Search This Blog

Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Third Jihad-Full Length Documentary

The Third Jihad from Revelación Cristiana on Vimeo.

The Third Jihad, the newest offering from the producers of the captivating documentary film, Obsession, explores the existence of radical Islam in America and the emerging risk that this “homegrown jihad” poses to national security, western liberties and the “American way of life.”

The film, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following statement: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them.”

In 72 minutes, the film reveals that radical Islamists driven by a religiously motivated rejection of western values cultures and religion are engaging in a multifaceted strategy to overcome the western world. In contrast to the use of “violent jihad” and terror to instill fear in “non-believers,” The Third Jihad introduces the concept of “cultural jihad” as a means to infiltrate and undermine our society from within. 

Related links:
The Third Jihad
Clarion Fund

'The Third Jihad' Producers Reply to New York Times Articles

Documentary recently pulled from NYPD counterterrorism training; Times articles filled with innuendo and inaccuracies

The New York Times has sharply criticized the New York Police Department for using the critically-acclaimed documentary The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America in counterterrorism training. 

The New York Times has published two news articles (first, second), as well as an editorial entitled "Hateful Film" in the past 48 hours. 

In response, film producer Raphael Shore has issued the following statement: 

"We regret that the film has been taken out of the counterterrorism training program of the NYPD. The New York Times stories are proof positive that the Clarion Fund's high-quality and impactful documentaries touch very sensitive nerves. 

Those that have blasted the film are attempting to stifle an important debate about the internal state of the Muslim community in America, and whether politicized Islam and indoctrination pose tangible security threats. 

We hope that individuals will acknowledge the inaccuracies presented by the New York Times, and the effects that organizations like CAIR have on the fine line between political correctness and honest debate. 

We invite the general public to watch and judge the documentary for themselves. The Third Jihad is now being made available for free viewing online at" 

According to the New York Times, nearly 1500 officers, "from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers" reportedly were shown the film during a period of between three months and a year. 

The story of the film's usage by NYPD was first reported by the Village Voice a year earlier, and police stopped using the film when pressure was asserted by local Islamic organizations. Pressure continued until the New York Times propelled the year-old story to front-page news yesterday.

CAIR is taking credit for the "investigation" which led to the New York Times' coverage, with a press release demanding that the NYPD install Muslim-sensitive materials in their training curriculum to offset what they consider to be an 'Islamaphobic' film. 

What CAIR and the New York Times failed to clearly address, is that The Third Jihad is narrated by a devout Muslim, who has a significant record of serving the United States of America, as a medical officer in the US Navy and as an attending physician to the US Congress. 

The beginning of the film states in bold letters that, "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical."
The film's message urges the Muslim community to look within itself to root out the indoctrination that affects a minority of Muslims. 

The documentary is founded on credible evidence presented by the FBI of a "Manifesto" published by radicals calling for the implementation of extremist ideology-both violent and politicized-within the United States. 

It is no surprise that CAIR does not like the content of the film. CAIR is singled out in the film for its direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, open support for Hamas, and links to terror financing.

As a result of these designations, the FBI has formally ceased all ties with CAIR-as should the NYPD and New York Times

The NYPD is well aware of the threats that emanate from Islamic radicals. 

In the preface to a landmark 2007 NYPD Intelligence Division Report entitled "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly writes, "New York City continues to be the one of the top targets of terrorists worldwide. Consequently, the NYPD places a priority on understanding what drives and defines the radicalization process." 

The Third Jihad takes an in-depth look at the process of radicalization and indoctrination taking place on American soil. 

It is clear that senior members of the NYPD saw value in the film, as did employees of the Federal Homeland Security department, who first gave the DVD of the film to the NYPD. 

The Third Jihad features exclusive interviews with some of the nation's leading counterterrorism experts including former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly. 

According to the New York Times, Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's chief spokesman said, "that filmmakers had lifted the [Kelly] clip from an old interview." 

This is the first of several inaccuracies to appear in the New York Times' account. 

The makers of The Third Jihad conducted a nearly 90-minute exclusive interview with Commissioner Kelly specifically for the film on March 19, 2007. Previously unreleased bonus clips of Kelly's interview are currently available at

Responding to a letter by film producer Raphael Shore, Browne then corrected the record in the New York Times follow-up article. "I recommended in February 2007 that Commissioner Kelly be interviewed," he said. 

Browne recalled that the film's interviewer, "asked to speak to the commissioner for a cable film on 'foiled terrorist plots and the current threat matrix.'" 

Several other inaccuracies appear in the article. For example, the New York Times notes that the film includes a doctored photo of the White House with an Islamic flag atop. But the photo is one of many pieces of documented footage from Islamist sources. Yet the New York Times implies that the filmmakers were the ones to manipulate the photo. 

The New York Times also inaccurately quotes the film by stating: "'This is the true agenda of Islam in America,' a narrator intones." But the actual quote from the film is: "This document shows the true agenda of much of Muslim leadership here in America." 

The article intentionally omits that this narrator is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim. 

The rest of the New York Times' coverage focuses on character assassination. While CAIR and others label the film Islamophobic, it is ironic that the film's detractors continuously point out that the film's producer has ties to Jewish organizations. The article inaccurately claims that Raphael Shore simultaneously works for Aish HaTorah. 

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg questioned the judgment of that those who permitted the usage of the film. However, Bloomberg's predecessor Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is also interviewed in the film, has praised the documentary calling The Third Jihad, "a wake up call for America." 

