One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do
anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of
staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have
got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can
do on our own.” 

For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.

Click here to read more from the New York Times. 

Op/Ed:  Hilary Rosen created a firestorm by her recent comment about Ann Romney never having “worked.”   While Rosen has been criticized by many on both sides of the political agenda for this remark, one positive result is the conversation (again!) around the issue of women and work.  Is it possible that this will once and for all quiet the furor regarding the “choices” families make surrounding what should be called “work” of the most important domain, mothering?  Not likely, for political reasons as much as personal and family reasons.  

Ann Romney has definitely “worked,” regardless of the fact that her “work” has been mothering.  Although society does not put a required economic salary on such work, families who value their children (and all don’t, by the way) do not question the value of such work, even the economic value.  The recent price tag for the economic value of full time mothering is over $100,000 per year per child.  

While it seems that Ann Romney chose to make her work mothering instead of working outside of the family for pay, as a rich woman, it was a choice that was easy for her to make economically.  This does not mean that it was an easy choice for Ann Romney in other ways; we are not privy to Ann Romney’s motivations, or to her desires.  As a woman of privilege, we may choose to assume that (of course!) a woman of Ann Romney’s financial means would choose to stay at home and care for her children instead of working for pay outside of the home.  Is it possible, however, that given different circumstances, including if it were more socially acceptable for a woman of such affluence  to choose paid work over family work, that Ann Romney would have chosen paid work?  Possibly, but not necessarily.  At the extremes of the economic scale, our “choices” are often made for us, or at least we “buy into” a certain lifestyle, and with such, come certain expectations.

There is also the issue of religion. I think it is safe to assume that Ann Romney as a Mormon may have felt added pressure to maintain a traditional family structure, the best example of which is the man making the money to buy the bacon and the woman frying it up in the pan and caring full time for the children who eat it.

Women of less affluence do not usually have the same opportunities, and thus do not assume they can make the same choices.  If one is poor, and certainly if one is poor and uneducated, the “choice” to care for children full time (and yes, sometimes, or even often, these families are subsiding on government programs) is made for them.  Poor and /or poor and uneducated women can’t make enough money to pay for child care.  And women who are single parents or the financial head of household for other reasons obviously need to receive pay for their work, regardless of whether they would make the same choice if their circumstances were different.  

But what about middle class women and their choices?  Certainly when a family has two incomes, it is easier to afford a certain lifestyle.   But this “choice” to work for pay is different than the choice to work to feed, clothe and house one’s family.  While many argue that they “need” the money and that is why both partners in the family work for pay, when we dig deeper, we should admit that there are other motivations at work here.  These other motivations include; using one’s education for economic gain; personal validation; self actualization, and financial security concerns.  The last motivation listed, financial security concerns, is a realistic one, especially in families who aren’t rich.  One just needs to consider the divorce statistics and the ensuing financial plight of women who are divorced to understand the issue of financial security.  Then there is the recent and assumed to be long term unhealthy economy, the loss of jobs and the general instability in the world which further complicates the issue of the “choice” to work for pay or to work full time caring for one’s children.

Many choices we make seem simple on the surface, and some are, but not the choices we make regarding our families, or our lives in general; those are often complex.  The economic value of mothering is an example of choice that deserves much more conversation and analysis than the surface analysis given at times of political divide.

The “choice”  regarding “work” may be at least as important as the other “choice” subject, the one that gets much more attention during political campaigns.  And, these two “choices” are connected on some level, regardless of one’s political persuasion.
 

About the author: Patti Fralix inspires positive change in work, life and family through speaking, consulting and coaching.  She is the author of the book “How to Thrive in Spite of Mess, Stress and Less.”  She can be reached at www.fralixgroup.com.

Op/Ed:  Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC’S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")
 
This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.
 
We don’t know the facts yet, but let’s assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.
 
Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country’s history.
 
Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.
 
(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU’er, but every ACLU’er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)
 
In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks — even freemen — could not own guns.
 
Chief Justice Roger Taney’s infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: "[I]t would give them the full liberty," he said, "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.
 
Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted "Black Codes," denying black Americans the rights of citizenship — such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms — while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.
 
For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.
 
The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 — passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant — made it a federal felony to "deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress’ authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.
 
Read more at www.AnnCoulter.com by clicking here.

About:

Ann Coulter is the author of seven New York Times bestsellers —Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America (January 2009);If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (October, 2007); Godless: The Church of Liberalism (June 2006); How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004); Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate.

She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Hannity, The O’Reilly Factor, The Glen Beck Show, HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper’s Bazaar, and Elle magazine. She was the April 25, 2005 cover story of Time magazine.

In 2001, Coulter was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner. 

Updated Analysis:  As national media roll in to superficially cover the shooting spree that turned the nation’s Good Friday to grief; what does the apparently revenge-based horrors reflect of our people?  Not what National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast today.

Oklahoma, as one of the last states to join the Union, was expected to be a “Black and Indian” state.  Many black towns were established and some remain statewide as well as Black Ranchers and Cowboys active in significant numbers. 

In Tulsa, our "Black Wall Street" was the one place in America where Black Millionaires were not uncommon as many received land in equal portion with tribal members when freed from slavery.  Many then prospered in oil exploration, local commerce and industry.

The Race War of 1921 began as a result of the afternoon daily newspaper headline, “Black man assaults white woman” which escalated existing racial tensions.  (Media sensationalism was not invented by Al Gore.)  A black man grabbed at, but did not take a white elevator operator’s purse.  He was arrested.  Racialist whites reading the headline decided they would lynch the perpetrator and Racialist blacks, many with experience from World War I, gathered to defend the man.  Caught in the middle, law enforcement held him in custody against both groups.  

When two groups go home to get guns and return with intent to kill each other: It is war.  There was little looting beyond theft of weapons to continue the conflict in running gun battles.  Many whites sheltered black friends and employees.  Many blacks  counseled peace.  Thirty plus blocks including Black Wall Street became a smoldering mass of charcoal as the city burned and the death toll mounted.  Today the area has been rebuilt with a memorial to the historic horror.

National media can find race baiters and haters in Tulsa, but NEVER since 1921 in significant numbers.  There have always been and will always be haters in every community worldwide.  But in Tulsa, the horror was clear.  Tears of family members on both sides burned into memory what must not be allowed to happen again.  In many ways from those days forward, Tulsa has been a Liberal city as white guilt still drives some decisions. 

Tulsa is the Cosmopolitan Capital of Indian Country with three nation’s historical territory within the city limits and a percentage of Native American residents second only to Los Angeles.  When visitors ask, “Where are all the Indians” natives chuckle because the races have mixed here for so long people often don’t know unless we tell.

Tulsa is also an active, strong and growing faith-based community fundamentally committed to local and worldwide charity.

In particular with aviation and natural resource production; Tulsans travel worldwide to teach, power the industrial revolution, and contribute significant creative talent nationally from Wall Street, to Nashville, to Hollywood.  Oral Roberts University, Spartan School of Aviation, and Tulsa University students have made a significant difference worldwide.

As the Vietnam War ended, tens of thousands of refugees were welcomed in nearby Arkansas and many settled permanently in Tulsa.  There are strong Chinese and Korean communities in Tulsa with businesses and churches organized to meet those individual needs.  The Hispanic community is growing here and increasingly reflected in elected representation.  

All faiths can be found in Tulsa and there are Mosques, a Muslim elementary school and a Islamic Student Union.  People of no faith are also present in significant number in Tulsa.

As Christians celebrated Good Friday in Tulsa services, the rage against God’s word of love and offer of salvation that resulted in the crucifixion over 2000 years ago was present within Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 33, as they began to kill their neighbors.  As with the accusers of Jesus, there was no love in the hearts of England and Watts that day.  There was personal rage, revenge, hopelessness and stupidity.

The Nation magazine in attacking former-Representative Steve Largent years ago did a story entitled “Tulsa Shame” while examining the 1921 conflict.  Funny thing, while The Nation damned Conservative Republicans in that story, there were no elected Republicans in Oklahoma in 1921.  Oklahoma became a Republican dominated state after 100 years of examples of Democrat corruption and national party policies that disenfranchise patriotic Liberty loving Oklahoma Democrats.

Today NPR is politicizing the Tulsa shootings by England and Watts while branding the entire state as racists.  Click here to read more of the interview of local historian Scott Ellsworth on Breitbart.com.

From 1921, Ellsworth makes the jump to today’s “conservative” political leanings.  What a humiliation Ellsworth must be to those who impartially study Oklahoma history.

Let’s keep politics and sensationalism out of it.

A careful look at Tulsa both past and present could teach much more.

Op/Ed:  The solar company Solyndra was supposed to be the poster child of President Obama’s energy plan.

He visited their headquarters, mentioned them in the State of the Union, and gave them a $535 million federal loan – despite red flags being raised over their financial instability. And then they went bankrupt.

Although Solyndra is the highest profile example of President Obama throwing taxpayer dollars at failing energy companies, sadly, it’s not the only one. The latest example is a company called Solar Trust of America, which filed for bankruptcy this week.

After the Solyndra debacle, one would think the Obama administration would stop trying to pick winners and losers with taxpayer money. But just like Solyndra, Solar Trust was set to receive a federal loan guarantee to the tune of $2.1 billion.

As President Obama props up money-losing energy companies like Solyndra and Solar Trust, he continues to ignore common sense steps he could take today to lower the price of gasoline.

With the stroke of his pen, President Obama could today begin the process of bringing online 2.4 million new barrels of oil per day simply by authorizing the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, re-opening the Gulf of Mexico, and permitting exploration and production in the Chukchi Sea and National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska.

These three steps are a key part of my $2.50 gasoline plan that would lead to American energy independence and ensure that no president would ever again bow to a Saudi King.

To read more from Newt Gingrich and follow his campaign for President, click here.