SIRC and mail to:
Russ Peterson
28 Shellwind Drive
Savannah, Ga 31411
Every time Democrats rip apart our defense department, to save money, Republicans have to rebuild at an increased cost when they get back in control.
Granted the Pentagon is a love feat for lobbyist and no doubt savings can be realized
but some of that waste is just a necessary part of the military establishment. (See 1 below.)
---
In three years he has accomplished a whopping increase in our debt, wasted money on bankrupt projects chosen by inept appointees, he has totally lost our influence in the Middle East, he is about to wreck our defense department with out sized cuts, he has pitted American against American by attacking the productive side of our economy while kissing the ass of his political followers, he has stymied energy development and burdened the economy with inane costly and counterproductive legislative red tape. He has resurrected racial resentment. Most of all 'Obamscare,' if not downright unconstitutional, is an abortion.
Those who voted for 'President Number Four/Fore' wanted change. Maybe they will see the light and realize they over reacted to their own contrived hatred of GW.
These voters don't have Sara Palin to kick but I have no doubt many, if not most, will overreach in order to find an excuse that justifies their voting for the' messiah' again. Why? Because they remain slaves to barnacled thinking and objectivity is not easy to come by when you are a committed Socialist.
and mostly brain dead according to David Mamet. (See 2 below.)
More support for my own October 'brain dead' surprise thinking. (See 2a below.)
Finally, more support for why you beat 'President Number Four/Fore' with his own words. (See 2b below.)
---
This from a very ticked off friend of long standing. (See 3 below.)
---
What Constitution? (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Panetta’s Defense Strategy Questioned
By Tony Capaccio
The Defense Department promises to deliver tomorrow on pledges to create a “balanced” new U.S. military strategy that puts more emphasis on Asia even as defense budgets are cut. Critics say it can’t all be done.
A “balanced approach essentially means they are not doing anything bold at all,” Dov Zakheim, who was the Pentagon’s controller under President George W. Bush, said in an interview. “Everything gets cut.”
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will present the Pentagon (USBODEFN)’s strategic review of U.S. roles and missions worldwide. The results will be parsed by allies and adversaries to assess where the U.S. may be pulling back, by military personnel wary of benefit cuts and by defense investors attempting to predict which contractors may benefit or lose out from the new priorities.
“We need to take a hard look” at all defense spending while maintaining U.S. military superiority, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama has met with Panetta on the issue seven times since September, including a session yesterday, Carney said.
Obama will visit the Pentagon to introduce the strategy at a news conference tomorrow at about 11 a.m. Washington time, according to an administration official.
When Panetta’s predecessor as defense secretary, Robert Gates, announced the review last year, he said it was important for the public and Congress to get a full understanding of strategic choices for the U.S. military as it faced $450 billion in additional reductions through 2021, including about $261 billion through 2017.
Not Specifics
Pentagon spokesman George Little and colleague Navy Captain John Kirby told reporters today not to expect specifics on weapons-program cuts.
“Tomorrow is about strategic guidance, not specific programs,” Kirby said. “What you are going to hear is an explanation of the strategy guidance that will govern whatever budget decisions are coming. I wouldn’t be expecting any specific budget decisions or discussions this week.”
Zakheim, who is an adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, said he is skeptical the administration is willing “to go after personnel accounts.”
Maintenance, Personnel
“What they really need to do is look much more carefully at trimming operations and maintenance accounts, taking on personnel accounts in a serious way, taking on military retirement in a serious way,” he said. “The question is how far are they going to go?”
The Defense Department won’t rely on cuts in weapons programs as the main way to meet its spending-reduction goals, Deputy Comptroller Mike McCord said Nov. 30.
The number of uniformed personnel, compensation, retirement health-care benefits and continued savings from efficiencies are getting more attention than major cuts in acquisition, according to McCord. The review is taking a “balanced” approach, he said.
Panetta may outline troop reductions beyond those announced in February 2011.
The fiscal 2012 budget request called for 547,400 Army personnel and 202,100 in the Marine Corps. The current plan calls for reducing the force in 2015 and 2016 by 27,000 GIs and as many as 20,000 Marines.
Combining Resources
A draft of the review concludes that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines must combine resources to thwart any efforts by nations such as China and Iran to block U.S. access to strategic regions such as the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf, according to an administration official familiar with the review who asked not to be identified.
Panetta is expected to outline how the U.S. military will increase its Pacific presence, a shift in emphasis that began with the Quadrennial Defense Review in February 2010, which called for the Air Force and the Navy to craft an air-sea battle concept.
The plan is intended to combine the strengths of the Navy and the Air Force for long-range strikes. It may employ a new generation of bombers, a new cruise missile and drones launched from aircraft carriers. The Navy also is increasing funding to develop unmanned submarines.
Obama Asia Pledge
Obama said in November, during a visit to Australia, that “reductions in U.S. defense spending will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific” region.
Panetta said in a November speech that “even as we enhance our presence in the Pacific, we will not surrender our status as a global power and a global leader.”
Any Pentagon trade-offs “in one area” to beef up the Pacific “will bear consequences in another,” said MacKenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst with the Heritage Foundation in Washington, which opposes major cuts in defense spending.
“As DoD squeezes U.S. force posture in Europe, including bases, it will have a direct impact on the military’s ability to respond to future conflicts like the no-fly zone in Libya, rapid response in Afghanistan post-9/11, and treating the wounded out of Iraq the past decade,” she said in an e-mail. “There are no consequence-free decisions.”
Air Force, Navy
The commitment to Asia “is probably going to put more emphasis on the ‘AirSea battle’ versus land forces,” Robert Stallard, managing director of aerospace research for RBC Capital Markets in New York, said in an e-mail.
“This should mean that Air Force and Navy strategic assets come out relatively well, though we still expect to see budget pressure being felt in pretty much all areas,” he said. “I’m not sure Congress will be comfortable with the Army and Marine Corps being bill-payers for this.”
The strategy review also may revive debate about the Pentagon’s doctrine calling for the capability to fight two major conflicts almost simultaneously.
The Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010 deemphasized that commitment without abandoning it. It said planning should focus more closely on scenarios such as irregular warfare including conflicts involving insurgents or drug traffickers and even humanitarian disasters.
“However you modify that strategy, you won’t get into a position where, if you get engaged in a conflict, you won’t be able to do anything else,” William Lynn, who was then deputy defense secretary, said in an October interview. “You’ll never say, ‘Once I’m in a conflict, everything else I can’t handle.’”
Iran, North Korea
Zakheim said the Pentagon needs to explain clearly any modification in strategy to avoid sending the wrong message to Iran or North Korea.
“Suppose there is a threat from Iran and threat from Korea,” he said. “ What are we going to do?
Ignore Iran or ignore North Korea?”
With budget cuts, the best the military can do is prepare to fight one major war while maintaining the capability to make life difficult enough to deter any second adversary tempted to make a move, John Nagl, a member of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel, said in an interview.
“It looks like we’re moving away from a two-war strategy,” said Nagl, who is president of the Center for a New American Security, a policy group in Washington. “Some capabilities are going to have to go.”
Budget Proposal
The Obama administration’s annual budget proposal will be released in February. Some details were contained in a Nov. 29 Office of Management and Budget document sent to the Pentagon that provided broad outlines for a fiscal 2013-2017 plan.
Defense spending (USBODEFN) in 2013 would be reduced about 1 percent from this year’s $518 billion spending plan before growing 1.8 percent in 2014 and 2.3 percent in 2015, dropping 1.9 percent in 2016 and rising 2.2 percent in 2017, according to the 23-page document.
The defense plan for 2012 to 2021 calls for $5.652 trillion in spending, according to the budget office. It calculated that the total defense cut mandated by budget-reduction legislation over those years is $488 billion, or about an 8.5 percent decrease.
That doesn’t include an additional $500 billion from automatic cuts that would take effect in January 2013 unless Congress stops the action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Gloomy numbers for Obama
By Charles Lane
Campaign 2012 is upon us. Time to size up President Obama’s reelection chances. What do the data suggest?
In 2011, an average of 17 percent of the public was “satisfied with the way things are going,” according to the Gallup Poll. That is roughly the same as 2008 — so Obama enters this year leading a country as unhappy as the one he inherited.
The president’s approval rating is lower than his disapproval rating. In mid-December, Gallup had him “underwater” by eight points: 42 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval.
This is four points better than where Obama was in September, reflecting his political victory over congressional Republicans in last month’s battle over extending the payroll tax cut. But the impact appears to have been short-lived. His current Gallup approval rating is the lowest ever for any incumbent president at this point in his first term.
Obama’s ratings on the economy, the issue voters care about most, consistently trail his overall numbers. His top legislative accomplishment — health-care reform — remains unpopular. It’s 20 points underwater in a December Associated Press-GfK poll.
If Democrats saw Obama’s 2008 victory as a chance to build a progressive majority, they have so far failed to capitalize. Gallup recently asked Americans to rate their ideology on a liberal-to-conservative scale of 1 to 5. The average result was a right-of-center 3.3.
More alarming for Obama, voters scored him at 2.3, to the left of center — and put Mitt Romney at 3.5. Every other GOP contender was to the right of the mean, except Jon Huntsman, who hit the ideological bull’s-eye. But even Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann came closer to the middle than Obama did.
The president’s campaign plans to launch a populist attack on income inequality. But the numbers imply that that is not a promising message; indeed, Gallup has recently found that the public favors pro-growth policies over pro-equality policies, 52 to 40.
Unsurprisingly, December polls by CBS News and AP-GfK found that majorities do not believe Obama deserves reelection. Several polls in the past two months put him in a statistical tie with any Republican; and front-runner Mitt Romney is also in a statistical tie with the president.
Of course, this is how Romney stands before the Obama campaign has really started driving up Romney’s negatives. Whomever the GOP nominates, the Democrats will link him or her to the Tea Party and other perceived extremists.
But Romney may be relatively invulnerable to such a strategy. He is not only seen as closer to the ideological center than Obama is, he is also less polarizing. According to Gallup, Romney is viewed strongly positively and strongly negatively by equal numbers of Americans. Obama, by contrast, inspires 11 percent more hostility than favorability, the same as Newt Gingrich. Even Democrats view Romney with relatively little “negative intensity.”
Of course, the election is not a popularity contest, but a state-by-state race to get 270 electoral votes. Alas for Obama, Gallup recently found that voters in 12 “swing states” favor Romney by five points. In 2008, swing-state party identification favored Democrats by 11 points; now the Democratic edge is down to two points.
On the plus side for Obama, majorities continue to like him personally and to describe him as honest and trustworthy. His foreign-policy ratings are strong, blunting the GOP’s traditional edge in that department. The man who presided over the demise of Osama bin Laden scored a phenomenal 63 percent approval rating on fighting terrorism in an early November Gallup poll.
Also, Obama now scores better than he used to in polls comparing him to Republicans in Congress on job creation. Consumer confidence began to creep up toward the end of 2011, while the jobless rate crept down. If those trends continue, Obama benefits. Though low by historical standards, his approval rating has yet to plunge below about 40 percent, suggesting that he can depend on a rock-solid base of support.
Yet the downside risks for the president are numerous and, from his view, all too easy to identify: a crisis in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East; Europe’s financial mess; poor sales at taxpayer-supported General Motors.
In short, for all the weaknesses of the Republican opposition, Barack Obama faces a dicey future as 2012 begins. Many factors that could affect his chances are beyond his control.
And if he does win, the prize could be four years of fending off center-right attempts to undo the policies of his first term, rather than pursuing an expansive progressive agenda. Happy new year, Mr. President.
2a)Will Obama Go to War?
By Jim Yardley
As we enter 2012, the question of whether our president is planning to go to war might seem far-fetched. After all, all reports indicate that Obama doesn't feel comfortable with the military. Going to war would fly in the face of his claim that he was going to finally use "smart" diplomacy instead of the saber-rattling of George W. Bush.
Obama declared during the primary debates for the Democratic nomination that he would be glad to meet with any head of government without preconditions. We can see that his policies and inclinations toward bilateral or multilateral negotiations to avoid conflict go back to at least 2007, well before he was elected.
