Friday, August 21, 2015


Obama Threatens Veto Of Bill To Rein In Regulatory Regime

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Congress has created a monster that is growing more dangerous to the U.S. economy, the Constitution, and the liberties of the American people with every passing day. Now, some lawmakers want to start reining in the regulatory monster with the REINS Act, if only slightly, by taking back some authorities over lawmaking that they were never authorized to give away to executive branch bureaucracies in the first place. But Obama, who last year threatened to rule America by decree with his “pen and phone” if Congress would not submit to his demands, wants none of it, and the White House has threatened a veto.  
The legislation, H.R. 427, formally known as the “Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny” (REINS) Act of 2015, was overwhelmingly approved in a 243 to 165 vote late last month in the House of Representatives. All Republicans and a handful of Democrats supported the measure. The Senate version, S. 226, introduced by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), has not yet been voted on. If it becomes law, the REINS Act would mandate that any “major” executive branch rule, regulation, or decree — defined as having an annual economic impact of $100 million or more — be approved by Congress before going into effect.
In essence, lawmakers, responding to outraged constituents and out-of-control bureaucracies, are hoping to slow down the Obama regulatory juggernaut that is running roughshod over the American people. Restoring accountability is also key, supporters said. “If the Obama administration wants to impose regulations that effectively operate as laws on U.S. citizens, it is important that those citizens are made aware of how the laws come to be,” Senator Paul said in a statement when introducing the legislation. “Cutting red tape and opening the regulatory process to scrutiny is an important first step in holding government accountable.”
For anyone who doubts that the sprawling regulatory regime is totally out of control, a brief review of the Federal Register, where federal regulations are published, should make that clear. Consider the growing avalanche of regulations just from the Obama administration: 75,000 pages of bureaucratic rules and regulations imposed in 2014 alone. According to a study released last year commissioned by National Association of Manufacturers, federal regulations alone now cost the U.S. economy — businesses, workers, taxpayers, investors, and consumers — more than $2 trillion, with a T, every year. That translates to about $15,000 annually per American household.
In the House, where previous versions of the bill have passed on a bi-partisan basis, lawmakers, citing some of those numbers, said the legislation was urgently needed. “The REINS Act is key to reforming our nation’s regulatory system so that the American people can hold Congress accountable for the law of the land,” said Representative Todd Young (R-Ind.), who sponsored the House version this session along with over 150 co-sponsors. “While the president would prefer to act unilaterally — and he has made that abundantly clear in recent months — that’s not the way our system operates.”
“Unfortunately, when the executive branch issues regulations with a huge economic impact or negative consequences, it’s hard for the American people to hold accountable a nameless, faceless federal bureaucracy,” Young continued. “Requiring an up-or-down vote by Congress on major regulations restores the notion that the legislative branch is in charge of writing laws, brings transparency to our regulatory system, and ensures our constituents know who is responsible when burdensome regulations take effect.”
Previous efforts in recent years to pass the REINS Act and start to restrain the regulatory Leviathan Congress unleashed on America over generations passed easily in the House with support from members of both parties. However, the bid was consistently blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate under the leadership of then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Now, with Republicans in control of the upper chamber, analysts say the bill faces better prospects. But the Obama administration is already threatening a veto if it passes.
In an almost unbelievable argument, the administration outrageously claimed that allowing Congress to review major executive-branch decrees would produce “uncertainty.” “By replacing this well-established framework with a blanket requirement of Congressional approval, [the bill] would throw all major regulations into a months-long limbo, fostering uncertainty and impeding business investment that is vital to economic growth,” the White House alleged. “Maintaining an appropriate allocation of responsibility between the two branches is essential to ensuring that the Nation's regulatory system effectively protects public health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while also promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.”
Critics promptly ridiculed and debunked the administration's claims. In a stinging rebuke of Obama's veto threat published by Forbes, for example, Policy Director Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., with the market-oriented Competitive Enterprise Institute, countered every one of the White House's talking points — often using federal data. “Congress never should have delegated to unelected bureaus the sweeping lawmaking power they now possess, and this legislation shouldn’t even be necessary,” he observed, noting that versions of the legislation go back more than twenty years. “But it did improperly delegate, and [this bill] is necessary.”  
Addressing the White House's use of the word “unprecedented” to describe the REINS Act, Crews highlighted the facts. “What is unprecedented in our constitutional republic is the sweeping delegation and abdication of power from the elected to the unelected,” he said, noting that both political parties were guilty. Crews also cited Is Administrative Law Unlawful? author Philip Hamburger, who argued that the modern administration state represents “a reemergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings, exactly the kind of untethered power our Constitution was specifically designed to rid Americans of forever.”
In 2014, Crews continued, Congress passed and the president signed 224 laws. By contrast, executive-branch bureaucracies under Obama decreed 3,554 new rules and regulations purporting to have the force of law. The justification for the REINS Act, then, “is simple,” Crews argued: “people who make laws should be the people who we elect; not unelected, untouchable bureaucrats.” Even in the face of Obama's veto threat, the Senate should pass the legislation and, if nothing else, force the administration to explain why it believes the American people's elected representatives should not be able to vote on giant, costly, liberty-crushing edicts promulgated by the bureaucracy.
Other analysts noted that even more efforts are needed, but that this could be a good start. “The REINS Act shouldn't be an end, but a first step in getting the federal footprint reduced,” argued Neil Siefring, president of conservative-leaning Hilltop Advocacy, in a piece for The Hill. “Over the decades, the Republicans in the House and Senate have been complicit in increasing the size of government, warping the Constitution and taxpayers' wallets in the process. Passing this legislation and sending it to President Obama's desk can serve as a marker that Republicans are serious about reducing the burden of government.”  
Siefring also said the bill could serve as “gateway legislation” to further action on rolling back the size of the federal government. Among those proposed actions: shrinking and eliminating unconstitutional federal programs, quashing federal schemes that are supposed to expire, and an end to creating new federal funding streams and programs. “The regulatory process has become a way for presidents to make an end run around Congress by legislating from the White House,” added Siefring, a former congressional staffer. “The REINS Act is a way to put Congress back in the game of being a check and balance on executive action.”
Of course, a better solution than the REINS Act to the regulatory tsunami sweeping over America and threatening its future would be for members of Congress to simply obey their oath of office to the U.S. Constitution. That means, for example, that all funding for unconstitutional bureaucracies would be cut, eliminating the need for Congress to vote on individual regulations. And there is nothing Obama could do about it. Obama's “pen and phone” could be de-funded, too. Then, state and local governments can take over any useful functions those federal agencies or programs may have performed — assuming there are any — and the American people can once again enjoy the freedom bequeathed to them by the Founders.   


