Tag Archives: regulation

Train derailment in Quebec and Keystone XL pipeline. A Limerick.

A train ran away in Quebec,
its crude-oil exploded the wreck.
To ship oil from the source;
Use a pipe-line of course.
The Keystone will thwart the OPEC.

President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday Jun 25 at Georgetown University, saying he lacked “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”
Obama mentioned more than 20 times “Carbon pollution”. In his weekly radio address the following Saturday he mentioned it again, without specifying what he means by “carbon pollution”.
Obama also said the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline should only be approved if the project would not “significantly exacerbate” greenhouse gas pollution.
Right now the crude oil is transported from the Athabasca tar sands to Houston by Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad. It is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.

http://lenbilen.com/2012/01/25/warren-buffet-profiting-from-working-on-the-railroad/

The cost of transporting the oil is about #14 dollars per barrel, much of it the cost of energy (CO2). The pipe-line can do the job for about seven dollars per barrel, much of it capital costs.
We can see what happens when transporting crude oil:
railroad-tank-car-explosion-canada

Comparing to this, pipe-lines ate much more environmentally safe, and does the job for less than half the cost of railroad ttansportation.
If you were Obama, what would you do? Would you do the economic and environmentally friendly thing, or would you continue to favor your crony capitalist friends and the powerful OPEC?
Decisions, decisions.

About these ads

The end of 4-H? New Federal Regulation bans farm chores for children under 18.

The Obama Administration is working on regulations that would prevent children under the age of 18 from performing chores on family farms

This law would prohibit parents from passing along a family tradition and a way of life, and the new regulation would revoke approval of private companies like 4-H and FFA training children to do farm related tasks. Instead they would be required to take a government sponsored and approved training class.

The following is from Sarah Palin’s FaceBook.

The Obama Administration is working on regulations that would prevent children from working on our own family farms. This is more overreach of the federal government with many negative consequences. And if you think the government’s new regs will stop at family farms, think again.

My family is a commercial fishing family, and commercial fishing in Alaska is much like the family farm (but the year ’round farmers no doubt work harder than we do!). I guarantee fishing families wouldn’t stand for this nonsensical intrusion into our lives and livelihoods, and, as a former 4-H member, I don’t believe farm families will either. Our kids learn to work and to help feed America on our nation’s farms, and out on the water.

Federal government: get your own house in order and stop interfering in ours.

- Sarah Palin

Sarah, you took the words out of my mouth again.
The most fulfilling, well rounded childhood anyone could have is a life on a diversified family farm, with chicken, pigs, cows and an assortment of machinery.
One of my favorite memories can be expressed:
“There is nothing like the smell of a cold diesel starting up on a crisp winter morning.”
You wake up knowing there is work to be done.
“Idle hands is the devil’s workshop”.
Do they really want to make 4-H illegal?

The Malthusian option: Food or Ethanol? A Limerick with explanation.

When EPA regulates, they are but slobs;

No thought what effect it will have on our jobs. (1)

You want food? You want fuel? (2)

The choice is too cruel. (3)

A Malthusian choice, that’s why Mother Earth sobs. (4)

(1)

(2)TUCSON, Ariz., March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — U.S. and European policy to increase production of ethanol and other biofuels to displace fossil fuels is supposed to help human health by reducing “global warming.” Instead it has added to the global burden of death and disease. Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease. Research by the World Bank indicates that the increase in biofuels production over 2004 levels would push more than 35 million additional people into absolute poverty in 2010 in developing countries. Using statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Indur Goklany estimates that this would lead to at least 192,000 excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in the loss of 6.7 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per year. These exceed the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs that the World Health Organization attributes to global warming. Thus, developed world policies intended to mitigate global warming probably have increased death and disease in developing countries rather than reducing them. Goklany also notes that death and disease from poverty are a fact, whereas death and disease from global warming are hypothetical. (3)

(4) Malthusian: of or relating to Malthus or to his theory that population tends to increase at a faster rate than its means of subsistence and that unless it is checked by moral restraint or disaster (as disease, famine, or war) widespread poverty and degradation inevitably result

Ban inhalers to save the environment? FDA and EPA gone mad.

Sep 22 2011 FDA: Over-the-counter asthma inhalers containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) will no longer be made or sold after Dec. 31, 2011

Users of Primatene Mist will need a prescription product to treat their asthma. Asthma accounts for one-quarter of all emergency room visits in the U.S. each year, with 2 million emergency room visits. Each day 11 Americans die from asthma. There are more than 4,000 deaths due to asthma each year, many of which are avoidable with proper treatment like over-the-counter asthma inhalers.

The reason for their phase out is U.S. in complying to a U.N. mandate to phase out all CFC’s since they burn up the ozone layer over Antarctica, and to a lesser degree over the North Pole.

During the heydays of CFC production we produced about one megaton annually of all types of CFC combined. This led to an increase in CFC of about 25 parts per trillion in the atmosphere per year. After 1994  the CFC’s were phased out and replaced with HCFC’s. The total amount of CFC’s in the air is now decreasing by about 1 percent per year.

A quick calculation shows that over the counter inhalers release maybe 100 tons of CFC’s per year. This would increase the level in the atmosphere by 0.002 parts per trillion per year. Since CFC’s now are decreasing by 20 parte per trillion /year it would speed up the decrease by 1/10000.

So this banning of CFC inhalers will decrease the time to return to previous levels from 100 years to 99 years and 361 days. And for this we are banning $10 inhalers and forcing asthma sufferers to use prescription devices at more than 40 dollars, and increase the number of emergency room visits, and  even asthma related deaths. For four days in a hundred years?

In the meantime the Ozone hole is closing again by itself, maybe due to actions already taken.

Don’t drink the milk from your own cow! Ruling in Wisconsin.

The State of Wisconsin, the County of Dane

has issued a ruling that I call insane.

If you own your cow

We still won’t allow

you to drink from its milk, to appeal is in vain.

What follows is an excerpt from Judge Patrick J. Fiedler (Circuit Court, Branch 8, State of Wisconsin) ruling:

(1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

(2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

(3) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;

(4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;

(5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice.

(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ conduct.

The picture to the right is a cow with a methane recapture kit affixed. Sign of things to come?

The big Lye: No ID for voting, but photoID for buying draincleaner!

No ID for voting: Would Democrats lie?

But ID for buying a small can of lye.

A bitter confusion.

A basic solution:

Stand up! Campaign hard! Vote the Democrats bye.

 

Asking for Voter I.D. is a NO – NO but you need A Government ID to Buy Drain Cleaner. Asking For I.D. Before Voting Is ‘Racist’, But You Need A Govt. I.D. To Buy Drain Cleaner? Got a clogged drain? Before you can buy that liquid drain cleaner, I need to see some ID.

Does that sound like a joke? It’s not a joke. It‘s the reality in President Obama’s home state. Illinois has a new law that took effect on January 1 requiring all people who purchase drain cleaners or any caustic substances to provide a government issued photo ID. And retailers now must ask for identification from those buying drain cleaners and maintain extensive records of which caustic products have been purchased, in what amounts, and by whom. The law came about after two Illinois women were burned by acid attacks back in 2008. One of the women later admitted to burning herself with acid, but the law was still pushed through the system. And so, because of one random crime where acid was used to burn a victim, thousands of people will be forced to show identification when they purchase drain cleaners, and countless hours of business time will be spent filling out, maintaining and monitoring the government mandated forms associated with each purchase. Additionally, any person carrying caustic chemicals can be charged with a Class 4 felony in Illinois. (Class 4 felonies can carry fines up to $25,000 and 1-3 years in jail.) The Illinois drain cleaner law is just one of the 40,000 new laws that took effect in the new  year. For the record, the 40,000 new laws are a 29% increase over the previous year. Among the mass of new laws are a few that are intended to strengthen election security and protect the integrity of each vote in the upcoming elections by demanding that all voters show a photo ID before entering the voting booth. The Wall Street Journal covered this story as 2011 came to a close… Millions more Americans will be required to show photo identification when they head to the polls in four states in 2012, headlining the welter of new laws across the nation that take effect with the turn of the year. Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas will require voters to prove their identities at the ballot box, bringing the total number of states that require some form of voter identification to 30, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan group that provides research and data to state governments.

So what does the Attorney General and the Obama Administration do? Of all the options available to them they chose to sue South Carolina over their Voter ID Law!

 

 

The Keystone XL pipeline decision: A view from Canada and rebuttal from the Obama campaign.

From our neigbor in the North comes this unbiased opinion about the Keystone XL pipeline decision:

Here is the other side of the story, given to you by your friendly Obama/Biden 2012 campaign:

My testimony on time and space, eternity and the eternal covenant. “The Grand design”.

Here I was, age 32, gloriously saved by reading the book of Matthew and seeing the honesty of  the words “that deceiver” suddenly convincing me that Jesus Christ is risen. But how do I reconcile that with my belief that God is outside time and space, if he exists at all? Not only did I not know the answers, I did not even know the questions.

I started listening to a Christian radio station going to and from work. There was a preacher that came on every day at the same time. “God wrote only one bible, the King James Bible”. He ranted and raved about all other translations and how they were of the devil. I might remember wrong, but at one time I think I heard him say “If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it is good enough for me.” Being a Swede I found it puzzling. What about the original language?

As a ten-year old I had heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they had found a complete scroll of the Prophet Isaiah. I got excited. But then I read it was a later copy. Ah well, it was a nice thought I thought and lost interest. But now I did read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were written at about 160 B.C. and had pieces of most of the books of the Old Testament. And there were very few changes. The text had been preserved all these years, and was written before many of the prophesies were fulfilled. This excited me, for that would be possible only if God is outside time and space.

Maybe I could reconcile my beliefs with that of my newfound friends after all. They kept telling me that Jesus is God, but I still found that hard to swallow. A good man, yes, but not God.

The other thing I had a hard time reconciling was creation and evolution. Being a scientist and engineer I was a firm believer in incremental development and incremental improvement, and the Bible talked about a divine action that created it all, just like that. I enjoyed the fellowship, sang in the choir, did all the right things, but I could not witness to anyone except other believers for I had still too many questions myself. But one thing stood out. You cannot get something from nothing, and therefore we could not possibly exist. But we do. How is that? And what does the story of creation in the Bible have to do with anything?

The events of Jan 2011, the shooting in Arizona, affected  me deeply and I decided to finally write down my testimony. But I left out the part of the Grand Unified theory and M-theory for in so doing I would lose most of my audience. For others here it goes. Having struggled with Hilbert space in college and given up once the math required exceeded my willingness to put up with all the levels of abstraction etc. I got excited when they reported the most powerful cosmic radiation ever recorded coming from the Crab nebula. The radiation particles have an energy that contain 1000 times more energy than we can hope to achieve with the Super Hadron Collider. Maybe we can test the 11 dimensional string theory after all? This will strengthen my belief in God (for most it would go the other way, but be patient).

The other thing reported recently is the generation of anti-matter in thunderstorm clouds. There are positrons generated that escape into space. Why is that important with respect to the Bible? It clearly states there was a beginning.

Stephen Hawking maintains in “The Grand design” that the universe arose from nothing out of a singularity. For some reason he thinks that disproves the necessity of God. My take is the exact opposite. It strengthens my belief.

Back to the new Christian. I read the whole Bible, The King James, The New International Version, The Swedish Bible, and Martin Luther’s new German Bible, but the questions remained. Then I took another leap of faith. I accepted that God cares about His creation. This seems to be the overarching theme of the Bible, even with all its bloody parts in the Old Testament.

I agree, looking around you it doesn’t seem that way, but I decided to ponder on the positive rather than the negative. Looking at both my wife’s transformation and my own , decided to stick to the beauty and purpose I started to see in everything once I had made that decision.

So what about the question of time? To my surprise the Bible is full of hints.

There was a beginning of time: 2 Timothy 1:9  He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, Titus 1:2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time.

And of course the most famous of them all: Genesis 1:1. In the beginning

The discerning observer will notice the word before the beginning of time, which is before. What was before? The bible has an answer  for that too.

In Hebrews 11:2 we read: By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

A little bit later , in Hebrews 13:20 we read: Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, …    If it is eternal it had no beginning, or existed before the beginning. That doesn’t make sense.

Then I read in Revelation 13:8: All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

In John 17:24 we read: “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. In this statement Jesus clearly states that the love of the Father for his Son existed before the creation.

In John 8:58-59 Jesus claims: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (KJV)

Why did they try to stone him? Because they understood in saying “I am” which is the covenantal name YHWH, in reality its equivalent name in Aramaic, (the Hebrew name in that time and even today for some Orthodox Jews is too holy to even pronounce)  Jesus made himself  YHWH. This was blasphemy of the highest order!

So there it is. Either Jesus is God or he is a false teacher, a pretender and imposter.

And then there is the spirit, the Holy Spirit. Was He there from the beginning? Genesis has an answer for that too.

Genesis 1:2 states: And the Spirit of  God  moved upon the face of the waters.

Now back to the Eternal Covenant. It must have been formed before the beginning.

But who participated? There were no one to form the covenant with. The only thing possible is if it was made between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. What was the blood that sealed the covenant? It was from the Lamb slain, that is the Son, before the beginning of time.

In a wonderful way this makes sense to me. God is beyond time and space, but at the same time He is now in both time and space, being omniscient (knows all, past, present and future), omnipresent (everywhere at the same time). As Creator He is all powerful. It was done in eternity, but for our sake, we who are confined to the prison of time and space, it had to be repeated on earth. The only way to do it was to become a man.

Genesis 1:27 says: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Note, gender has nothing to do with it, since the image of God is both male and female) But to retain the property of being fully God he had to be born supernaturally, of a virgin.

The Prophet Isaiah (around 700 B.C.) wrote in 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Immanuel means God with us.

Then again in Isaiah 9:6 it states:

For unto us a child is born,

unto us a son is given:

and the government shall be upon his shoulder:

and his name shall be called

 Wonderful, Counsellor,

 The mighty God,

The everlasting Father,

The Prince of Peace.

Unto us a child is born, this points to him being a human being

Unto us a Son is given, this points to his divinity.

And His name shall be called. Note the name is singular and broken into 4 parts.

Wonderful Counselor. This refers to the Holy Spirit.

The mighty God. (El Gibbor) The only other time Mighty God is mentioned is in Is 10:21, and there it is clear that it refers to God  the father, but here it can also be interpreted  mighty man, God.

The everlasting Father. This is Jesus favorite term for his divine father.

The Prince of Peace.  Refers to Jesus Christ.

This is as good a reference to the triune God as I can find in the Scriptures.

Later in Isaiah 53 the Blood of Messiah and the crucifixion is described – 700 B.C. not an after-construction as was prevailing biblical thought until 1948, before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found!

This leaves us with the nature of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus says in John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

 And in John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

There we have it. God existed before the beginning of time as God, the Father, as God the Son in the person of Jesus Christ, and as God, the Holy Spirit, all coexisting before the beginning of time. This is the essence of the eternal covenant, sealed with the blood of Christ.

I have decided to accept that. Thus it is perfectly clear that God created the universe out of nothing. It came mathematically from a singularity, the math exceeds my ability to understand it, but I am locked into time and space and can only understand so much.

However I rejoice in the fact that when I received Jesus Christ, I received Him in the form of the Holy Spirit. Just think of it. I have eternity in my heart!

I leave you with   1 Corinthians 13:12-13 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (KJV)(Creation and evolution will be another installment in my testimony.)

The Lanthanides Lamentation Limerick:

China’s Ban on Selling Rare Earth Minerals to Japan Continues, Officials Say

By KEITH BRADSHER and EDWARD WONG New York Times Published: October 10, 2010

HONG KONG — Chinese customs officials continued to bar all exports of rare earth minerals to Japan over the weekend, industry officials said, but the Chinese government showed signs of taking a more conciliatory stance toward Japan. …

Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China told European political and business leaders Wednesday that China had not imposed any bans on exports of industrial minerals for political purposes and that it did not intend to stop exports in the future. Rare earths are used in the manufacture of hybrid gasoline-electric cars, computer screens, large wind turbines and many other applications.

Mr. Wen made his remarks in a speech at a China-European Union business meeting in Brussels. Chinese officials have consistently taken the position that they have not imposed any regulations preventing rare earth exports; any such regulations could be easily challenged at the World Trade Organization. …

Throughout the halt on exports of rare earth minerals, China has allowed continued exports of manufactured products that use rare earths, like powerful magnets, and highly purified rare earth metals. Japan is the largest importer of rare earth minerals and ores. Companies there use the material to make a wide range of high- technology products and have been reluctant to import manufactured goods from China instead.

Even before questions arose over the exports to Japan in late September, China had been putting tighter caps on rare earth exports for the last five years. When the export halt was imposed, the quota for 2010 was within a month and a half of being exhausted. But shipments could continue into November if customs officials allow a resumption soon. Edward Wong reported from Beijing and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.

Note: China mines 97% of the world’s rare earth metals.

The Lanthanides Lamentation Limerick:

What is “Rare Earth Metals”, and who gives a hoot?

They’re all mined in China with prices to boot.

We closed our own mines

with lawsuits and fines.

We need them for green jobs:  No freedom to toot.

Obama will rule by executive order: A Limerick.

Obama will rule by executive order,

Suing the States but ignoring the border.

Constitution? Who cares?

The one lawless prepares

to take over the country by civil disorder.

Obama Considering Rule by Executive Order in 2011 Posted on October 8, 2010 by Ben Johnson

This morning, political commentators are paying a great deal of attention to one of the Los Angeles Times’ stories about Barack Obama’s plans for a Republican takeover of Congress. Unfortunately, they are focusing on the wrong one. Most commentators spent the morning quoting the president’s remarks on a black radio program that a GOP-dominated Congress will result in “hand-to-hand combat.” The reality is most of the action will take place behind their backs and over their heads. All indications are, if Obama cannot get his legislative agenda enacted by Congress, he will impose it by decree.

The evidence comes buried elsewhere in today’s L.A. Times in a piece by Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons under the hum-drum headline, “Obama Reshapes Administration for a Fresh Strategy.” The story makes clear the “fresh strategy” borders on government by executive fiat.

It begins, “As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.” This rule by divine right of kings is confirmed by no less an Obama insider than David Axelrod, who said, “It’s fair to say that the next phase is going to be less about legislative action than it is about managing the change that we’ve brought.” The Times states candidly: So the best arena for Obama to execute his plans may be his own branch of government.

That means more executive orders, more use of the bully pulpit, and more deployment of his ample regulatory powers and the wide-ranging rulemaking authority of his Cabinet members. (Emphases added.) Nicholas and Parsons note how the president has replaced the few appointees with ties to Capitol Hill in place of Chicago insiders. They specifically state the “the Environmental Protection Agency is determined to use its regulatory power…to begin lowering [carbon] emissions, in the absence of congressional action.”

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, although the act did not have these “pollutants” in mind. Seizing on this ruling, an anonymous insider who “was not authorized to speak publicly” told the Times, “The ambition is to get a reasonable start” on implementing his extremist vision. The plan fulfills a threat Obama made earlier this year.

The Associated Press reported in June, “The Obama administration says it would prefer that Congress enact climate change legislation, but has used the threat of EPA regulations to goad lawmakers into action.” Within the last week, Congressional Republicans have called the regulations job-killers, and Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia has sponsored a two-year freeze on certain EPA regulations. Now it looks as though the president will run roughshod over Rockefeller, the Republicans, and the will of the American people. More concerning than the aims to which Obama plans to use unfettered executive fiat power is the circumvention of Congress, and the Constitution, in the first place. William Galston of the Brookings Institution took the LAT Obama will employ this strategy even if Republicans do not take back either House of Congress. “Whether or not the Republicans take over majorities in one or both houses, the margins will be so much narrower that the strategy of putting together a Democratic bill and picking off a handful of Republicans to push it over the top won’t be viable anymore,” he said. Rather than triangulate, repackage his radicalism, or take an electoral chastening, Obama plans to ram his agenda down the American people’s throats “by any means necessary.”

What will this agenda look like? In part, it is already in place. On illegal immigration, the president has already excluded Congress, several states, and the overwhelming majority of the American people to aggressively promote an Open Borders agenda. A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services draft memo that surfaced this summer contemplated ways to enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.” Shortly thereafter, an ICE draft memo appeared, instructing all law enforcement – including any “state, local, or tribal officer” – that no one “should not issue detainers against an alien charged only with a traffic-related misdemeanor.” Traffic stops have been one of the most fruitful ways of finding and deporting illegal aliens and make up the heart of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to exercise their federally delegated power in arresting illegal immigrants.

When the Obama administration is not making law, it is busy ignoring it. The New York Times reported that the government simply stopped deporting young illegal aliens this summer – an exemption that applies to 726,000 people – because they may be eligible for the DREAM Act, which Congress has not yet passed (and probably never will). The administration began dismissing virtually all cases against illegals who had not committed any violent crime, letting a potential 17,000 illegals off-the-hook. Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security seems to have let a Congressionally mandated program to assure visa recipients leave the country slide – although overstays are the entry point for 40-45 percent of all illegal immigrants in the United States. That is how six of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country. Although Congress supports enforcement, the administration has simply shut down their requests. Obama has unilaterally decided not to apply equal rights to disenfranchised white voters, dropping all such lawsuits targeting minority organizations. DoJ appointee Julie Fernandez said, “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Two former, high-ranking DoJ voting rights lawyers have testified the racist arrangement is an official government policy.

The Obama administration has already begun to entertain aspects of the Green Left’s agenda, a trend it will increase in the second half of its first (and, we hope, only) term. The EPA considered, then rejected, banning fishing gear and traditional bullets this summer. Obama has taken steps toward nationalizing millions of acres of land in the American West. In July, the president established the National Ocean Council, staffed with 27 members, by decree. Rep. Sam Farr boasted at the time, “We already have a Clean Air Act and a Clean Water Act. With today’s executive order, President Obama in effect creates a Clean Ocean Act.” Some have written this panel will implement the never-ratified UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

The danger is not merely that the president will enact legislation with the stroke of a pen, like Caesar. It appears likely he will accelerate his trend to pre-empt domestic political questions before the United Nations. I was the first reporter to discover that Obama hauled Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council this summer over the state’s aforementioned immigration law.

Last week, the UN’s Global Migration Group issued a new report blasting opponents of Open Borders and welfare for illegal aliens as “xenophobes and racists.” Now, the Justice Department has solicited 11 Latin American nations to weigh in on its lawsuit stating the Arizona law violates the U.S. Constitution – as though any of the parties would know or care. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called the foreign intervention “incredibly offensive,” adding, “American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border.”

The Obama administration has already rendered one of these moot and is now working to undermine the other. He has appointed two Supreme Court justices who believe in supplanting the U.S. Constitution with foreign law. Obama used the same UN report to push a far-Left agenda (including card-check union organization, bilingual ballots, universal preschool, and gays in the military) under the guise of “human rights.” He likewise extended benefits to the same-sex “partners” of some federal employees in advance of a Congressional bill to do the same.

Where does the president derive these dictatorial powers? Simple: he claims them. Article II of the U.S. Constitution delegates to the president only the powers to act as commander-in-chief of the military, grant pardons, make treaties (which must be approved by the Senate), appoint ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, and give the State of the Union address. And, if necessary, the “right” to be impeached.

If a system of unelected, sometimes unconfirmed czars does not violate the Constitution, the assumption of imperial powers by the executive branch should. Barack Obama is dedicated to use whatever time he has in office forcing as much of his agenda on the United States – and so transforming the economic and electoral make-up of our nation – that his radical vision can be foisted upon Americans as a fait accompli.

Many Americans believed the velvet words of hope and change during the 2008 campaign. If the thuggishness of the past two years has not convinced them of his disregard for popular will, the U.S. Constitution, and the rule of law, two years of radical, royal decrees may. If Congressional Republicans do their jobs in 2011, Obama may not fill out two more years in office.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers