longer enforce those laws.
• DOJ made a similar move with respect to the Defense of Marriage Act: rather than seeking legislative recourse, DOJ announced ^[9] it would stop enforcing the law.

While these efforts are all aimed at circumventing the legislative process, none was so brazen as his four illegal appointments. Last week, Obama went one step further: He violated not just the spirit of the Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to make laws, but the letter of the law as well.
The move is “a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers,” explain ^[10] former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese and Heritage colleague Todd Gaziano, a former attorney in DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, in a Washington Post column. “[N]ever before has a president purported to make a ‘recess’ appointment when the Senate is demonstrably not in recess,” they note. “That is a constitutional abuse of a high order.”
Dr. Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies and director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation, explains ^[11] that this “new despotism” — a government where regulations and unilateral actions replace republican governance — runs entirely counter to the Founders’ vision of America:

The greatest political revolution since the American Founding has been the shift of power away from the institutions of constitutional government to an oligarchy of unelected experts. They rule over virtually every aspect of our daily lives, ostensibly in the name of the American people but in actuality by the claimed authority of science, policy expertise, and administrative efficiency.
If this regime becomes the undisputed norm — accepted not only among the intellectual and political elites, but also by the American people, as the defining characteristic of the modern state — it could well mark the end of our great experiment in self-government.

President Obama’s actions are exactly the kind that the Founders feared and sought to guard against. His illegal appointments usurp power from the American people’s duly elected representatives, and the regulations they will promulgate will, undoubtedly, contribute to the unabated growth of the undemocratic administrative state.
Now that the President has crossed the threshold of constitutionality, there really is no telling where he may stop. There is a clear trend here, however, and it leads further and further from the constitutional order. With these illegal appointments, the President has taken to new heights his disdain for the separation of powers. Whether it will stop here depends on Congress — Will lawmakers of both parties reassert the legislature’s constitutional authority and take a stand against Obama’s arrogant new authoritarianism?

Ozzie deFaria on Government Waste!

This a good read from Ozzie deFaria who is looking to win the Republican primary and then run against Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Ozzie really hits the nail on the head regarding government waste.

Ozzie deFaria on Government Waste!

Published on December 20, 2011

As we head into 2012, you will hear many politicians, business leaders and everyday citizens talking about “the 2012 elections being the most important of our lifetime”. The major question we must answer is “what should the role of the federal government be?”. Left leaning Democrats fundamentally believe that the federal government can help manage fairness and solve the problems for our citizens (and our non-citizens I suppose). I strongly disagree. I don’t demonize and feel that those on the left are bad people. I just believe their philosophy is wrong primarily for two reasons.

The first reason is that the expansion of the federal governments role is not what our founding father’s intended and the United States Constitution does not support this growth. The Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights is intended to protect our individual liberties and freedom. The more the federal government attempts to get involved in our lives, invariably the more our individual liberties are jeopardized. These points in and of themselves are more than enough justification on why we need to limit the role of the federal government.

However, I will focus on a more practical reason. We need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government because the federal government is not effective and certainly not efficient in its role as a problem solver. The federal government’s main role is to keep all American citizens safe and secure. As a result, the Department of Defense has the highest budget of all federal departments. However, all departments need to be reviewed and we need to reduce waste in all departments including the Department of Defense. Let’s take the Department of Education for example. This cabinet level department was put in place in 1980 by Jimmy Carter. Has our nation’s public education improved in the past 30 years? I state on my website that Education in America will only improve if we leave the decision-making at the local level. Decisions regarding a child’s education must come from parents in consultation with teachers and principals, not the federal government.

In March 2011, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO identified areas where we can eliminate waste through duplicate efforts. There is over $580 billion identified. I would argue the number is even greater but let’s not quibble over a few billion dollars. You get my point.

Center for American Progress. GAO Provides Valuable Addition to Waste-Cutting Efforts. By Sarah Ayres, Michael Linden. March 15, 2011. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/gao_report_waste.html

We have a $1.5 Trillion annual budget deficit and $15 Trillion dollar national debt. We need to start sending leaders with extensive business experience to tackle these problems. Let’s start in Florida’s District 20 in 2012.

Annoy a Leftist. Work Hard, Succeed & Be Happy!

The ongoing Presidential election has got me thinking about the contrast of the left and right. The whole thing can be summed up with in just two sentences. Annoy a Leftist. Work Hard, Succeed & Be Happy!

What do I mean by this? The simple Conservative truth of Fair taxes, limited government, states rights, and school choice through vouchers, competition and charter schools verses the unsustainable Marxist redistributive model exposed by the leftists. 

Does the fact that they have to reinvent their brand every so often to hide their real intentions mean any thing? Marxists, Socialists, Progressive, Communists are all variations of the same tired Marxist redistributive ponzi scheme that has repeatedly failed in every attempt that has been tried in the last two centuries. Why do they have to use warm and fuzzy half true misleading terms like social justice, The Conservatives have used the same simple message from the beginning!

This article By Phil Kerpen is must read!

Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks the Constitution

By Phil Kerpen Published January 04, 2012 | FoxNews.com

In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama famously said: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress.”

Now, we find that not only was he kidding about signing statements – he recently used one to ignore about 20 provisions of the omnibus spending bill – but Obama also believes he can decide for himself that the Senate is in recess when it is not, overturn at least a hundred years of precedent, and bypass the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement.

Moreover, the president now considers it a political virtue that he is doing precisely what he criticized George Bush for doing: “make laws as he is going along.” Obama now says: “I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

If he were acting within the confines of the law and the Constitution, the argument might make sense.  But Obama has now adopted a theory of executive power so expansive that a reporter at a recent press conference understandably asked whether the president believes we have a virtual monarchy, a president of unlimited powers subject only to periodic elections but not to the rule of law.

According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.  

The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” 

In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House.  Speaker John Boehner has properly withheld that consent to prevent Obama from installing radical appointees into key positions.

There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy.  In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010:  “Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power … the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period.  For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.”

Obama’s attempt to “recess appoint” Richard Cordray while the Senate is in pro forma session is especially galling in light of the history of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the broad powers that Cordray – if Obama’s sleight of hand is permitted by the courts – will wield over the United States economy.

The CFPB has the power to interfere with every consumer financial transaction in the economy. It is housed in the Federal Reserve and funded out of Fed operations, not congressional appropriations, avoiding effective congressional oversight.  

All power is vested in one individual – now, presumably Cordray – with no board or commission.  None of this was part of Elizabeth Warren’s original design, which included a five-member commission that was funded and overseen by Congress.  Senate Republicans have correctly called for reforms to make the new agency accountable before confirming a nominee and allowing it to begin writing rules that could have a major negative impact on the economy.

Obama doesn’t care.  He’s making is up as he goes along.  What a difference four years makes.

Phil Kerpenis vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and author of Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him.