646-308-1230 x213 


Wednesday, January 18, 2012

US Congressman Steve King: "Oil Will Be Sent to China if the Keystone Pipeline isn’t Built"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                         CONTACT: Brittany Lesser
January 18, 2012                                                               Office: 202.226.2388
King: Oil Will Be Sent to China if the Keystone XL Pipeline isn’t Built
Washington, DC: Congressman Steve King (IA-05) released the following video statement in response to President Obama’s decision to deny the permit to build the job creating Keystone XL pipeline:
“If we block it, that oil will certainly go to China. It will enrich their economy,” said King. “It will starve ours and it’s clear that the President is pacifying his environmental extremist base and at the cost of American jobs and the vitality of America’s economy. This is a foolish decision on the part of the President. We’re going to have to do all we can in this Congress to reverse that decision, but I fear we’ll have to elect a new President before we can actually accomplish that task.”
U.S. Congressman Steve King
Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District

Source: Tea Party Tribune

Sunday, January 15, 2012

JFK Speech- The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961

Full transcript from the speech:

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961

    Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:    
      I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
     You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
     You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
     We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
     But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
     If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
     I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
     It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
     Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
     Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
     If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
     On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
     It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
     My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
     I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
     This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
     The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. 

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. 

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
     But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
     Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
     If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
     It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
     Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
     Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
     For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
     The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
     The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
     On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
     I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
     Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
     And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
     Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
     It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
     No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
     I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
     Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
     This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
     It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. 

Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
     And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Description: Audio recording of President John F. Kennedy’s address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association at a Bureau of Advertising dinner held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. In his speech President Kennedy addresses his discontent with the press’s news coverage of the Bay of Pigs incident, suggesting that there is a need for “far greater public information” and “far greater official secrecy.” 

Kathleen Sebelius Destroyed Evidence to Protect Planned Parenthood in a Child Rape Case

American Life League explains the miscarriage of justice in Kansas and calls for Kathleen Sebelius' resignation.
A state Governor and her appointees obstruct an investigation into repeated coverups of child rape. When they find they can no longer stave off the inevitable, they destroy the evidence. Along the way they try to have the prosecutor disbarred. The Governor later becomes a member of the President’s Cabinet. These are the makings of a major scandal that should be plastered across the front page of every newspaper in America. Instead, hardly anyone has heard of it. Why?

The answer is twofold. First, the former Governor is current Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Second, her administration’s actions were undertaken in an effort to protect the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. One needn’t be Sherlock Holmes to figure out why the mainstream media have chosen to ignore the story.

It all started in Sebelius’s first year as Governor of Kansas, 2003, when state Attorney General Phill Kline, a pro-life Republican, began investigating whether abortion clinics in the Sunflower State were reporting child rapes as required by law. “Our evidence,” Kline recalled in an article at, “had revealed that during a time when 166 abortions were performed on children in Kansas, Planned Parenthood had only reported one case of child molestation.”

That evidence was not easy to come by. The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) and Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), both controlled by the staunchly pro-abortion Democrat Sebelius, fought tooth and nail to keep Kline from getting his hands on the relevant records. The courts eventually sided with Kline, and SRS and KDHE were forced to turn them over.

Among those records were reports on each abortion performed in the state, which abortion clinics were required to file. Kline kept copies of those reports and then, in 2004, subpoenaed Planned Parenthood for its own records. Like its allies in Topeka, Planned Parenthood delayed complying until it received a court order two years later.

Some of the reports provided by Planned Parenthood did not line up with the originals that KDHE had provided. Instead, “they had been filed with bogus language where legitimate medical reasons were supposed to have been supplied,” according to This led a judge in 2007 to find “probable cause to believe that Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts, including 23 felonies,” one for each of the reports that had been altered, Kline wrote.

By that time Kline had been ousted as Attorney General after pro-abortion forces and their friends in the media targeted him for electoral defeat. By a stroke of luck, he was then appointed to the post his successor, Paul Morrison, had vacated — District Attorney for Johnson County, where Planned Parenthood’s offices just happened to reside. He was thus able to continue his investigation.

Kline left the copies of the documents originally provided by KDHE and Planned Parenthood with the judge. The judge then turned his copies over to incoming Attorney General Morrison, who in turn sued both the judge and Kline in an attempt to force them to turn all evidence over to Planned Parenthood. Morrison, said Kline, “lost both of these lawsuits but the litigation delayed my efforts for years more and resulted in the Sebelius-appointed Kansas Supreme Court ordering a secret trial and at one time, secretly silencing a witness to Planned Parenthood’s criminal conduct.”

Morrison was forced to resign amid scandal when his mistress, who still worked in the Johnson County District Attorney’s office, now reporting to Kline, publicly alleged that “Morrison was trying to use their relationship to interfere with the investigation of Planned Parenthood,” according to Kline. Sebelius then appointed Morrison’s successor, Stephen Six, who proceeded to obstruct the investigation further.

Finally, in 2011, a pre-trial hearing for the Planned Parenthood case got under way, with the current Johnson County District Attorney, Steve Howe, leading the prosecution. Then two bombshells were dropped.

First, KDHE had destroyed its original copies of the 23 abortion reports in question in 2005, once it became clear that it would have to present them in court. “Calling it a ‘routine’ document destruction,” observed Kline, “the Sebelius administration shredded documents it knew served as key evidence in a criminal investigation against a Sebelius ally.”

