American Presidential Power

July 3, 2007
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer

House Balks at Bush Order for New Powers

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush this month is giving an obscure White House office new powers over regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment. Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.

The House voted last week to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from spending federal money on Executive Order signed by Bush last January and due to take effect July 24. The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written.

The House measure "stops this president or any president from seizing the power to rewrite almost every law that Congress passes, laws that protect public health, the environment, safety, civil rights, privacy and on and on," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., its sponsor.

"OIRA has quietly grown into the most powerful regulatory agency in Washington," the House Science investigations subcommittee, chaired by Miller, said in a report in April. The administration contends Bush's order merely strengthens a similar directive issued by President Clinton in 1993 giving the White House budget office oversight of federal agency rulemaking.

Andrea Wuebker, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, which manages the White House regulatory affairs office, said the order, along with an OMB good guidance bulletin, "will help increase the quality, accountability and transparency of agency guidance documents."
................................................................................

Many feel that the checks and balances implicit in the matrix of our government are not balanced, and that the imbalance began in the early part of the 20th Century, mostly as pragmatic moves to get things done. Over time thus far, the swing has favored the Executive branch of government. Congress still has the power to set the balance straight, and restore the power of legislative governance. But it will take a unified, bi-partisan (what's that?) Congress some determined and steady footwork to achieve balance. The Congress would have to clean up their own act before they could even begin to act in concert.

And it is high time to take a hard, objective look at the judiciary role in creating new legislation by judicial fiat. The bench staffed by political appointees has done much harm to our nation by creating in toto, as it were, a two-faction piership who insist on re-interpreting and changing the US Constitution to reflect, not what the Constitution says, but how they view the world. They must be reined in.

The US Congress has become reduced to a bunch of squabbling hens. Perhaps if America put a one-term limit on members of both houses of congress, most of this conflict of interest, pork-barrel protectionism, and pandering to the lobbyists would die a natural death.
.................................................................................

In other news:

Leahy: Subpoena fight may go to court

By Hope Yen
Associated Press
Published July 2, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday that he was ready to go to court if the White House resists congressional subpoenas for information on the firings of federal prosecutors.

"If they don't cooperate, yes I'd go that far," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on whether he would seek congressional contempt citations if President Bush didn't comply. That move would push the matter to court.

"They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation," Leahy said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "The bottom line on this U.S. attorneys investigation is that we have people manipulating law enforcement."

At issue is whether the White House exerted undue political influence in the Justice Department's firings of prosecutors.
..............................................................................

Presidential Power at 60-Year-High
By Melinda Wenner

Presidential power is spiraling out of control, making George W. Bush the most powerful American leader since at least WWII, according to a new analysis. But the current president, now entangled in a controversy over his recent decision to assert Executive Privilege, can’t take full credit for the power grab, the researchers argue. A number of factors have converged over the past 60 years to turn the American presidency into a position of incredible influence that has a negative effect on American politics and which won't change just because someone else takes charge of the White House.

In their new book "Presidential Power: Unchecked and Unbalanced" (W. W. Norton, 2007), Johns Hopkins University political scientists Benjamin Ginsberg and Matthew Crenson trace the history of the presidency since the middle of last century, uncovering a series of murder mystery-like motives, means and opportunities that have shaped the executive branch into the most powerful institution on the globe.

Ginsberg and Crenson are not the only researchers to spot the radical change. “The presidency has grown in size and in power throughout the 20th century,” agreed Christopher S. Kelley, a political scientist at Miami University in Ohio.

Power grab

In a telephone interview last week, Crenson explained how American politicians today are driven by different desires than they were in the past.

“We have these people with enormously grandiose ambitions, who don’t just want to be president—they want to change history,” Crenson said. Politicians used to be propelled into the presidency by their parties; now they are self-propelled, he said.

This change was accompanied by a general decline in public political participation, said the authors. People’s dwindling interest in politics—and in congressional activities in particular—has allowed presidents to capitalize on unique opportunities.

“When popular participation diminishes, congressional influence goes down, and one of the obstacles for presidential power is significantly reduced,” Crenson said. “You can see over the course of the 20th century, presidents have either grabbed or invented one instrument of power after another.”

Watergate effect

According to Kelley, however, by far the biggest instigator last century was Watergate. After the scandal, Congress reacted by constraining presidential power, all the while still expecting the president to lead.

“If any president wanted to be successful, and to bequeath an office stronger than he found it, he would need to develop unique arguments, theories, devices, etcetera, that would enable success,” Kelley told LiveScience. “Hence presidential unilateralism [and] working through the executive branch agencies to accomplish what he couldn't with the Congress.”

Watergate also prompted the Supreme Court to first recognize the power of Executive Privilege, which allows the executive branch to resist certain legislative and judicial interventions. President Bush asserted the privilege last week to keep the White House and several of his former aides from supplying subpoenaed documents to Congress in an investigation related to the replacement of federal prosecutors.

...While many might think the relatively unchecked power in today's White House is largely due to how President Bush operates, the authors, who support different political parties, see the shift as more of an institutional—and constitutional—issue. “People need to realize that this is not a problem that’s going to be solved by electing somebody other than George W. Bush,” Crenson said. “This is a serious constitutional problem—constitutional in both senses of the word—that is going to take some very careful thought to remedy.”

The best way to for the public to change the balance of power is to support Congress in its efforts to make substantive policy, Crenson said. Since the legislature has two parties, compared to the president’s one, it is likely to make better decisions, he contends. (Read the whole article)
Special to LiveScience
July 2, 2007

......................................................................

What kind of unifying force would it take to restore sanity in government and the integrity of the US Constitution? My guess would be that it would take a cataclysmic event on the order of a huge meteor hitting the earth, a war of unimaginable proportions, or the voice of reason to suddenly take hold in all branches of government.

If I were a betting man, I would have to go with one of the first two options.

And finally: Mr. Bush, as long as you have the presidential pardon pen out, why not do the right thing and grant a FULL PARDON to Mr. Ramos and Mr. Campean? They were only doing their job protecting our border, before they fell victim to your biased prosecutor. At the very least commute their sentences so their families can begin over again.

Just pick up the phone, and do it. You know you'll sleep a lot better.

What's that? You're afraid of backlash from the Hispanic community? What can they do to you, Mr. President? You're the most powerful man on the planet. Right?


Trackposted to Hot Air
Outside the Beltway, Webloggin, Perri Nelson's Website, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, DeMediacratic Nation, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

How Bio Fuels Could Starve the Poor

When I write, I take my research method from the lowly ant: when some species of ants leave the colony to look for food, they look for it by leaving the nest and, going in ever-widening circles, they search until they pick up the scent or trail of food. Then straightaway, they report back to the colony, and lead the other ants to the food. I start by looking at an idea, an event of interest, and poke around until a central idea begins to take shape in my mind. Then I widen my circles, until I find what will satisfy the central idea, and I report back to you. But I continue to research the idea, as I know there is much more to be discovered (dis-covered).

For example, about three weeks ago, when I reflected on where the ethanol boom was going, I researched it, wrote about it, a short piece but didn't look all that deeply into it. So I decided to go back again and look at the bio-fuel crisis with fresh eyes, knowing in my heart it will be the world's poor that get the shitty end of the stick. They always do. But this time it's not just the poor who are getting shafted, it's you and me as well. And my search led me to the Council on Foreign Relations. Once again.

And even though I know the CFR is an insideous organization, I do not discount their access to scholarship. If you go through this article, sub-titled, " The Ethanol Bubble" by Runge and Senauer you will find that they see, they know what is happening in the world of Bio-fuels and the current alternative of ethanol. Their projections are grim, indeed. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we are heading for wholesale misery on a global scale. But their solutions to the problem of ever-growing ranks of the poor and starving in the world consist of applying fixes here and there. Congress should do this, Congress should do that, a band-aid here, drop this subsidy there, add this here...blah, blah, blah.

That such brilliant men can analyze the situation on the ground concerning the world's poor, and yet - miss the most important piece of the puzzle is odd. The key seems to be: who controls the money? Are the analysts looking through the wrong end of the telescope? Perhaps by design? This whole global thing is being generated by the vision of a few - a vision of a world-based Socialism, some even say Communism.

We live under the golden rule, so I know to "follow the money", knowing that no matter how torturous the trail, it will always lead back to the problem. Always, always. And in following the money, you find other rocks to look under. Look under the rocks. There one finds greed, corruption, the will of the few wealthy imposed on Congress, and the rest of us. Truth is not the problem - it always shines irrespective of the conditions. The lies are the problem, and the lies are concealing the truth. But lies hide under rocks, or behind half-truths.

They love to keep us looking in the wrong direction, as is obvious in the so-called, "War On Terror", as the pieces are being put in place for a more totalitarian government. The War On Terror is a sham. But it sets the stage for a more aggressive surveillance stance, and they have -so far- vertically integrated the Fed with the state and local law enforcement. The Patriot Act, enhanced by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) further erode our individual privacy - all under the meme of "Global War on Terror". Congressional oversight? Not.

Incrementally, our right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", is being eroded, making us weak, unable to defend ourselves and our families. Something's gotta give. There are those who believe we are being set up, waiting for the other shoe to drop, as in another attack in the form of bombs or some kind of wholesale disaster- all to provide our government with the rationale to initiate the changes it so badly wants: NAU, AMERO, perhaps martial law. All in the name of making America strong against its enemies. A New World Order. They have made it crystal clear - they believe it is what we need to step forward into the 21st Century. It is a Fascist's dream: the melding of Corporatism with the State.

Why are our universities under leftist control? Look. for. the. money. What you find is they serve at the pleasure of grants and donations. Pry under that rock, and what you find is Gramsci and Freire cultural humanist ideology, backed by Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie money. The climate of intolerance found on the campuses throughout the United States, masquerading as Politically Correct speech, is the direct result of pressure on the College Administration to kowtow to their whims. Oh, sure the so-called "Humanities" are rife with leftist professors who spread their agenda, rather than inviting honest discourse. But they are there, in place, because the administration has granted them permission to do so. The power of money. The Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rules.

If you want a place to stand as you investigate that relationship, take Carroll Quigley with you. Even though he was an insider, his research is a rock you can stand on. But he's dead now, so take the David Horowitz tour. He's a warrior, alive and well.

[Update: I have done some checking up on Carroll Quigley and find that he was a member in good standing of the CFR. So, be advised. As an insider he knew and wrote about a great deal of the shenanigans being played out then, as now on a global scale, and he concurred with the elitists vision of a New World Order, but was unhappy with the secrecy with which it was being carried out. He died in 1977.]

From NameBase NewsLine, No. 15,
October-December 1996

In following the money, I came upon this article entitled, Philanthropists at War by Daniel Brandt. It is a short, concise story of the connection of "old money" to our educational institutions. The name, CIA comes up fairly frequently, as does the CFR and many others tied to government. Here's a sample paragraph:

The interlock problem is conspicuous for another reason, one which has never been addressed by Congress. It seems that certain huge Yankee foundations, namely Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie, have been conscious instruments of covert U.S. foreign policy, with directors and officers who can only be described as agents of U.S. intelligence. According to Quigley, the roots for this can be traced to the establishment of an American branch of the British Royal Institute in 1921, which itself had grown out of the Rhodes Trust. The American branch, called the Council on Foreign Relations, was a largely a front for J. P. Morgan and Company.[10]

note* the interlock problem referred to is where the CFR, the various foundations, and the government all hold hands, and walk the line. Go look under that rock.

At the end of the article by Brandt, I noticed a sidebar entitled, "Clinton's CIA Connection".
First paragraph:

"An awareness of obscure connections can go some distance toward making our history comprehensible. Almost all accounts of recent U.S. social and cultural history have been written by micro scholars on someone's payroll, rather than by macro historians who accept that many facts are hidden. The 1960s still mean something to those of us who contributed, but to judge from the popular history of the period, it consisted of little more than lone nuts, hippies, drugs, and rock music. A more specific example of historical cover-up is the major media's willingness to accept the current White House at face value."

Hmm...more rocks to look under. Go check it out.

Take our money, the US dollar, for example. Where does it come from? The Federal Reserve Bank. Who controls the Federal Reserve Bank? Why, the Federal Reserve Bank. Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? What is our government's relationship to the Federal Reserve Bank? And so on, but that's for another time. Or better yet, you go look under that rock, tell us what you find. Or take the Internal Revenue Service. It's built on a lie. There is no law in our Constitution that grants Congress the power to tax individual income. Yet most Americans think there is a law authorizing the IRS to collect taxes.

Ok, I am not a trained economist. Many years ago, I had a couple of courses on Paul Samuelson's view of economics in college (early 60's). I studied for a couple of years at the School of Economic Science (London), taking night courses in NYC, where they had a branch known as the Practical Philosophy Foundation. The economics courses there were roughly equivalent to what the Henry George School was teaching at the time: tax the margin and the whole business goes a-kilter. But that still doesn't address the question - who makes our money, and on what is the foundation built? I believe it is key to 99% of the problems we are facing today.

Probably the greatest course I ever took was a logic course under Professor Sidney Hook at New York University (1961). He taught me to apply the rules of logic when reading a newspaper. What a gift that was! What I am now is an amateur sleuth who doesn't like what is happening in the world. So I go, ant-like, out into the world armed with inadequate tools, but there you are. A most useful book on English grammar, The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, now in its 4th Ed. My copy was published in 1979, 3rd ed. I have read, and re-read it a couple of times. Great book if you want to learn to write more effectively.

The real question is: How do we stop the freight train?

Update ** Who Owns The Federal Reserve Bank?

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson

The word, Federal, is to throw everybody off. The only connection of the FRB to the US government is one of complicity. Full stop. It is a private bank, owned by very old, very wealthy families. There is an unbroken linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

The seminal players are:

The Rothschild Family - London (Bank of England)
The Rothschild Family - Berlin
The Lazard Brothers - Paris Israel Seiff - Italy
Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany
The Warburgs - Amsterdam
The Warburgs - Hamburg
Lehman Brothers - New York
Goldman & Sachs - New York
The Rockefeller Family - New York
The George Baker Family - New York
J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp

They seem to be the ones at the top, and also some of the key players in the CFR. Be forewarned: enter this labyrinth at your own risk. Better take Ariadne's thread...

"The very rich are different from you and me." - F Scott Fitzgerald.