The only time he initiated military action was against Moammar Gaddafi in Libya, and then only after France and Britain led the way. He chose to "lead from behind" in that dust-up.
Yet suddenly, the Obama administration is talking tough about Iran. Leon Panetta has spoken aloud the words "A nuclear weapon in Iran is unacceptable." Interviewed by CBS news anchor Scott
Pelley, Panetta entered into this exchange:
Pelley: So are you saying that Iran can have a nuclear weapon in 2012?
Panetta: It would probably be about a year before they can do it. Perhaps a little less. But one proviso, Scott, is if they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.
Pelley: So that they can develop a weapon even more quickly...
Panetta: On a faster track....
Pelley: Than we believe....
Panetta: That's correct.
Pelley: If the Israelis decide to launch a military strike to prevent that weapon from being built, what sort of complications does that raise for you?
Panetta: Well, we share the same common concern. The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it.
Pelley: You just said if we have to do it we will come and do it. What is it?
Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.
Pelley: Including military steps?
Panetta: There are no options off the table
Pelley: A nuclear weapon in Iran is...
Panetta: Unacceptable.
On December 29, 2011, MSNBC reported that the United States Navy, in response to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off between 20% and 25% of the world's oil supply, released a statement by the area naval commander, which read in part:
5th Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich said, "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."
The U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation," she said.
Rebarich declined to say whether the U.S. force had adjusted its presence or readiness in the Gulf in response to Iran's comments, but said the Navy "maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or counter destabilizing activities, while safeguarding the region's vital links to the international community."
Meanwhile, according to NBC News, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little agreed that Iranian interference with passage of vessels through the strategic waterway "will not be tolerated." Mr. Little also said that blocking naval traffic through the Strait represents "an important issue for security and stability in the region" and called the Strait "an economic lifeline."
Three separate news reports.
Three separate news reports from media outlets that are the first to cheer Obama and genuflect before his ideas. Three media outlets that are supported by a viewership made up largely of Liberal-Progressive-Democrats. Three media outlets with staffs and on-air talent that also overwhelmingly support the president and the L-P-D agenda. All three statements from official Obama administration spokespersons reported by the so-called mainstream media without comment.
One needs only a minimal amount of imagination to visualize the reactions of these same media outlets if a spokesperson representing the Bush administration had spoken exactly the same words in exactly the same context.
For someone dedicated to the idea that nations can just sit down and talk about their problems with each other over a beer, these official comments seem significantly out of keeping with the historical attitudes of Obama with regard to international exchanges.
Perhaps Obama has finally realized that his initial assumptions about the uses of diplomacy were wrong. Perhaps he has been seasoned as president for the past three years and now views the posturing of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as not just posturing after all. Obama may have come to the same realization that most of the rest of the planet has come to: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might appear to be a clown, but he is deadly serious about acquiring nuclear weapons, and he is not the slightest bit interested in following the now-decades-old policy of "mutually assured destruction" that has kept the nuclear powers from turning the whole planet into a cinder.
All these suppositions might, in fact, actually be the real impetus behind Obama pushing back against the Iranian regime's litany of threats.
But there is one other motivational force that might lie behind the Obama administration's change in outlook -- namely, the fact that Obama does not exactly have a lock on re-election. His poll numbers are down, and without a nearly miraculous turnaround in the economy and an enormous drop in unemployment, those poll numbers will almost certainly sink farther. He has lost the unquestioning support of his own party -- an inference, to be sure, but when reports of potential primary challenges (and very vocal calls for challenges) to a sitting president start to percolate through the protective cordon of the mainstream media, one can safely assume that all is not well in paradise.
How do dropping poll numbers and saber-rattling relate to each other? How often has this country ever defeated a president running for re-election during a war?
Obama and his advisers do not seem to be particularly concerned with the deaths of anyone so long as their ideological goals are reached. Witness the hundreds upon hundreds who have been killed as a result of this administration's innovative crime-prevention program referred to as "Fast and Furious," which was in reality an attempt achieve the ideological goal of gun control by creating a climate which would allow the imposition of onerous new regulations that would circumvent the 2nd Amendment and recent Supreme Court rulings.
