A Democratic HQ in Lake County Florida has taken down a flag featuring the face of Barack Obama, after irate veterans literally stormed the front porch of the building demanding its removal.
 
This flag is a disgrace, directly violating the U.S. flag code according to the veterans. When confronted, The Democratic Chair Nancy Hulbert at first threatened to call the police, but finally decided to look up the flag code. At that point she decided to take it down.

“I can’t describe how upset was because you just don’t do that to the American flag,” Don Van Beck, a Korean war veteran, said.

Western Journalism Center has more quotes and the local broadcast story, click here for that posting.

Searching online, Tulsa Today found such a flag for sale listed as"US Obama (face) National Flag" for $24.95 from Ultimate Flags which claims they have recently been threatened.
   
The site has a note posted saying, "We have recently been threatened by people who demand we take this flag down. Some of these people claim to be veterans who fought for our freedom and are offended by it. It is ironic that one freedom they fought for was the freedom of speech and expression. Being an American means you can do and say what you please and that even unpopular expression and speech are protected.

"We’ve never shied away from flags that have controversy connected to them and we’re not going to start now," they continue.

"Therefore in the name of patriotism and to HONOR those who love freedom most (our veterans), we steadfastly refuse to be pressured into dropping this flag from the store. There are a limited number of these flags in stock. If you want, you can buy them up and burn them – or fly them proudly. That is your choice," the sales site adds in conclusion.

Funny how some believe that freedom has no responsibility and that anything goes.  The two are linked by Laws of Nature at least. 

Of course when former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi  was asked where the Constitution gave Congress the authority to take over health care, she didn’t mount a defense; she sneered, "Are you serious?"  Thus, one could suggest it proper to sneer back asking if her sworn oath to defend the Constitution (or anything else she says) is more than flatulence.

Then again, President Obama thinks he can do anything (go to war, bomb countries, avoid Congress, change business law, lie, steal, cheat, etc. all between imperial vacations) and apparently continue that activity until voters stop him. 

Welcome to America 2012.  Is it time to vote yet?  

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today applauded the passage today of the Inhofe-Boxer highway bill.

Titled "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century" (MAP 21) the bill
is expected to create and maintain 45,000 jobs in Oklahoma and
strengthen the state’s
economy.   

“I am pleased today that the Senate has passed an important bipartisan jobs bill that will have far-reaching benefits in Oklahoma and across the nation,” Inhofe said.  “The Inhofe-Boxer highway bill will ensure that we repair our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, maintain and create hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, and get our economy moving again. This bill will support 45,000 jobs in Oklahoma and our state will receive the funding it needs improve our highways and bridges.

“As we worked to get this bill passed, my priority has always been to ensure that we have the most efficient and fiscally sound bill possible.  I’ve been rated the most conservative member in the U.S. Senate by a number of organizations – and it is from this conservative platform I have maintained that there are two areas that the federal government is obligated to fund: defense and infrastructure.  In fact if we hadn’t passed this highway bill today, we would have had to do a highway extension, which would have cost dramatically more.

“Another priority was to make sure that Oklahoma and other states have the flexibility to implement the highway program in a way that is best suited to their needs.  In this bill, states will no longer be required to use the Transportation Enhancement funding for beautification projects such as the construction of bike paths, landscaping, and scenic byways, but can instead spend it on greater needs such as unfunded environmental mandates, including stormwater and wetlands mitigation.    

“I greatly appreciate Oklahoma Transportation Secretary Gary Ridley and all those at the Oklahoma Department of Transportation for their support for passing a bill that is so important for our state.  With the momentum of today’s victory, I look forward to moving this bill to conference so that we can get it to the President’s desk as soon as possible.”

The president is duly and properly warned.  Should offensive military force be used without authorization of an act of Congress, "it is the sense of Congress" that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."

Drew Zahn, a former editor of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders and editor of seven books has the story on World Net Daily.  Click here to read more.

The Congressional Resolution from the government web site "Thomas" may be read by clicking here.

More can be found from Alex Jones at InfoWars.com click here for what Jones calls a media cover-up.

Also from WND, In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that the House Concurrent Resolution 107 was introduced in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”  Click here for that column.

A fundamental principle of our system of government is that the power ultimately rests with the people. Most of the time, “people” refers to the American citizenry as a whole—the voters who speak with their ballots. But when it comes to regulations, it seems the people with the power are members of a much smaller group. They are bureaucrats we will never know, never see, and never be able to vote for or against in any election. So, who really has the reins in that scenario?

The REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny), sponsored by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), is legislation that attempts to hand the reins back to the American people. With more than 200 co-sponsors (including Representatives Sullivan, Boren, Cole, and Lankford from Oklahoma), it has passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Companion legislation in the U.S. Senate has more than 30 co-sponsors (including Senators Inhofe and Coburn).

REINS would require any federal regulation with a cumulative economic impact of $100 million or more to be approved by a vote of both the House and Senate and to obtain the signature of the president.

Congress currently has the power to override proposed regulations, but their override must also be signed by the president, and presidents are unlikely to override their own administrations’ regulations. The current system places the power with the regulatory agencies. REINS would shift the burden to the agencies to prove a regulation’s worth or necessity before it can be enacted.

What would this change mean for Oklahoma’s economy, specifically the energy industry?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a draft report that claims a connection between “fracking” (a drilling method that involves hydraulic fracturing) and contaminated drinking water in Wyoming. The Wall Street Journal points out that the EPA report fails to mention contaminants have been found in those water wells for decades and that the chemicals found are not even used in oil and gas production. In fact, the chemicals found are actually common fire retardants used in plastics and drinking well components.

Hydraulic fracturing is being employed by many of Oklahoma’s energy leaders, and it is increasing productivity, creating jobs, and improving America’s energy security. Yet the EPA seems determined to find a way to regulate the practice heavily, even if it must do so by redefining what constitutes diesel, a chemical sometimes used in the process. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) recently joined with a bipartisan group of legislators to ask the EPA to proceed carefully and openly in an effort to keep the agency from acting without first considering all the repercussions.

Remember that under the current system, agencies like the EPA have the power to pass regulations as they see fit, and Congress can only stop them with a majority vote in both houses and the signature of the president. The drinking water supply must certainly be protected, but we must also avoid unnecessarily shackling our nation’s producers and putting our economy and security at risk.

These are just a few of the examples of the mandates and regulations costing Oklahoma companies millions of dollars each year. The REINS Act would at least allow the people to have a voice in the process.

Opponents of the REINS Act say the measure fails to stimulate the economy and that it does nothing to address low demand facing many of our businesses. This highlights a critically important fact: REINS does not improve demand because it cannot and should not. The free market is what should determine demand. Free enterprise is a nonpartisan, fundamental American principle that ensures freedom and creates competition. The result is that our entrepreneurs and business owners are then free to pursue the best practices. The point of legislation like REINS is to get government out of the way and let the market work the way it is supposed to work.

Opponents also say REINS will seriously hinder the policymaking process, which includes needed safeguards. They say Congress is “seizing” power and disrupting the regulatory process—that our children would no longer be safe from harmful toys, that our air would no longer be breathable, and that it would create unnecessary confusion.

The reality is that Congress is not seizing power but merely exercising power it already has. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress (not some federal agency) the authority to regulate commerce. The founders knew it was important to keep the power in the hands of the people, and this bill represents a move back to their original intent and away from the system favored by the Washington bureaucrats who have been seizing power over the last few decades.

The truth is that necessary regulations would be just as likely to pass under this plan. The only change would be in certain cases where a proposed regulation’s economic impact is high enough (over $100 million), and in those cases an agency would have to get approval from elected officials before they can act. Those elected officials would then have to face the voters on Election Day. Whether those officials approve costly, unnecessary rules that strangle our economy or whether they fail to approve needed oversight that provides for the health and safety of our citizens, the people should have a say in the outcome.

Editor’s Add:  For a humorous look at government regulations, check out Doug Ross’ “A Child’s First Book of Government Regulations” by clicking here. 

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement last week after the Senate rejected the Coburn Amendment #1738 by a vote of 52 to 46.  The Coburn amendment, which needed 60 votes to pass, would have eliminated $10 billion in duplicative and unnecessary spending that has been identified in two reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  Last year, Dr. Coburn offered a similar amendment after GAO released its first report on duplication in March 2011. At that time, the Senate agreed to a similar amendment by a vote of 64 to 36. This year several senators switched their votes and defeated the Coburn amendment.

“[The] vote shows that the problem in Washington is not gridlock or partisanship, but incompetence.  Senators have agreed to borrow and spend far beyond our means yet refuse to eliminate wasteful spending, even when another agency has done the hard work of oversight for them.  This was an easy vote, not a hard vote.  Our reluctance to take easy steps toward savings speaks volumes about why we have a $15 trillion national debt and historic-low approval ratings,” Dr. Coburn said.

The GAO has identified the following areas of duplication, which could produce savings well beyond $100 billion annually.  Findings include:

•  209 Science, Technology, Engineering and Math education programs run by 13 agencies
•  200 overlapping DOJ grants for crime prevention programs
•  160 housing assistance programs run by 20 entities
•  94 initiatives to encourage “green building” in the private sector run by 11 agencies
•  82 teach training programs run by seven agencies
•  56 financial literacy programs run by 20 agencies
•  47 job training programs run by nine agencies
•  14 programs to reduce diesel emissions

Click here for more information on the GAO reports.

Highlights…

“GAO has told Congress what the problems are in two reports outlining hundreds and billions of dollars in duplication. This amendment would allow $10 billion in immediate savings for this year.”

“We have 209 different programs spending $4 billion across 8 different agencies to encourage science, technology, education and mathematics. Can anyone in this body explain why we have this many programs? We have 100 different surface transportation programs. We have 94 separate programs and 16 different agencies to incentivize green energy, not one of which has been tested for effectiveness. We have 82 separate teacher training programs run by seven agencies, not one of which has been tested. Nobody can defend having this many programs because they realize this is the height of stupidity”

“We’re going to ignore the knowledge [GAO has given us] and continue to produce duplicative programs because nobody wants to do the hard work. We have a real problem. We are going to pay for two years worth of highway spending with ten years worth of reductions. This amendment alone will pay for the Highway Bill. Why would we not want to eliminate duplication? Why wouldn’t we want to become efficient and effective in terms of how we spend our children’s money?  

“The easiest way [to start saving] is to consolidate and eliminate duplication. If this amendment does not get 60 votes, what should the American people learn from that? That it’s not about gridlock, it’s not about partisanship it’s about incompetence, and that there a lack of thoughtful consideration for the people who will follow us. Are you here to protect some small program that doesn’t work and wastes your children’s future? If you voted for [this amendment] in April 2011, I would appreciate your vote again. If you didn’t, I would ask, are you here to protect waste? Are you here to perpetuate incompetency? This is an easy amendment to vote for.”