Saturday, August 6, 2011

Do Not Drink And Drive...drink and that's another story!

Courtesy of

Poor Americans Need A Television... Do you have a problem with that? We should have a parade!

Budget Control Act of 2011 Unconstitutional...Titus & Olson explain

The problem with violating the Constitution apparently is not a problem...if it were, there would be a lot of politicians in jail. ~ Norman E. Hooben [PS: We need to fix that problem!]
The following cross-posted from American Thinker
August 4, 2011
The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order
By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson

In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the "Budget Control Act of 2011" ("BCA 2011") were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of "bi-partisan consensus "to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.
First, the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.
The Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power "to borrow Money on the credit of the United States." As two of America's leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is "inseparably connected" with that of "raising a revenue." Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress -- vested with the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts," -- kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.
To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.
However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process." Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to "determine" that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments," subject only to congressional "disapproval." For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.
Under the new process established by this bill, if the President determines, no later than December 31, 2011, that the nation's debt is within $100 billion of the existing debt limit and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the debt limit automatically increases. The President need only to certify to Congress that he has made the required determination. Once the President acts, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow $900 billion "subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted" by Congress.
But this is not all. Title III also provides that if Congress fails to disapprove the debt ceiling increase in the amount of $900 billion, the President may again certify to Congress that he has determined that the debt subject to the new ceiling is within $100 billion and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments. So the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to borrow another $1.2 trillion. Indeed, the Secretary may borrow even more -- up to $1.5 trillion if a proposed balanced budget amendment has been submitted to the states for ratification. As was true of the first round of ceiling raising and borrowing, the President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which, itself, is subject to veto by the President.
By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation's commitments, this bill turns the legislative process on its head. According to Article I, Section 7, before an act can become a law, it must first be passed as a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus, any action taken to authorize the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States - whether such action is a formal bill or a vote or resolution -- must be initiated by Congress and, then, presented to the President for his veto or signature. This bill creates what it calls a "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" whereby the constitutional process is reversed. Instead of Congress's initiating the decision to borrow money, the President has the initiative. Congress is relegated to the role of having to disapprove the President's decision to lift the debt ceiling and authorize the Secretary of Treasury to do what the Constitution says only Congress may do -- borrow money on the credit of the United States.
Instead of constitutional order, in which Congress presents a law authorizing the borrowing of money to the President to sign or veto, the President presents to the Congress his determination that more money is to be borrowed, subject to the acquiescence or veto of Congress.
Second, the joint select committee on deficit reduction provision undermines the constitutionally established bicameral legislative process.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 establishes a joint select committee of 12 members, six from the House and six from the Senate. Three of the six House members are appointed by the Speaker of the House and three are appointed by the House minority leader. Three of the six Senate members are appointed by the majority leader and three by the leader of the minority.
Title IV of the Budget Control Act vests in that joint select committee the power to draft legislation to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
Here, members of Congress yield their individual legislative duties and responsibilities to a "Super Congress" selected not by the people -- but by Republican and Democrat leaders.
How many of these Congressmen and Senators campaigned on the platform that they would be elected, get sworn in, and then obediently surrender the power their constituents vested in them to the very same Republican and Democrat leaders who have created the problems they were sent here to solve?
To facilitate passage of the joint committee's legislative proposals, Section 402 contains a number of procedural rules designed to expedite consideration of the joint committee recommendations. Generally, the rules require action by both houses no later than December 23, 2011, on a joint committee recommendation that must be submitted no later than December 9, 2011. Additionally, the section prohibits amendments to the proposed legislation and prescribes severe limits on the time for debate. In short the procedural rules dictate unity of action of a majority of each house to accelerate adoption of the deficit reductions recommended by the joint committee within a two-week period of time.

The Constitutional order is quite different. Article I, Section 1 vests the legislative power in a bicameral Congress composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The members of each body are elected in two very different manners. Each senator is elected by the vote of the people of an entire state, and each state has the same number of senators regardless of population. The members of the House are elected by the people in congressional districts divided into districts, each state being guaranteed at least one representative and the others allocated according to population.
The composition of each house then is deliberately designed by the Constitution to represent vastly different majorities. And for good reason. As the Supreme Court observed in I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 949 (1983), "by providing that no law could take effect without the prescribedMembers of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief ... that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation's elected officials."