Although the president's poll numbers have varied in the past few weeks, if they start to trend downward in a significant way, and if there is a simultaneous increase in the rather blunt (for this administration, at least) threats of retaliation for any attempt by Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz, or the threat of military action to preclude Iran's achieving its goal of a nuclear weapon, one can draw only one conclusion. Obama and his minions plan to get themselves another four years by telling an already jittery nation that they should not consider changing leadership in the lead-up to, or the inception and execution of, a war.
For Obama, it appears that his signature political mantra has not changed since he first entered the Illinois legislature: "Hey, whatever works! Someone else will pay the price."
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, Vietnam veteran and an independent voter.
2b)Obama: America's Greatest Asset
By William L. Gensert
The future of America depends on electing a new president in 2012, and the best asset for any potential challenger is Barack Obama. His obtuse sense of self-worth will be a shrewd candidate's greatest advantage.
Obama believes that he is a spectacular success, almost godlike in his judgment. All his policies are not only correct, but manifestations of the transcendent, prescient leader he knows himself to be.
He will run, fast and furious, from his record -- but not because it shows him to be less than the greatest leader ever, except for possibly Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln...and even then, only "possibly."
As a people, we simply do not have the intelligence to understand the brilliance of his ways and the nuance of his success or how lucky we are to have him. Perhaps we are too soft and lazy; perhaps we've reached the point where we've made enough money or are clinging too bitterly to our guns and religion, fearful of a man who looks different from us.
He is compelled to campaign decisively and divisively, with decided derision against anyone who dares to oppose. He does not want to play the race card, early and often, against all who disagree -- but he will.
He does not want to unfairly smear his opponent, his opponent's family, and everyone his opponent ever cared about, or who has ever cared about his opponent -- but he will.
He does not want to lie, falsify facts, or make wonders up wholesale, in support of whatever he says -- but he will.
He does not want to cheat, using community organizations to manufacture votes, or campaign illegally on the public dime, or turn a blind eye toward outright electoral fraud -- but he will.
If only we had loved him enough and passed that bill "now," as he asked. Alas, it's too late. He can't wait. If only we were worthy of his leadership, worthy of him, he wouldn't have to do these things. We had our chance. He graciously gave everyone who disagreed with him the opportunity to do as they were told.
It's our fault. He never wanted this, but now he has no choice. It is beyond his control. We made our bed; now we have to lie in it.
How else can he triumph, win the future, and transform the nation, in unselfish service, to an ungrateful, ignorant populace?
With apologies to Don Mclean and Vincent van Gogh, "I could have told you, Barack, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you."
Is it any wonder that Michelle was never proud of us? Never mind -- throw some arugula on the Bar-b. No, that might create too much CO2. Is it time for another vacation? How about a visit to Rio or Bali or Costa del Sol? She's been there and done that...well, she'll find a venue worthy of her presence. Little people are always so nice to the ones they've been waiting for.
This presidential election will be a street fight. It will be bloody; it will be vile. Anyone who challenges Barack Obama needs to understand that the man and his minions will lie, cheat, and utilize any underhanded trick available to win four more years of public-funded golf, vacations, and Air Force One for himself, and the little 757 for the perennially prickly, and finally proud, Michelle, his belle.
This is the most important presidential election since Ronald Reagan challenged the first Barack Obama in 1980. It is about direction, priorities, and who we are as a nation. For while four more years of this president will not destroy America, it will certainly destroy many of its citizens.
Fortunately, there is a path to victory -- over this worst of all presidents, the man we can all see right through, the most transparent president in history -- and it runs through him.
The main issue in this election is Barack Obama -- his policies, the decisions he has made, the people he has consorted with, his nominees, and the economic destruction he has wrought upon the nation.
His un-stimulating stimulus, stimulating only the pocketbooks of backers of Barack, was an unmitigated failure. It actually made matters worse, taking a recession and prolonging it, while bringing the nation to its knees and to the brink of hopelessness.
Yet he says he saved us from depression.
"He kept us out of war" was what Woodrow Wilson campaigned on in 1916. Of course, by 1917, America was embroiled in World War I.