The second bombshell was that KDHE wasn’t the only Sebelius administration agency to destroy evidence. In 2009, the Attorney General’s office, under the leadership of Six, also shredded documents related to the investigation that had been provided to the office during Kline’s tenure. “The Six Attorney General’s office destroyed documents produced pursuant to a criminal subpoena which it knew was evidence in a criminal prosecution filed in October of 2007,” Kline stated. “Not only this, Six knew I was trying to use those documents in the criminal case.”

Because of the destruction of evidence, Howe has asked the court to dismiss the felony charges against Planned Parenthood.
Read more: The New American

Saturday, January 14, 2012

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady |
As moveigoers head to theaters this weekend, many will want to compare the person they saw on screen to the real woman. As we explained this week, there is no resource better than the Iron Lady’s own words. Our new video attempts to shine a spotlight on her important legacy—one that continues to inspire.

Like President Ronald Reagan, her political soulmate, she came to power at a desperate time in her country’s history, when real leadership and bold ideas were most needed. And by applying conservative principles to the challenges she faced, she was able to achieve real and lasting success. Then, as today, she faced an extraordinary set of challenges and a chorus of voices saying her country’s best days were behind it. Thatcher’s successes are a comforting reminder of the power of a bold, conservative vision at work.

Eulogy to Reagan by Thatcher

Eulogy to President Ronald Reagan delivered (or rather, pre-recorded and shown) by the former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at his state funeral in Washington.

Related Links:
Margaret Thatcher Center For Freedom

US Rep. Johnson Pitches Plan For Part-Time Congress

On January 13th Congressman Johnson announced his major congressional reform initiative: The Citizen Legislator Act. This bill could save up to $2 billion a year by cutting the days representatives spend in session, cutting their salaries in half, cutting their office budgets in half and allowing them to work jobs outside of public office.

For more information on this legislation visit:


Johnson pitches plan for part-time Congress

BLOOMINGTON – One Central Illinois lawmaker wants Congress to do less – a lot less.

U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, is introducing a bill called the Citizen Legislators Act, which would make being a member of Congress a part-time job instead of a full-time position. He said a less demanding legislative schedule – and the ability to have a job outside Congress – would bring in new blood.

The five-term incumbent said the current crop of lawmakers in Congress is out of touch with “Main Street USA.”

“You can get farmers, you can get teachers, you can get laborers, you can get lawyers, you can get a variety of people,” Johnson told WJBC’s Beth Whisman on Friday. “Now, the ‘mix,’ so to speak, is very limited.”

Johnson’s bill would:

  • Limit days in session to five per month, or 60 business days per session.
  • Halves the salary of representatives and senators.
  • Permit members to have jobs outside of Congress, so long as they don’t derive their income as a result of the “privilege of their office,” such as speaking tours.
  • Cuts member office allowances, committee and leadership budgets in half
  • Cuts member salaries an additional 10 percent for every five business days Congress exceeds 60 business days in session.
Johnson said his bill could save up to $2 billion a year.

“You force efficiency. You force people to get work done in a compact period of time, and if they don’t there’s a heavy penalty to be paid – every five days you go over the 60, members get their salaries cut 10 percent.”

Johnson conceded that the chances of his bill passing are slim, but he said he’d be pleased to see it raise the issue in a serious way.

One of the Democrats hoping to run against Johnson in November said Johnson was “playing political games” instead of focusing on economic issues “important to voters in Central Illinois.”

“Congressman Johnson is part of the problem in Washington, and it’s clear he’ll do to anything to stay in Congress,” Greene County State’s Attorney Matt Goetten said in a statement. “When Congressman Tim Johnson first ran for Congress more than ten years ago, he supported term limits. Now Congressman Johnson is trying to hide his failed record of supporting job-killing trade agreements and ending Medicare as we know it by introducing bogus reform initiatives so he can get re-elected. That’s exactly why Congress is such a mess. We need actual solutions to get people back to work.”

Goetten will run against fellow Democrat Dr. David Gill in the March 20 primary.

Johnson’s “new bill cuts pay and work time for Congress in half,” a post on Gill’s Twitter account (@davidgill2012) said. “Will he cut his pay and staff by half NOW to lead — or is it another stunt?”

For his interview with WJBC go here

Sunday, January 8, 2012


 UPDATE 6/2/13
Hud tells Westchester County NY Zoning Codes = Discrimination

Sorry no option to embed video:

Battle over affordable housing in New York county-VIDEO
Hud is trying to strong arm this community.  Everyone needs to pay attention to this because it is coming to your community, if it hasn't already. 

Westchester County Housing Settlement Letters from HUD:
Read the HUD letters and see for yourself how Westchester County is being bullied by the federal government.   Here are some of the key documents.
Westchester County website 
  • May 13, 2011 letter:  HUD says Westchester must go "beyond the four corners of the settlement." 
  • March 13, 2013 letter: HUD says real goal for affordable housing units is 10,768  -- not the 750 that was agreed to in the settlement.
  • March 25, 2013 letter: HUD threatend to reallocate $7.4 million previously promised to Westchester and local communities.
 See other documents and press releases relating to the housing settlement. 

 The Battle Over Affordable Housing Heats Up in Westchester
Concerns about over development in Scarsdale could extend far beyond the shoehorning of oversized houses onto undersized lots or the destruction of heritage trees. If the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has it their way, villages like Scarsdale and Bronxville could find their local zoning ordinances under attack. These zoning ordinances ensure the unique character of these towns as they define minimum lot sizes, maximum height and bulk, residential vs. commercial zones and the siting of single-family vs. multi-family homes. Without these ordinances, apartment houses and town houses could spring up on 2-acre lots in Murray Hill, clogging residential streets with parked cars and straining the local infrastructure and educational system.

County Executive Rob Astorino paid a visit to the Scarsdale Forum on Thursday night April 25 and presented his side of the county's battle with HUD to meet their obligations as stipulated in the 2009 Affordable Housing Settlement that Astorino inherited when he came into office. 

Among other remedies, the court mandated Westchester to build 750 units of affordable housing at a total cost of $51.6 million. Ironically the county is well ahead of schedule on construction of the units and plans to complete 305 by the end of 2013.

Building the required housing has not been the source of the clash between Astorino's office and the HUD Chair. Two additional requirements of the legislation have caused much consternation.

First, the settlement required Astorino to promote sources of income legislation that would bar landlords from discriminating against tenants who use Section 8 vouchers or other government income to pay their rent. Rather than advance this legislation, Astorino vetoed the bill when he came into office. After HUD threatened to penalize Westchester by reallocating $7.4 in Community Development Block Grants due to Westchester this month, Astorino has re-introduced legislation that bans discrimination against potential homeowners and renters based on their source of income and has vowed to sign it. Astorino has also appealed to Governor Cuomo to lobby for the HUD funds and administer them to Westchester.

However, he still faces another hurdle.

The most vexing portion of the settlement requires Westchester to submit a zoning analysis and a plan to overcome "exclusionary zoning practices." Specifically, the county was ordered to:

  • Identify local zoning practices that have exclusionary impact or fail to take into account regional need

  • Develop a process to notify municipalities of zoning issues that hinder the county's obligations and changes that must be made as well as consequences for failing to make them.

  • Identify types of zoning practices that would, if not remedied by the municipality lead the county to pursue legal action.
In a letter to the county dated March 13, 2013 the Federal Monitor, James Johnson, asks the county to assess the impact of restrictive zoning practices including:

  • Restrictions that limit or prohibit multifamily housing development;

  • Limitations on the size of a development;

  • Restrictions on lot size of density requirements that encourage single-family housing;

  • Limitations on townhouse development;
and "the impact such practices have on racial and ethnic composition."

Westchester County has submitted three such zoning analyses and failed to identify exclusionary zoning practices. According to Astorino, "The County has supplied volumes of data as well as a thorough legal analysis showing Westchester's zoning is not exclusionary." In comments at the Scarsdale Forum meeting, Astorino charged HUD with refusing to accept the county's zoning analyses because they did not reach HUD's conclusions -- not because the data was invalid or deficient.

Does HUD have the right to force municipalities to change their zoning codes? Professor John Nolon of the Pace University Law Land Use Center, who consulted on the case said in June, 2012, "Only towns, villages and cities have zoning power in New York. There is no constitutional or statutory definition of exclusionary zoning in New York to determine the obligations that these communities have to zone for housing that can be made affordable by housing developers." He cited the "Berenson" cases in New York which ruled on issues of affordable housing and said though these cases require the county to consider "regional needs," they did not define what region needed consideration. Is it Westchester County? New York City? The Tri-State Region? Connecticut? He concluded by saying that though the region's Economic Development Council has been charged by the state with developing plans, none of its current plans establish regional housing needs or a methodology for estimating them.

How to get beyond this impasse?

After HUD turned down all three analyses, James Johnson, who is the Federal Monitor assigned to the case, has now undertaken his own zoning analysis and sent letters to each of the municipalities with a report card for each showing their progress on meeting targets for the number of affordable units. Though Scarsdale has passed a model zoning ordinance that requires developers to build one affordable unit with each group of 10 market-rate units, the report says that the ordinance "provides no zoning incentives for affordable housing." The report notes that "the few areas in which multifamily housing is allowed as-of-right are "fully built out" and recommends that the village "provide density or other incentives for affordable housing, mapping additional areas where multifamily house is permitted as-of-right, and permitting accessory housing in "faux" garages as well as quadraplexes and cottage-style housing." It shows that as of the 2000 census only .4 percent of total village acreage is zoned for multi-family housing and that 4 percent of the population is Hispanic or Black -- the only two minority groups considered in the settlement.

Since Scarsdale is already fully developed, the only way for the village to expand its inventory of affordable housing would be to change the zoning code, an idea that is unpopular with residents who are already up in arms about development and absorbing big annual tax increases to pay for schools and services.

The biggest surprise in the "report card" was the assertion that Scarsdale is targeted to build 160 AFFH units -- a number pulled from "The unadopted Affordable Housing Allocation Plan produced in 2005 by the county's planning department." The letter states that "none of which have been built in the interim."

According to Astorino, this same 2005 report called for the construction of 10,678 units county-wide, far beyond the scope of the 750 units mandated in the 2009 settlement.

In an April 15, 2013 response to the Federal Monitor, the Scarsdale Board of Trustees told Johnson that "the village has fundamental disagreements with the position taken in your letter... Specifically we note that the village in not a party to the litigation and settlement agreement referred to in the "report card. " Further, the "unadopted Affordable Housing Allocation Plan does not impose any obligation on the Village."

Astorino says that these new targets "expand the agreement beyond the four quarters of the settlement," and that HUD has taken a very aggressive stance, claiming that any restriction is a restrictive zoning practice that must be abolished. Saying "there is no rhyme or reason" for HUD's demands, he called on residents to contact their congressmen and senators to voice their concerns about HUD's demands.