The Budget Control Act of 2011 departs from that commitment vesting incredible power in the joint committee, virtually guaranteeing that deficit reduction legislation will be "carefully and fully considered," if at all, only by 6 of 100 elected senators and 6 of 435 elected representatives.
These are not matters of constitutional form without meaning -- the process was considered central to the founders.
In the debates on the need for a bicameral legislature, James Wilson warned: "Is there a danger of a Legislative despotism? Theory & practice both proclaim it. If the legislative authority be not restrained, there can be neither liberty nor stability; and it can only be restrained by dividing it within itself, into distinct and independent branches."
Even the last defender of monarchy among the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned that to "accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty [would] entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived." 
Thus, as the Supreme Court noted in Chadha, James Madison "point[ed] up the need to divide and disperse power in order to protect liberty": "In republican government, legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and the common dependence on society will admit." The Federalist, No. 51 (emphasis added).
The Budget Control Act of 2011 does just the opposite. Instead of ensuring action by two "distinctive bodies," to be "exercised only after opportunity for full debate in separate settings," the Act truncates the deliberative process by shortening debate, excluding amendments, and commanding uniformity. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951.
Expedition was never the principal object of the legislative process created by the founders. The object was to preserve limitations on the power of government in order to protect the liberties of the people. Liberties can be lost when bad precedents are set in the atmosphere of crisis -- and crises can, and often are, manufactured. Precedents established can be hard to overturn. Rights lost can be hard to regain. 
The 74-page Budget Control Act of 2011 was not written over the weekend. Yet it was posted on the House Rules Committee website with no fanfare, only hours before it was to be voted upon, breaking the pledge of the House Republicans to provide at least 72-hours advance public notice.  
Contrived crisis, appeals to fear, emergency legislation, and suspension of Constitutional order -- these are the indicia of abuse of power, leading to tyranny.

Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding Dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at or

Friday, August 5, 2011

Krista Erickson Shines...Margie Gillis Needs To Get A Real Job

The interview took place in Canada and apparently caused a lot of grief among the Liberal Left and was a featured op-ed over at the Huffington Post ...personally I thought the interview exposed the Left's wacko ideology; Krista Erickson did a great job while Margie Gillis thinks its OK to take what is not rightfully hers (see my response to someone who goes by 2lib4oh at Huffington Post which is reproduced below).
The commentary associated with the video refers to the interview as an attack:
Krista Erickson's interview/attack of Margie Gillis, Canadian dance icon, on the pubic funding she's received over her 39-year career. The only positive is the grace with which Ms. Gillis handled this shameful attack. from YouTube
Nothing can be further than the truth for the real attack comes from the Left's insistence that they have some unfounded right to take from one class of people and give to another...I call that, "stealing" ~ Norman E. Hooben

This is a culture war. We have seen it here in the form of attacks on intellectu­als and artists as well here in America. Things that make us reflective and thoughtful are at odds with things that make us competitiv­e and aggressive­.
Powerful people in authority like to "get things done" without necessaril­y questionin­g if the thing is worth doing in the first place. Tea Party types don't question themselves­, they question others. They don't reflect. They are too busy trying to dominate the conversati­on even if they have to resort to extreme behavior.
There is so much to be said about this behavior. Artists and intellectu­als are a threat to this kind of thinking.Q­uestioning and removing the influence of artists on our society is the first phase to making people unsympathe­tic and dumbed down. You can see it is the first step to gaining control over the masses.
My Responce:
Ref:"1. Tea Party types don't question themselves­­, they question others. 2. They don't reflect."

1. TEA Party types question the powers to be their authority to take from me which is not rightfully theirs and give to you which is not yours to take. Margie Gillis has no 'right' to take taxpayer's livilihood which they've earned through a thing called 'labor'. If Gillis is so great she should able to earn a living through her 'labor' of dance based solely on the income generated from her audiences (don't force me to pay an admittance fee when I'm not present). 2. TEA Party types reflect the inequities of the wackos on the left.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Now you have hundreds of people cheering for you...and you'll have thousands cheering for you after this episode!