Image: Az. Sheriff Babeu: Carson Did Suggest Military Strikes on Cartels

Published on Aug 21, 2015
Ben Carson tours southern border with Arizona sheriff - FoxTV United States News. Sheriff Paul Babeu discusses the tour with the presidential candidate

Mexican drug cartels now control parts of Arizona

Drug Cartels Run the Border; The $3 Million Per Mile Fence With "Monsoon Flood" Openings That Illegals Simply Go Through

Ben Carson Talks Border Control and Tours Arizona Border with Sheriff Paul Babeu

Ben Carson Views Cartel Sites From Helicopter With Arizona Sheriff

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Dr. Ben Carson (shown), a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, rode aboard a helicopter with Pinal County, Arizona, Sheriff Paul Babeu on August 19, touring mountainside caves used by Mexican drug cartel scouts in the Arizona desert. Some of these cartel lookout spots were as far as 70 miles inside the United States.
After completing the tour and landing, Carson and the sheriff held an exclusive interview with a reporter from Breitbart News, during which Babeu commented on the weak state of border security: “If they can operate up to this degree, 70 miles north of the border, in law enforcement we call that a clue.”
“We should stop them at the border,” Carson added. “They shouldn’t be 70 miles inside the border. We should stop them at the border. As the sheriff indicated, if we were to take like 6,000 troops and put them at the border, you wouldn’t have those people coming inside the border.”
Following the helicopter tour, Carson spoke to a crowd at the Phoenix Convention Center, where nearly 12,000 people came out to hear him, according to estimates by Arizona Republican Chairman Robert Graham.
CNN affiliate KPHO in Phoenix quoted Carson’s reference to what he saw during his helicopter tour and his suggestion for how to eliminate them: “You look at some of these caves and things out there one drone strike, boom, and they're gone.”
When CNN asked Carson if he was advocating using lethal force from drones against the cartel members in Arizona, he replied: “I’m suggesting we do what we need to do to secure the border — whatever that is.”
CNN reported that following what it described as “a strong performance” in the first Republican debate, Carson has solidified his spot as a top-tier candidate in the CNN/ORC poll and has polled very well among evangelicals. The most recent poll from CNN has Carson ranking third among white evangelical voters with 11 percent favoring him. Donald Trump is leading the poll with 23 percent and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush places second with 16 percent.
“All the pundits say it’s impossible,” Carson said, apparently referring to the potential for his campaign. “I just said, ‘Lord, if you want me to do it, if you open the doors, I will walk through them.’ ”
A report in the Fiscal Times for August 20 contrasted Carson’s proposed solution for securing the border with Donald Trump’s. Noting that Trump has proposed building a wall along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border and the detention and eventual deportation of those aliens who have entered our country illegally, the Fiscal Timescited Carson’s statements indicating that he opposes large-scale deportation because he does not believe such a plan is practical or even possible.  
Reflecting this belief is Carson’ statement to moderator Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet the Press program on August 16:
I have heard people say, yeah, round them all up and send them back. They have no idea what they’re talking about, how much that costs and how impractical that is. And many of the [immigrants] don’t know any other place … so where are you going to send them back to in that situation?
While the Fiscal Times did not take issue with Caron’s position against deportation, it did question his suggestion for using drone strikes against drug cartel members in Arizona, noting that even Sheriff Babeu considers the idea of drone strikes in his jurisdiction to be a bad one. The report quoted Carson’s statement in an interview with an ABC 15 Phoenix news team when asked to clarify his statement advocating drone use:
 Well here’s the bottom line: You guys don’t seem to understand this. I suggest we use all the things that are available to us, but we use the military expertise.
Carson’s advocacy of “military expertise” to secure our border against drug dealers will give pause to those concerned about the increasing militarization of law enforcement in America and our government’s use of drones against people who are suspected of, but not convicted of, crimes. While drones might be useful against drug dealers, they have also been used to strike against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism in Yemen in 2013. TheNew York Times also reported in February 2014 that the Obama administration was debating whether to authorize a lethal drone strike against an American citizen living in Pakistan. Clearly, using such stealth weaponry within the borders of the United States would carry grave risks, present much potential for abuse, and raise important constitutional questions.
Another statement Carson made to ABC 15 should resonate better with conservatives. He opposed giving “birthright” citizenship to babies born in the United States to illegal aliens:
For a woman to be pregnant and say, “I’m going to go to the United States and have my baby there so that I can have an anchor” is stupid. We can keep families together. If they came here and did that, we can still keep them together by packaging them up and sending them back.
Carson did not explain how this apparent position in favor of deporting some illegal aliens square with his statement made to Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that sending all illegal aliens back is impractical and his questioning where deportable aliens should be sent to. It seems that while Carson is a man filled with good intentions, he has not thoroughly thought through the practical solutions to some of our nation’s problems.
This tendency may also be applied to one of Carson’s chief rivals for the nomination, Donald Trump, and his proposal to build a wall along our border with Mexico. Trump also spoke with Chuck Todd on August 16 and outlined his own immigration plan, and his proposal to build the border wall, stating that he would require Mexico to pay for it. He even outlined how he would accomplish this, through a combination of impounding remittance payments being sent by illegal Mexican aliens in the United States back to relatives in Mexico and an increase in several fees and tariffs. However, this plan ignores the many retaliatory actions Mexico might take to protest these actions, such as financial sanctions against the many U.S. corporations doing business in Mexico. Once again, both Carson and Trump have suggested actions designed to appeal to American who are tired of the Obama administration’s inaction against illegal immigration, but have not considered the downsides and possible ill effects of these actions.
Even if a border wall (or fence) could be built, for example, are we sure that is a solution free from dangerous consequences? When the possibility of erecting a fence along the border to keep out illegal aliens was discussed during the 2011 Republican debates, candidate Ron Paul warned that erecting barbed wire fences and patrolling them with armed troops could eventually be used not to keep illegals out, but to keep Americans in. Said Paul:
Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.
Paul’s reference to ID cards and REAL IDs also address another proposal that Trump included in his recent list: implementing a nationwide e-verify system. E-verify is just another word for an ID system that may be of some use in determining an employment candidate’s eligibility to work in the United States, but may also be used to keep tabs on native-born Americans. The former congressman has warned that this national ID scheme would allow federal bureaucrats to collect biometric information — potentially including fingerprints, retinal scans, and more — that could and likely would be eventually used as a tracking device. It would also make it illegal for anyone to work in the United States without obtaining the national ID, which is likely the motivation for proposing it in the first place.  
The dangers of such a national ID were explored thoroughly in an article posted by The New American last March: “Congress Pushes Obama-backed National Biometric ID for Americans.”
Carson and Trump are seen by many as fresh voices from outside the Washington establishment presenting new ideas to solve America’s problems, including the ever-worsening problem of illegal immigration. As serious as our problems are, however, we need more than new ideas. We need ideas that are carefully weighed to evaluate their practicality and their constitutionality.
Related articles:

Ben Carson Is One Pathetic "N" by Pastor Manning:




Seventh Day Adventist & Academic Ben Carson Does Not Have Any Political Skills