As it stands today, $7.4 million in grant money could be lost for Westchester if the county fails to comply. HUD is also calling for Westchester municipalities to make fundamental changes to their zoning codes that would radically alter the character of the 31 municipalities who, according to the outdated 2000 census numbers, do not house adequate numbers of black and Hispanic residents. The zoning code HUD is challenging includes lot size, stipulations for single family housing and structure bulk and density, which is common among suburban communities across the country.

Many in Scarsdale are shocked and offended that HUD is charging the village with exclusionary zoning and racism. The population is a diverse mix of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Asians, and others who live together in harmony. As one 40-year resident said, "anyone who says Scarsdale is racist simply doesn't know the community."

Can a federal agency force a locality to change their zoning code? That's the battle that could be in the offing.
Source: Huffington Post 

While the following video and many of the links reference California, this is happening across this country.  Even in the great red state of Texas.  If it can happen in Texas, it can happen anywhere.  Do your research.  Understand what is going on behind the curtain.  It should frighten you.  Reach out to your family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors and help in educating those that are completely unaware of this insidious overreach of our government.  

Silence is Approval

Agenda 21 In California

Flash Gordon’s entry for the Alex Jones’ Infowars Reporter Contest covering Agenda 21 - -

References for the video

Agenda 21:
Who Funds Agenda 21
More References
Rosa Koire:
Full Video Presentation
Interview with Alex Jones
Vaccines for Population Control:
Presidents Council on Sustainable Development:
American Planning Association:
One Bay Area
Wall Street Journal- California Declares War on Suburbia
World Future Society- World Future Forum in Toronto

More links on Agenda 21:
AGENDA 21 COURSE: Understanding Sustainable Development and How It Affects You
American Policy Center 
John Birch Society-Stop Agenda 21

UPDATE 2/20/12

Tom DeWeese: Agenda 21 & International Redistribution of Wealth

Uploaded by on Feb 16, 2012
Tom DeWeese, the founder and director of the American Policy Center ( informs the sheriffs about the origins of Agenda 21, the central planning strategy that has grown out of the United Nations since 1987 to become soft law in the cities and counties across America to control all facets of the economy for an international redistribution of wealth.

On January 30-31, 2012 over 100 county sheriffs and peace officers, from over 30 states, united to uphold their oaths of office, protect citizen liberty, and stop state and federal tyranny. Inspired and led by the example of former Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, the meeting, which was held in Las Vegas, was funded by the generous donations of thousands of Americans from all fifty states, as well as the support of freedom loving sponsors.

The agenda included training on the Bill of Rights, Interposition, Nullification and the importance of Property Rights versus Privileges. Many sheriffs, a police chief and even a county commissioner shared their experiences, challenges and actions taken to uphold their oaths of office, directly with the sheriffs in attendance.

The videos of these presentations are shared here on the County Sheriff Project YouTube channel. We hope that you will share these videos with your own county sheriff and all the oath takers in your county. To read the meeting agenda, see the event sponsors, learn more and show your own support for helping back more constitutional county sheriffs, visit

Think outside the gun!


Rosa Koire, of Democrats Against Agenda 21, has made it her mission to speak out against Agenda 21. While this is a long video, it is worth watching.  

Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from?

Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?

Click here for more:

Who are we?

We are engaged in educating ourselves, our peers, and our country about UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Form-Based Zoning, Green Energy Mandates, Carbon Offsets, Cap and Trade, Redevelopment and other programs that restrict our land rights and civil rights.

This vitally important information transcends party lines and illuminates much of what we have witnessed over the past two decades.

This is not a left or right issue. It's an American issue. The information on these sites will help you to identify what is happening in your town and to stop it.
Need a DVD, submit a request at:
We the People Radio interview:

There is an unknown government taking over our country city by city. 
Unlike new counties, cities and school districts, it can be created without a vote of the citizens affected.
Unlike other governments, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval. Unlike other governments, it may use the power of eminent domain to benefit private interests.
This unknown government provides no public services. It does not educate our children, maintain our streets, protect us from crime, nor stock our libraries. 
It claims to eliminate blight and promote economic development, yet there is no evidence it has done so in the half century since it was created.
Indeed, it has become a rapidly growing drain on this country's public resources, amassing enormous power with little public awareness or oversight.
This unknown government is Redevelopment.
It is time Americans knew more about it.
(This report was specifically put together for Californians but is relevant to every state. This AGENDA 21 farce has infested every state and is rapidly taking over our cities)

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Hacker Group Anonymous: “We Are The 99%” And We Find Obama Guilty Of “Domestic Terrorism”

H/T Pat Dollard



Friday, January 6, 2012

"The real threat to the Hispanic community is the Democrat party with their liberal, entitlement-welfare ideas” -E.J. Otero (Video-Congressional Candidate)

In a two-part interview by Congressional candidate Retired Air Force Colonel Evelio ‘EJ’ Otero, from Miami, discusses how he communicates his message to the growing Hispanic community- by daring to state the dirty truth about illegal immigration. 

Otero is running against Democrat Congresswoman Kathy Castor, who has just been named as one of the members of congress who have missed the most votes with 67.