Korea has more than talent...

Amazing singer with an impressive story!

Now this one is for the bird...

Beware of EO's...they set a very dangerous precedence (your freedom should take precedence!)

Executive Orders
Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time. George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations, which are similar to EO's (Proclamations are still issued today). EO's and Proclamations are not law, but they have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor. Historically, they have had broader effect, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. A typical EO might instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. Today, EO's and Proclamations are sequentially numbered. The average president issues 58 EO's a year. As of March 13, 1936, all EO's must be published in the Federal Register. The first to have been so published was #7316, by President Roosevelt.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

How many times do I have to tell you, "Watch your backside!" ...there's a footnote to this

Update: Some viewers have not made the connection between the video and the narrative (these viewers are described in the narrative here).  Well for those psychological captives here is an over simplification of  the analogy: 
Consider the goalie (that's the guy with the red-orange soccer uniform; number 21) as the United States of America (that's your country) and consider the guy with in the white soccer uniform (number 30) as the United Nations (they want your country).  Then look what happens to the guy wearing number 21 when he lost the ball...and that's how you will look when the blue berets come marching through your neighborhood...  Do I have to say it again?  Watch your backside!
I would also hope you notice the score after the embarrassing's now tied 1 to 1.  Well right now Obama has the ball and if he keeps it for another term you will lose...end of story!

And you thought the United States rejected the Kyoto Treaty!  Well it appears (excuse my language) the bastards have been coming in the back end around if you will.  This is definetly the work of the United Nations...including Bill 'the bastard' Clinton (you remember him, he's the SOB that signed the treaty).  So they conned some low-life mayors into accepting their revenue producing anthropomorphic garbage that will eventually engulf us all...engulf us under that blue rag of the United is the one and only purpose of the Kyoto Treaty!  There's not a damn thing the United Nations, Kyoto Treaty or not, can do about climate's been changing quite normally since the beginning of time...some days are hot some days are cold...get used to it, it will keep right on happening long after you and I are six-foot under!  In the following story they brag about 141 mayors signing the agreement... Did your mayor?  Better get rid of the bastard! ~  Norman E. Hooben
footnote: Of over 2000 posts on this website I've never had to resort to reducing another person's being to that of the lowly bastard...but can you think of a nicer way of describing someone who is stabbing you in the back while they're asking you for money?  Think about it...

U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement  from
List of Mayors | Map of Mayors |

Scientific evidence and consensus continues to strengthen the idea that climate disruption is an urgent threat to the environmental and economic health of our communities. Many cities, in this country and abroad, already have strong local policies and programs in place to reduce global warming pollution, but more action is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to meet the challenge. On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate disruption, became law for the 141 countries that have ratified it to date. On that day, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched this initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities.

By the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Annual Meeting in June, 141 mayors had signed the Agreement – the same number of nations that ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In May of 2007, Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor became the 500th mayor to sign on.

Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take following three actions:
- Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;
- Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and
- Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system

+ Read the Press Release
+ Download The U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
+ Download a U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement Participation Form
+ Click to view the map of signatories

Monday, August 1, 2011

The New World Order Is Emerging.... Are you ready for this?

You may recall the words of the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown, immediately following a G20 Summit meeting (or was it the doesn't matter__they're all out to get you!), he said, "The New World Order is emerging..." and of course he was right.  Now all the major world leaders attend these summits...its their number one priority once they've fooled you into voting them into office (you don't expect them to campaign for a program designed to make peasants out of the world's population run by the politic elite...or Do you?  Then you are a fool, it won't work!  It never has!)  This is exactly what Obama ran on however  instead of the politic elite being members of the Bilderbergers or Rockerfellers, Obama is pushing for that other family united by their Muslim Brotherhood.  Meanwhile for this new world order to be imposed it has to be done know the routine, take away this, take away that, tax this, tax that, control you, control me...and eventually they have you under their thumb.  I know some of you have complained about some of the ridiculus laws that we now have to abide by...all of which produce revenue when you violate such laws.  Where does the revenue go?  Really that's another story but I will tell you about one city I read about...the money is kept by the judge who imposed the fine...we'll talk about that one another time. Now I did mention the word, 'ridiculus' ...and this may even seem more ridiculus when they come knocking on your door.  Are you ready for this?  Read on, my friend, read on!  The New World Order is emerging! ~ Norman E. Hooben 

The following scenario takes place in the United Kingdom (but look for it soon in the United States of America)

Terence Blacker: Why we're all being driven to extremes
Cars may be necessary to everyday life, but they are no longer a force for good
Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Have you had a call from a personal travel adviser yet? In some parts of the country, they are knocking on doors and offering tips on responsible travel. It is a government initiative, financed by the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, and its aim is to encourage more of us to leave the car at home when we shop, or go to work.

The scheme has drawn a predictable blast of amused contempt from traditionalists in the media who have huffed and puffed about the nanny state, and the cost to the public purse. The Taxpayers' Alliance, an ever-reliable source of why-oh-why soundbites on these occasions, has described such campaigns as "silly... They don't address the real issues facing commuters or packed trains."
As is so often the case when there are attempts by central government to change the way we consume and waste, the criticism is wide of the mark and the idea, modest as it is, rather sensible. It recognises, albeit in a tentative manner, that worrying about the environment and investing in expensive renewable energy schemes are all very well, but are largely meaningless while we remain deeply and unapologetic in thrall to the car.
It is not just that unnecessary driving by millions of us every day is an obvious waste of fossil fuel. There is now something about the automobile which seems to bring brings out the worst in our natures. We are more arrogant and selfish when behind a steering-wheel; other people, beyond the screen, mean less to us than if we were among them. Enclosed in the solid interior of our car, with its familiar smell and seat position and sounds, we lose what little patience and empathy we ever had with the outside world. It is both a refuge and a fighting vehicle, taking on the enemy. When that car door slams behind us, the Big Society no longer exists.
It may take a while to get used to the idea that car culture is now somewhat toxic. It has had a good run, first as the focus of great rock songs from Chuck Berry, Ry Cooder or Bruce Springsteen, and as the star of Hollywood road movies. It has even, thanks to JG Ballard, had its moment of perverse eroticism.
Now, though, it is doing us harm. The briefest glance at an episode of Top Gear tells you more than enough about the grim effect on character and wit that modern car-addiction can have. It represents and excuses a sort of cosseted arrogance, a love of size and power, a bleary contempt for those with smaller engines or even, unthinkably, no engines at all.
Away from the TV studio, the way driving influences human behaviour is even less amusing, as Aberystwyth has been discovering this summer. Six weeks ago, the town lost its three traffic wardens. "We thought," the head of local highways told the Sunday Telegraph, "that at the very least this would be an interesting experiment, and there would be a good chance of the town showing what it could do."
It did. Unregulated, the drivers of Aberystwyth have ignored yellow lines, blocked entrances, grabbed spaces for the disabled, crashed into shops, abused those trying to make deliveries and fought with one another.
Here, not around some freeway in Los Angeles, is the true Carmageddon. In the words of the chairman of the local chamber of commerce, the town has been "spiralling towards a kind of Lord of the Flies state of anarchy where no one gives a stuff for anyone."
Perhaps it is time to start thinking about cars rather differently. They may be necessary to everyday life, but they are no longer a force for good. Door-to-door personal travel advisers can play a small role in changing attitudes, but in the end social pressure will be the thing. One day perhaps, the car culture will loosen its grip, and burning around the roads in a Clarksonesque manner will be considered self-indulgent and slightly silly.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Your House Is On Fire... Which part will you save? (Listen up...he may become your president)

America In Decline...Jesus is un-Constitutional ~ "We are in decline because 350,000 people did not stand up to Judge Harvie Wilkinson." Wake up people!

While the United States is among the “most declined” nations, Mexico ranks among the “most improved.” The United States was once the bastion of economic and personal freedom for its citizens, making it the wealthiest economy and the highest standard of living in the world. Today, it has chosen to abandon that model of freedom, instead seeking economic security through government programs and controls. ~ A Nation in Decline Canada Free Press ~ Tom Deweese Wednesday, January 27, 2010
And so it goes...we are not in decline because we the people are not seeking economic security; we the people relish it!  It is the politic elite that push us into decline and that includes the people identified with D's or R's after their name.  These people, no matter what they preach in order to get elected, are no longer God fearing people, a phrase once cherished on most any one's resume and now condemned by the separation of church and state and anti-religion groups. We are in decline when politicians convince the electorate that its a good idea to send jobs overseas while they preach American jobs are the number one priority...c'mon now, do I have to explain NAFTA all over again!  But setting aside the economic issues that pushes America into decline... its probably the most important area of decline right up there next to our moral decline and that is the decline in the belief of God and the Judeo Christian principles that got us here in the first place.  We are in decline because the 350,000 people in the story below did not stand up to Judge Harvie Wilkinson  and the two protesters...the decision, "that prayers unconstitutionally advance Christianity if references to Jesus are more than isolated, or if the content is otherwise too Christian for the court’s taste." is an insult to our Founding Fathers no less the American people.  When we have a guy sitting in the White House literally bending over to advance Islam a collection of beliefs that wholeheartedly wants to destroy western civilization.  Let me tell ya, "The content coming from the White House is too Islamic for the advancement of America; it is the ultimate decline of America! ~ Norman E. Hooben

Federal appeals court: Saying “Jesus” during public prayer is unconstitutional
By:Ken Klukowski   From: The Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential
As in most counties in America, the Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County, North Carolina, begins its public meetings with an invocation. These prayers are given by local religious leaders on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Given that 95 percent of local religious houses identify as Christian, it’s not surprising that many of the invocations include specifically Christian language, often closing the prayer in the name of “Jesus Christ” or “Jesus.”
Two non-Christians from the community with a population of approximately 350,000 sued, arguing that an invocation mentioning Jesus Christ during a public prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Even though the pair acknowledged that the Supreme Court held public prayers—called “legislative prayers”—are constitutional in the 1983 case Marsh v. Chambers, the federal district court in North Carolina sided with the protestors.
In a stunning decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed that judgment in a 2-to-1 decision, holding in the case Joyner v. Forsyth County that prayers unconstitutionally advance Christianity if references to Jesus are more than isolated, or if the content is otherwise too Christian for the court’s taste.
Writing for the majority, Judge Harvie Wilkinson - a respected appellate judge who was appointed by President Reagan - wrote that public prayers are for the purpose of welcoming and including the community to be involved in government. (That’s odd. I always thought it was to ask for God’s blessing.)
The predominance of Christian prayers violated Judge Wilkinson’s novel understanding, and so, joined by Barbara Keenan, who was appointed by President Obama, the court struck down the county’s longstanding practice, calling it “sectarian.”
Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer, a judicial conservative regarded as one of the smartest judges on the federal bench, wrote in a strong dissent: “Thus … the majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer—the sacred dialogue between humankind and God. Such a decision treats prayer agnostically; reduces it to a civil nicety; … Most frightfully, it will require secular [authorities] to evaluate and parse particular religious prayers…”
This is yet another instance of a “heckler’s veto,” where one hypersensitive person in a crowd is offended, and makes the whole group conform to the heckler’s demands.
As I explain in my law review article, “In Whose Name We Pray,” published by Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, not only does Marsh v. Chambers allow “sectarian” prayers (i.e. mentioning Jesus), it would violate the Establishment Clause for any government official—including any federal judge—to censor the content of anyone’s prayers.
Under our Constitution, every American can pray in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, and government never has a right to interfere with religious beliefs.
This is the latest in a string of disappointing lower court decisions on public prayer. It’s time for the Supreme Court to revisit this issue.
"We are in decline because 350,000 people did not stand up to Judge Harvie Wilkinson." Wake up people! ~ Storm'n Norm'n