Friday, January 25, 2013

The Appointments to the NLRB are Not the Only Unconstitutional Issues in D.C.




An Appeals Court found that last years appointments made by President Obama to the NLRB during a time when the Senate was not technically in recess was unconstitutional. The fight now heads to the Supreme Court where they will decide what the Constitution means by "recess" and could have lasting effects on what power the President has or does not have when filling an appointment when the Senate is not in session.

To bring those of you up to speed who have no idea what is going on, the President, last year, decided he would appoint three individuals to fill the vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board. These vacancies were filled not when the Senate was in recess for a holiday, but when they were technically IN session, coming back every third day to bring the Senate to order and then close out for the day, coming back three days later. This is something the Senate has done in the past to make sure that a President cannot appoint his choices for a certain agency while the Senate is out on a holiday. The President, however, did not see the sessions as real sessions and appointed the three members to the NLRB anyway!

Obviously this was an abuse of power on the President's fault, but I doubt he really cares all that much about that. I find it hard to believe the Supreme Court would overrule the decision by the D.C. appeals court in this case, but I suppose we never know until they hand down their decision. But if you think this is the only unconstitutional talk in Washington these days, you were wrong! There is so much more that is not being talked on your favorite news network that the people in this nation have no idea what is going on.

Take the testimony of one Hillary Clinton, outgoing Secretary of State. She went up this week to testify on the happenings during the Benghazi terror attack on 9/11 and gave very little details as to what happened and why it happened. We are only left to speculate why those people were there at that time, why the Ambassador was not pulled out, and why we did not heed the words of those on the ground asking for more protection when there was ample money to be spent on such protection. Sec. Clinton can blame the attack and the deaths on not having enough money, but she says she never even seen the requests for more help so how can she realistically say that MONEY was the issue here? Money had nothing to do with it at all! It was a failure of the highest order and those in the positions of helping those individuals on the ground who were killed did nothing. We still have no idea why they did nothing!

Besides a few questions from a couple Senators and those in the House, Hillary was given the benefit of the doubt and treated very fairly. I am not saying she should have been screamed at for answers, but more questions should have been answered for the American people. Where are the survivors of the attack? We know where one of them are, at Walter Reed according to Clinton, but what about the others? Why have they not been questioned by Congressional leadership into what they saw and what they heard on the ground? Do they know what really happened and are being hidden from telling their story? The Congressional leadership have no idea who these people are, so in theory they could walk out anyone and say they were there just to try and cover their butts more than they already have.

The people deserve answers and those answers will never come as long as the President and others will not be open and honest with the people. There are only two scenarios here that make much sense to me. One is that this was a blown operation by the CIA to kidnap the Ambassador and use him as leverage over the American government via a terror group to force the release of prisoners. While this may be far-fetched to some, the CIA would have ample ability to set something like this up in that area where they work with local terror groups and the Ambassador himself to fake a kidnapping so the President had reason to release certain prisoners that he felt should not be held any longer. I feel this is a long shot, but can never be totally disregarded as long as we do not know the truth.

The more logical explanation is that warnings of terror threats were not taken seriously at the highest levels of government. The President would have most certainly been briefed on what was going on in Libya at some point, so the talk that he knew nothing at all is not sitting well with me and others. On the day of the attack they were caught off guard and decided to get those out who they could get out and the rest of the people had to stay and fend for themselves. This is more logical because sending in American troops to Libya to rescue or even take down a threat may have been seen by other Northern African nations as aggression, even though it would not have been. In the President's eyes, at least in my opinion, this was the only thing that could have been done and trying to make it look like a video caused it would take away any kind of questions as to the ability of terror organizations in the region to gain a foothold in a region we are all told is better off without a dictator. This kind of attack shows that part of the world is not better off, and shows that possibly the action taken in Libya was wrong from the beginning.

No matter why we were lied to, we know we were lied to and the people want the true story! With everything that is going on in this country from Benghazi to Fast and Furious to the President and others wanting to limit our 2nd Amendment rights, there is a lot to keep up with but we need to keep up with it because we all need to know what happened in these cases. We need to understand that there are some things that are not being told to us and other things that are being told that are lies to make us give up more and more of our rights. We need to stay strong and keep asking questions even when the media does not. We need to stand firm and make sure our rights are not violated to make a few people who are afraid of guns happy that they are being taken away for no other reason than fear and power grabs by those who have too much power to begin with. 

No comments:

Post a Comment