"The real threat to the Hispanic community is the Democrat party with their liberal, entitlement-welfare ideas” -E.J. Otero
The conservative movement is fortunate to count amongst its ranks several principled individuals who can effectively and unapologetically articulate conservatism and take the fight to liberal progressives- Congressman Allen West comes immediately to mind. And for conservatives who are looking for reinforcements who will get Congressman West’s back in Congress, it looks like we’ve found yet another one prepared to do so.
Retired Air Force Colonel Evelio ‘EJ’ Otero is from Miami, and he’s not kidding around- he’s a down the line conservative Republican of Cuban descent. I sat down with Otero for an interview where I was able to get a better grasp of his views and his newly announced candidacy for U.S. Congress.
The Shark Tank part 2

GBTV: Glenn analyzes Ron Paul's record

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Proof Obama Wanted NDAA 1031 Citizen Indefinite Detention To Include American Citzens Law in a Few Days

Nation Defense Authorization Act : Indefinite Detention of Americans without a charge or trial:

Proof Obama Administration Demanded Language In The Bill That Allows For The Detention Of American Citizens:

President Barack Obama signed a law on New Year's Eve granting himself absolute power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected (by him) of being "belligerents." He promises he won't use it, however.
On December 31, 2011, with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.
The United States, as Senator Lindsey Graham declared during floor debate in the Senate, is now a theatre in the War on Terror and Americans "can be detained indefinitely ... and when you say to the interrogator, 'I want my lawyer,' the interrogator will say, 'You don't have a right to a lawyer because you're a military threat.'"
Don't worry, though. Although the President now wields this enormous power, he adamantly denies that he will ever "authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." That guarantee is all that stands between American citizens and life in prison on arbitrary charges of conspiring to commit or committing acts belligerent to the homeland.
The President continued by explaining that to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial on the charges laid against them "would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." 
Ironically, the signing statement in which President Obama gave these assurances is itself violative of the Constitution, the separation of powers established therein, and only demonstrates his proclivity for ignoring constitutional restraints on the exercise of power once those powers have been placed (albeit illegally) by a complicit Congress at his disposal.
Once development of it begins in the body politic, the muscle of tyranny never atrophies.
Supporters of the law (including President Obama) point to the "undeniable" success achieved against "suspected terrorists." Although President Obama claims that the section of the NDAA (1021) authorizing the President to detain these suspects "breaks no new ground and is unnecessary," the President's interpretation of just who inhabits the universe of likely suspects (as explained in the signing statement appended to the NDAA) includes "al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents...." 
Since the beginning of hostilities in the wake of 9/11, the federal government has often had problems proving membership in al-Qaeda of those arrested as "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror, so imagine the difficulty they would face in presenting evidence of affiliation or adherence to that shadowy, ill-defined organization.
The danger of the vagueness of crucial terms of the NDAA was addressed by current Republican presidential contender Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) during a phone conference with supporters in Iowa:
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force? 
The Bill of Rights has no exemption for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
Fortunately for the President, the NDAA absolves him of the requirement of gathering and presenting to an impartial judge evidence probative of such evil associations. The mere suspicion of such suffices as a justification for the indefinite imprisonment of those so suspected.
As if the foregoing roster of Stalinist-style authoritarianism isn't an imposing enough threat to freedom, there is an additional aspect of the new law that places the civil liberties of Americans in greater peril. 
The NDAA places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). The endowment of such a power to the President by the Congress is nothing less than a de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.
Again, the aforementioned Senator Lindsey Graham has no qualms shredding that parchment protection from tyranny, either. Said Graham: "I don't believe fighting al Qaeda is a law enforcement function. I believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home and abroad."
The undeniable unconstitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act and its violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is likely to result in the necessity of states nullifying those sections of the law that exceed the enumerated powers of Congress. This remedy would be applied by the legislatures of the states in an effort to protect its citizens from arrest and extradition by armed members of the federal armed forces. This effort to resist unfettered federal authority would rival the intensity of the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s — a confrontation that culminated in the Civil War and the death of at least 600,000 Americans.
While the frightening abolition of civil liberties contained in the NDAA could not have been codified were it not for the signature of President Obama, the complicity of the Congress in easing our Republic's "slip into tyranny" should not be overlooked.
Sixty-eight percent of the House of Representatives voted for this measure, for example. Perhaps in the elections of 2012 those lawmakers who voted in favor of the measure will be held accountable by their constituents for such an inexplicable violation of the congressional oath of office and its requirement that members protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Other sections of the 500-plus-page, $662-billion law authorizes the continued expenditure of money on the perpetuation of two unconstitutional foreign conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan), as well as greasing the skids for the deployment of the American military into Iran if economic sanctions fail to persuade Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see things our way.
While the NDAA's effect on the Constitution is all but ignored by the administration and Congress, its effect on oil prices is taken very seriously. Under applicable provisions of the new law, President Obama may punish international firms which buy oil from Iran. President Obama has an out, however, if he believes that the imposition of such penalties is driving up the price of crude. 
The New York Times quotes an unnamed administration official who explains the importance of vigilantly protecting the stability of the volatile oil market: "We have to do it in a timely way and phased way to avoid repercussions to the oil market, and make sure the revenues to Iran are reduced."
Finally, President Obama signed the NDAA, and the depth of the impact of this law on the freedom of Americans and the perpetuation of our Constitution cannot be measured.  Promises to restrain oneself from abusing power are unreliable. As Thomas Jefferson once warned:
Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
Generals Confront Obama's NDAA, say it's a 'victory for bin Laden'
NDAA would 'expand the battlefield to include United States and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise'
In last moment opposition to the nation's leaders' greatest assault on basic huan rights, the National Defense Authorization bill that President Barack Obama insisted include Americans on U.S. soil for military arrest without charge and indefinite detention, retired military leaders Tuesday resorted to publicly confronting the president in the New York Times in their continued speaking out against provisions in the bill as released Monday night from the congressional conference committee.
"In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to 'reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.' We agree," stated the retired military leaders in their New York Times piece Tuesday.
"Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week."
President Obama could sign the bill enacting martial law as early as Wednesday.
Retired four-star Marine generals Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar have warned against provisions in the bill that would serious impact U.S. counterterrorism policy in today’s New York Times.
Congresspersons undermine American ideals in the name of 'terrorism'
In their piece “Guantanamo Forever?” the former military leaders urged President Obama to veto the bill that contains a provision that "would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil.”
Krulak and Hoar argue that if this bill becomes a law, “due process would be a thing of the past."
"Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States…”
In a written statement released Tuesday, the military leaders say that the bill "also threatens to foist additional duties on an already stressed U.S. military."
Hoar and Krulak warn that forcing the military to assume responsibilities now handled by law enforcement, “would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement, but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.” 
Hoar and Krulak are part of a group of retired military leaders who have been outspoken on issues of detention of terrorist suspects, including Guantanamo Bay, and interrogation techniques.
"Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe," they wrote.
Referring to the 60 senators who voted in favor of the bill, what rights defenders say is treason for which each of them should be impeached, Hoar and Krulak stated that "right now, some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism.

"They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities."
Obama strips Americans' rights in NDAA bill, proclaims human rights week
Ron Paul Calls National Defense Authorization Act "Slip Into Tyranny" 
The National Defense Authorization Act: Our Disappearing Rights and Liberties

Fox News Shows The True And Dangerous Side Of OWS


Obama to Make Controversial Recess Appointment


Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks the Constitution

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.
 Obama Administration Tests Constitutional Power After Controversial Appointment
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce may sue the Obama administration over President Obama's controversial appointment of Richard Cordray to head a controversial consumer financial board, officials from the business group told Fox News on Wednesday after an unprecedented display of executive power that is sure to poison already-strained relations with the GOP.

Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff and colleague Bryan Goettel both told Fox News that their understanding is that "we are not ruling it out." However, they said they still "need to understand the specifics of the appointment to determine if a legal challenge is even possible."

The chamber was early in its criticism of the president's move Wednesday to appoint Cordray to chair the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a move that invites legal challenge but which administration officials say is perfectly within the president's authority to do.

"To say we are disappointed in the move by the president today would be a gross understatement," Chamber President Tom Donohue said in statement. "This controversial appointment is unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, and puts the authority of the director and the validity of the bureau’s work in legal jeopardy. What's more, it ignores repeated calls to reform the bureau by restoring basic checks and balances."

Others are also questioning the validity of the president's move. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who could become the majority leader in 2012, released an ominous statement Wednesday, saying the appointment "lands this nominee 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."

One senior GOP aide told Fox News to expect a lawsuit from an outside group that would fall under CFPB's regulatory jurisdiction since Congress itself would lack the authority to sue.

"It's our understanding that someone affected by the CFPB would have standing here, not the House," another aide told Fox Business Network. "So some business that gets clobbered by the agency could sue."

The GOP aide added that aside from an almost immediate challenge, even if Cordray moves into the post, he will face a wall of opposition at every turn.

Cordray "will get absolutely nothing done. Also, funding (for the CFPB) will be in some peril," the aide said.
The White House might not mind a fight during a presidential campaign year, as Obama looks to frame the battle as one against obstructionist congressional Republicans who are against middle-class Americans.

"I nominated Richard for this job last summer, so you may be wondering why am I appointing him today," Obama told supporters in Ohio, where Cordray appeared with him in Shaker Heights. "It would be a good question. ... The only reason Republicans in the Senate have blocked Richard is because they don't agree with the law that set up a consumer watchdog in the first place. They want to weaken the law. They want to water it down."

Republicans made clear both during Cordray's nomination and on Wednesday that they have no problem with Cordray personally, but want changes in the massive new watchdog agency, including a budget and nominee subject to congressional oversight and other reforms in its wide-ranging rule-making authority.

"The president should stop allowing his Chicago political campaign to make his Washington policy decisions," Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, said Wednesday in a statement in which he criticized Obama's claims of transparency in his administration. McHenry also invited Cordray to appear on Jan. 24 before his committee to answer questions about how he would implement policies as head of CFPB.

"There are legitimate policy concerns about the structure of the CFPB. They can be reconciled, but the president refuses to even have the conversation," he said.

Cordray, who was successfully filibustered by Republicans last year, will remain in the job until Jan. 3, 2014, unless confirmed by the Senate sooner, an unlikely event given the current partisan move by the White House.

While controversial, nowhere in the Constitution is a recess expressly defined, though the document does give the chief executive the "power to fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."
As a result, a loose understanding has arisen over the years as to what constitutes a recess.

Most, including Obama's own acting solicitor general, appear to hold to a three-day minimum for a recess, arising from the congressional adjournment clause in the Constitution which states that no chamber may break for longer than three days without the approval of the other chamber.

In a 2010 Supreme Court case, "New Process Steel vs. National Labor Relations Board," acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal referenced the three-day minimum, during which no recess appointment could be made and cited a Department of Justice brief issued in 1993 by Attorney General Janet Reno.

But the document is vague.

In the brief, which was used to argue against a controversial recess appointment by former President George H.W. Bush, Reno called the three-day recess a "requirement." But it went on to say "the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days."

That does not negate the understanding that appears to have arisen in modern times among members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike. Democrats in 2008 held the Senate in "pro forma" session to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush. At the time, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, while serving in the Senate, strenuously argued against such an exercise of presidential power.

When Bush appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, then-Sen. Obama said the nominee was, as a result of the temporary position, "damaged goods." Noting the Senate had rejected the nominee -- though unlike Cordray, Bolton faced bipartisan opposition -- the senator said the U.S. would have "less credibility" at the world body.

