Obama aide ‘forgot’ 37G in union pay

On June 29, 2010, in Uncategorized, by The President

I’m beginning to think that the other guy in power has a simple application form for people wishing to join his administration.  It just has three checkboxes:

  • Did you, or are you now, working for a union?
  • Do you cheat on your taxes, or occasionally forget to do them?
  • There is no third qualification requirement.

A former top official for a huge New York union who is now the White House political director failed to disclose more than $37,000 in income from the union last year, it was reported yesterday.

As the former public-affairs executive for Service Employees International Union Local 1199, Patrick Gaspard earned $37,191 in carried-over pay while on the White House payroll.

He failed to disclose the income on financial-disclosure forms, Politico reported. Where arrangements for payment by a former employer must be listed on the form, he checked a box indicating he had nothing to report.

via Obama aide ‘forgot’ 37G in union pay – NYPOST.com. h/t Tam.

Tagged with:
 

Free Speech Watch « John Stossel

On June 27, 2010, in Amendment 1, Section 8, by The President

Yesterday, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act, making good on the President’s promise to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling and pass laws that abridge the freedom of speech. In Citizens United, the Supremes ruled that laws banning any group of citizens from engaging in political speech is unconstitutional. That includes unions, corporations, and interest groups both big and small.

Instead of passing new restrictions on the political speech of all those groups, Democrats chose to ram through a bill that only burdens some, with special exemptions for labor unions and big well-connected lobbyists, like the NRA.

Fear not, my good citizens, for unlike the freedom-hating imposter now sitting in the White House, I promise to veto this and any other unconstitutional legislation passed to me by the inept, corrupt congressmen you people keep putting into office.

via Free Speech Watch « John Stossel.

Tagged with:
 

Obamacare power grabs

On June 22, 2010, in Section 8, by The President

Michael Connelly expounds on some of the definitions added to Obamacare:

What exactly is behavior health modification and where is the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to try and modify or control the behavior of the American people when it comes to things like what we eat and the amount of exercise we must have? What will the government be looking at when it comes to our “mental health” and “behavioral health?” In the former Soviet Union people who opposed the Communist form of government were regularly committed to mental institutions and in Communist China those who exhibited behavior contrary to that mandated by the State were sent to “re-education camps” in order to modify their behavior.

And then, he returns to the fundamentals:

Moreover, at the beginning of the Executive order Obama says this: “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Public Law 111-148, it is hereby ordered as follows:”

I beg to disagree Mr. President. While Section 4001 of the Health Care Bill may claim to give you this authority, the Constitution of the United States, that you took an oath to defend and uphold, does not give you any such authority. Unless I am violating an existing Federal or State criminal law, nothing I say or do as an American citizen is subject to your control.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  It cannot be modified except by the specified amendment process.  Thus, Congress cannot simply pass a lawgiving the president authority to make law — that power is specifically enumerated as belonging to Congress, and the process for passing a law is not the same as the process for amending the Constitution.

Thus, the president still does not have the authority to make law, but only the authority to enforce that law that is constitutional.

via LEGISLATIVE ALERT! – Connelly.