Expect a depression in Obama's second term, because his idea of halting the slide is to do the same thing he did before, except half as large. "Pass the bill now," he said, because even though it made things worse the first time around, this time's the charm.
Barack Obama's war on fossil fuels has been a pyrrhic victory, shutting down drilling in the Gulf, and anywhere else, except on private land, beyond his control...well, maybe next term. It will take 10 years for the oil economy to recover to where it was before he ascended to the presidency.
A second term, for this liberal Luddite, will see tripled electric bills and gasoline over $10 a gallon. But then, isn't that what he told us he wanted?
His recess appointment-packed NLRB has proceeded with a program of forced unionization, because unions provide more money to his campaign than anyone, except for maybe crony capitalists.
The EPA has prosecuted a war on industry, regardless of the cost in dollars or jobs, seeking to shut down coal-fired electrical generation and all manufacturing that releases anything into the environment. Rabid environmentalists are also big supporters of the president.
After almost four years of experiencing the abject misery Obama has put the country through, anyone still willing to vote for this dim-witted, worse-than-dismal president, deserves the four years of wretchedness that will follow should he win re-election.
Make no mistake: Barack Obama, unencumbered by the perpetual campaign of these last three years, will turn Ronald Reagan's "morning in America" into four years of "mourning in America" as he strives to remake the nation in his own image, because he can think of nothing more perfect.
An embattled monarch without control of the House or the Senate, he will not govern; he will rule. Executive orders and regulatory fiat, things he found so useful in his first term, will be the order of the day in his second. The nation will tremble before his wrath. Our freedoms and prosperity will be sacrificed to his outsized ego and his dream of a pre-eminent place in the history books.
There will be nothing to stop his transformation of the nation. Since we are not worthy of him, he will try to destroy us -- not maliciously, but for our own good. The second coming of Obama will ruin people, families, and other nations as well.
Yet America is bigger than any one man, despite what Barack Obama thinks. A new president will still be capable of undoing this president's assault on our future. The rebuilding may take decades, and it will not be pretty, but it will take place.
America, a land seemingly blessed by God, has too much going for it to be destroyed by someone as small as Barack Obama, a man once described by minions, sycophants, and himself as godlike.
In the coming election, the greatest advantage we will have to actually win the future is Barack Obama.
Because, in the end, there is a big difference between God and Barack Obama: God does not want to be Barack Obama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Fw: It just keeps getting worse
Our own government says they want to create new jobs and then they give a contract to a foreign company and the US media doesn't even report it. It sure seems like there are forces in the US that are trying to bring our country down????
It just keeps getting worse as the outside players emerge!!
The Obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media. The information is out there on several conservative sites. Please see the two articles linked below. This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything.
And when it’s time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security.
How much more damage will Obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company.
When will the 4th estate do it’s constitutionally protected job and expose the real Obama to the American people?
Article By Gary P Jackson _Hawker-Beechcraft Denied Big Air Force Contract in Favor of Brazilian Company With Soros Connections_
(http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/hawker-beechcraft-denied-big-air-force-contract-in-favor-of-braz ilian-company-with-soros-connections/)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks
Nominations could provoke constitutional fight
By Stephen Dinan and Susan Crabtree
Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs.
Mr. Obama said the appointments, which he previewed during a campaign-style speech in Ohio, were necessary because Senate Republicans have blocked him at every turn. But in making the move, he rejected three precedents, including two in which he played a part, that would have blocked the appointments.
“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”
Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the consumer protection agency and named three others - two Democrats and one Republican - to the labor board. Those nominations had all been stymied by congressional Republicans, who said Mr. Obama was accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.
The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session, albeit a pro forma one without any business transacted.
Senators from both parties - including Democrats in 2007 and 2008, when Mr. Obama was in the Senate - have said it takes a recess of at least three days before the president can use his appointment powers.
Mr. Obama’s move threatens to ignite an all-out legislative war with Congress, and Republicans reacted with strikingly sharp language.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the move “arrogantly circumvented the American people.”
“Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress‘ role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch,” he said.
Supporters of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have said the lack of a top executive has blocked the fledgling agency from taking on a number of tasks in its mandate to police the financial sector and protect consumers from fraud.
Consumer groups and labor union advocates cheered Mr. Obama’s moves.
Senate Republicans don’t object to Mr. Cordray, but argue the bureau needs an overhaul before it should be allowed to operate. They say it leaves the agency, whose budget is not approved by Congress, with too much power concentrated in the hands of its director.
Senate Republicans last month filibustered Mr. Cordray’s nomination, leaving him seven shy of the 60 votes needed to get a final confirmation vote.
Democrats and Republicans have increasingly turned to filibusters to block a president’s nominees when they are in the majority, making recess appointments an attractive option.
President George W. Bush used them to circumvent Democrats who filibustered judicial nominations and his pick of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.
The Constitution gives the president the power to make appointments when the Senate is not in session. Back when Congress was part time, that gave the president power to fill posts that otherwise might go unfilled for months.
During the past few congressional vacations, House Republicans have insisted on coming in for pro forma sessions every three days, triggering a clause in the Constitution that forces the Senate also to come into session.
Presidential spokesman Jay Carney said the White House doesn’t consider pro forma sessions to be actual work by Congress. Even though the Senate has been convening in those sessions every three days, he said, “the president’s counsel has determined that the Senate has been in recess for weeks and will be in recess for weeks.”
It’s a thorny question, and some legal authorities have agreed with Mr. Obama’s analysis.
But at least three major precedents suggest otherwise.
The Clinton administration argued that there must be a recess of at least three days to trigger the recess appointment clause. Mr. Obama’s top constitutional attorneys at the solicitor general’s office also subscribed to the three-day rule in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in 2010.
“The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days,” Neal Katyal, then deputy solicitor general, told Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Mr. Katyal, who is now a professor at Georgetown University, did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
The third precedent involves Mr. Obama’s fellow Senate Democrats who, after taking control of the chamber, used pro forma sessions to stop Mr. Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008.
“I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma sessions to block the [Steven G.] Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he summed up the legal consensus in 2008. Mr. Obama was in the Senate at the time.
Mr. Bradbury, an administration attorney, was nominated by Mr. Bush’s in 2005, to be an assistant attorney general, but never received a vote by the full Senate.
On Wednesday, though, Mr. Reid reversed course and said he backed the president’s move. A spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment on what changed in Mr. Reid’s thinking on the constitutional question.
Other Democrats who were also in the Senate in 2007 and 2008 cheered Mr. Obama’s appointments, saying the GOP’s obstruction had gone too far. Instead of the constitutional questions, they highlighted the work the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do.
“The Senate minority’s attempt to defang the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by depriving it of leadership is unprecedented, hurts middle-class consumers, and needed to be challenged,” said Sen Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat. “It is clear President Obama is doing the right thing by putting a real consumer cop like Mr. Cordray on the beat to protect the middle class.”
Part of the confusion is that the word “session” has different meanings in the Constitution. Each daily meeting is known as a “session,” but each two-year Congress is also divided into two sessions, and each begins on Jan. 3 every year.
During Tuesday’s pro forma meeting, the Senate officially gaveled out the first session of the 112th Congress and gaveled in the second session.
There is precedent for making a recess appointment in between those kinds of sessions. In 1903, President Roosevelt used the instant one session was gaveled out and another was gaveled in to make a series of appointments. That is known as an “inter-session” appointment.
Mr. Obama did not follow that route and instead made what scholars call an “intra-session” appointment, on which the Constitution is far more vague.
Mr. Obama early Wednesday signaled he would use his powers to install Mr. Cordray, but Mr. McConnell said he “upped the ante” by also making recess appointments for the three NLRB appointments. Mr. Obama announced appointments of Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and National Labor Relations counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the five-member board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year.
Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin are Democrats, and Mr. Flynn is a Republican.
Mr. Obama nominated Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin on Dec. 17, just two days before senators went home for a monthlong vacation. Mr. McConnell said that means the two have been installed without facing congressional scrutiny.
“What the president did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future president to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress,” Mr. McConnell said. “This was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the president to seek the advice and con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment