Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/

Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.
...
"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."

Byrd: Obama in power grab

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

Didn't think I'd ever agree with Byrd. The fact that he resists the executive branch consolidating power, regardless of what party the president is, gives him some credibility, IMO. Now if he will also support limiting the power of the legislative and judicial branches too. ;)

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
...
“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

What do we need jobs for?

But here is what Obama claimed last night:

It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we're spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable. . . .

Of course, last Friday Obama “also defended earmarks as inevitable in such a package.”

Here is a question: If the people really don't care, why did Obama deny them last night?

Can Obama get the census directly overseen by the White House?

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-can-obama-get-census-directly.html

Congress has “directed” in Title 13 that the Census be carried out by the Bureau of the Census “as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce.” 13 U.S.C. 2. The Secretary of Commerce is directed to carry out the duties of this title and while he can delegate “the performance of such functions and duties,” he can only do so to “officers and employees of the Department of Commerce.” 13 U.S.C. 4. So what Obama is doing by having the Census Bureaus report directly to the White House is not authorized by federal law. Also, only “sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau” are allowed to examine individual census reports. This is part of the confidentiality requirements of Section 9 of the law. Depending on what kinds of reports and information would be given to the White House, there could also be a violation of this confidentiality requirement.

What they are proposing to do is illegal.

More Info on 'Stimulus'

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/02/might-this-be-reason-that-obama-is.html

Julio Needs a Better Job

I want to party with this cowboy