At a Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Biden said, "No president is entitled to the appointment of anyone he nominates," adding, "That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. It says 'advice and consent.'"
According to a Congressional Research Service report, since the administration of President Ronald Reagan, no recess appointment has been bestowed upon a nominee during a recess that was shorter than 10 days.
Nonetheless, a senior administration official told Fox News that the White House is on solid ground with the maneuver.
Thus, it is the interpretation of the White House that the Senate is in fact "in recess" and the administration can make appointments.

Despite the predicted fight over the CFPB nominee, one congressional GOP source predicted the fight will have no effect. The aide sited polls that, according to the source, show Americans disinterested in the watchdog agency, with few knowing about Cordray.

"It's just not a 'top of mind' issue. It's nowhere on the radar of anyone," the aide said.
Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.


Recess Appointments by the President: What Our Constitution Really Says

If the Senate rejects any nomination, the President may not circumvent that rejection by unconstitutional gimmicks such as those proposed by Arkush~

Much misinformation about The Constitution is put out by those who seek to circumvent its clear provisions. In Peter Schroeder’s recent article in The Hill, he reports that David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, makes two arguments which Arkush claims permit the President to make a “recess” appointment of someone (Richard Cordray) whose nomination has already been blocked by the Senate.

Arkush reportedly claims that Art. 2, Sec.3, U.S. Constitution, allows the President to force the House and Senate to adjourn; and then, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2, last clause, he would be permitted to make a “recess” appointment of his rejected nominee. 1 

Arkush’s next claim is this: The 20th Amendment states that Congress shall assemble at least once a year, with each session beginning on Jan. 3. Arkush says that in order to be able to start a session on Jan 3; Congress would have to have stopped a previous session—and between the stopping of the old and the starting of the new, the President may slip in there and make a “recess” appointment of his rejected nominee!
So! Let us see how easy it is to look things up in Our Constitution. You do not have to settle for the rubbish spewed by others and uncritically reported by journalists. You can find out for yourself what Our Constitution really says.

Look It Up In Our Constitution!

FIRST: What does Our Constitution say about presidential “appointments”? Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, says:
...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone…[emphasis added]
Do you see? The constitutional scheme is that the President nominatesthe Senate confirms or rejects the President’s nomination. This is the “check” which Our Constitution imposes on the President’s nominations. The purpose is to protect us from the loons, incompetents, or toadies whom various presidents have, from time to time, nominated.
NOW let us see what Our Constitution says about recess appointments. Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, says:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [emphasis added]
Do you see? The Vacancy must have happened at a time when the Senate was already in Recess!
So! The President may not properly circumvent the Senate’s constitutionally granted power to reject his nominations by means of cheap gimmicks such as forcing the Congress to adjourn, or by waiting until Congress is in recess, to “recess appoint” someone whom the Senate has already refused to approve!

Check It Out In The Federalist Papers!

The Federalist Papers are authoritative on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution, 2 so you always want to see what they say about any clause in Our Constitution. Here is an online edition of The Federalist Papers with a searchable text. If you type in “recess”, you will get hits for The Federalist Papers which use that term.

Throughout Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton explains the reasons for the constitutional provision requiring nominations by the President to be submitted to the Senate for their approval or disapproval. In the last 3 paras, Hamilton points out that the Constitution “requires” the cooperation of the Senate in appointments in order to “check” the President and “to prevent the appointment of unfit characters”; and that “the necessity of its [the Senate’s] co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate [the President].”
Now, let us see what The Federalist Papers say about “recess” appointments. In Federalist No. 67 (next to last para) Hamilton is very clear that Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, means what it says:
...The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments “during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”... [caps are Hamilton’s]
Do you see? Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, means exactly what it says. Before this clause even kicks in, the vacancy must have happened while the Senate was in “recess”.
So! The Constitution requires the President to submit his nominations to the Senate for their approval. A President who disbands Congress so that he can circumvent the constitutional provisions which grant to the Senate the power to reject the President’s nominations, is a usurper & a tyrant who should be promptly impeached and removed from office. 3
If the Senate rejects any nomination, the President may not circumvent that rejection by unconstitutional gimmicks such as those proposed by Arkush.
If people wish to show how clever, creative, or original they are, then they should write a novel. When applying Our Constitution, we must display only Obedience.
Now you know how to look things up in Our Constitution and check it out in The Federalist Papers. Political consultants, journalists, TV pundits, talk show hosts, candidates for office, people in Congress, in the Executive Branch, and sitting on Federal Benches don’t know how to do this. So you must do it and spread the Word if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH


1 Article II, Sec. 3 authorizes the President to adjourn Congress only when there is a “Disagreement” between the Houses “with Respect to the Time of Adjournment”. He is not permitted to adjourn Congress so that he may then circumvent the constitutional provisions which grant to the Senate the Power to reject the President’s nominees!
2 See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they voted to make The Federalist Papers one of the texts books for the Law School. They said:
...on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to its genuine meaning.... (page 83) [emphasis added]
3 On impeaching the President for usurpations of power—i.e., acting outside the few enumerated powers granted to the President by Our Constitution—see Federalist No. 66 (2nd para) & Federalist No. 77 (last para.) PH

Richard Cordray appointment 'turns lights on' at consumer bureau
Obama DOJ Undercuts President’s ‘Recess’ Appointment Stunt 
Obama's Recess Appointments Are UnConstitutional And An Abuse of Power