If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.
As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.
I only have one thing to say about Mitt Romney’s attempt to position himself for a presidential nomination…
P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C. (on, oh, so many levels).
If this is what Romney thinks will swing support his way, he is so far behind the current patriotic ideological trend that he isn’t even in the same hemisphere with the rest of us, (not that he ever was; being another progressive plant for the globalists).
Are you ready kids? (Whenever I say this to the RedLemur, he knows it’s gonna be bad…)
Barry Soetoro, current resident of the White House, has signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies to review regulations and produce a plan for changes to the current regulations based on the best science available.
Bye-bye Congress.
(All emphasis from this point on is the editor’s and is meant to highlight portions that require reading!!!)
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve regulation and regulatory review, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. General Principles of Regulation. (a) Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science. It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.
(b) This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. As stated in that Executive Order and to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
(c) In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
Sec. 2. Public Participation. (a) Regulations shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation. To that end, regulations shall be based, to the extent feasible and consistent with law, on the open exchange of information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials, experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole.
How did that public participation work out for us on Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and the Net Neutrality?
(b) To promote that open exchange, each agency, consistent with Executive Order 12866 and other applicable legal requirements, shall endeavor to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generally be at least 60 days. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall also provide, for both proposed and final rules, timely online access to the rulemaking docket on regulations.gov, including relevant scientific and technical findings, in an open format that can be easily searched and downloaded. For proposed rules, such access shall include, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, an opportunity for public comment on all pertinent parts of the rulemaking docket, including relevant scientific and technical findings.
(c) Before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to be affected, including those who are likely to benefit from and those who are potentially subject to such rulemaking.
Sec. 3. Integration and Innovation. Some sectors and industries face a significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping. Greater coordination across agencies could reduce these requirements, thus reducing costs and simplifying and harmonizing rules. In developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.
Sec. 4. Flexible Approaches. Where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. These approaches include warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements as well as provision of information to the public in a form that is clear and intelligible.
I wouldn’t have expected anything less from the poseur in the White House who really truly believes he knows better than you or your elected representatives; “identify and consider…freedom of choice for the public.”
Sec. 5. Science. Consistent with the President’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
“Scientific Integrity” (March 9, 2009), and its implementing guidance, each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency’s regulatory actions.
Sec. 6. Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules. (a) To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Such retrospective analyses, including supporting data, should be released online whenever possible.
(b) Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency shall develop and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary plan, consistent with law and its resources and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.
There it is folks; Congress is now irrelevant.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For purposes of this order, “agency” shall have the meaning set forth in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 18, 2011.
UPDATE:
A commentor left a note about finding out who is behind the executive orders. I am reposting an article from November 9th, 2010.
World Net Daily is reporting that a Soros funded group, Institute for Policy Studies believes that ‘Progressives Won!’ and because they only lost three members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, they feel justified in writing as many executive orders as possible and ‘pushing’ Obama to do the right thing and sign them now that the blue-dogs have been eliminated. How’s that for some interesting circular thinking America? You must want progressive mandates because you didn’t vote Nancy and her anti-Constitutional cohorts out. Psychotropic drugs anyone?
Dead weight gone. Good Riddance. The blame for the stalemate to come can now fall squarely where it belongs…on the anti-progressive, anti-democratic, anti-populist Republican members of Congress.
Our work is now finally beginning. The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn’t have it then; We don’t have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team.
Let’s throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus and let’s push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him.
(Editor’s Note: Please remember that progressives like Soros and the groups he funds are only oneagenda at the table. They aren’t the only ones playing the game of ‘Divide, Conquer, and Pillage America’. My money is still on the international central bankers who, in my opinion, are using the left and the far right to do their dirty work.)
NEW YORK – It was progressives who won the mid-term elections, particularly incumbents in a socialist-founded congressional caucus that emerged from last week’s ballots virtually unscathed, boasted an article published by the George Soros-funded Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C.
The article recommends that President Obama govern from executive order to push through a progressive agenda.
“Progressives won in the 2010 mid-term elections,” wrote Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, and director of the Cities for Progress and Cities for Peace projects based at the radical organization.
“The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members,” she wrote, in the piece published on the IPS website.
“By contrast, the conservative Blue Dog Democratic caucus was more than sliced in half from 54 members to only 26. Further, of the 34 conservative Dems who voted against Obama’s Healthcare Reform, a mere 12 won re-election,” she wrote.
Dolan declared that “our work is now finally beginning.”
“The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn’t have it then; We don’t have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team.”
She went on to recommend that progressives “throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and let’s push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him.”
WND reported the Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA.
Has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) was founded in 1963 as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization with seed money (derived from a fortune made in cosmetics sales under the Faberge trade name) from the Samuel Rubin Foundation. Samuel Rubin (1901-1978) was a Russian Bolshevik and the father of Cora Weiss, who headed the Samuel Rubin Foundation from its inception and is currently the principal financier of IPS. Weiss’ husband, Peter, is Chairman of the IPS Board of Trustees. He is also a member of the National Lawyers Guild and the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, both of which were created as Communist Party fronts. The Weisses selected Richard J. Barnet and Marcus Raskin to be the first co-directors of IPS, with the aim of transforming the United States by altering public attitudes, changing laws, and reversing foreign policy through an Academy that reached every nexus of the national nervous system.
World Net Daily is reporting that a Soros funded group, Institute for Policy Studies believes that ‘Progressives Won!’ and because they only lost three members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, they feel justified in writing as many executive orders as possible and ‘pushing’ Obama to do the right thing and sign them now that the blue-dogs have been eliminated. How’s that for some interesting circular thinking America? You must want progressive mandates because you didn’t vote Nancy and her anti-Constitutional cohorts out. Psychotropic drugs anyone?
Dead weight gone. Good Riddance. The blame for the stalemate to come can now fall squarely where it belongs…on the anti-progressive, anti-democratic, anti-populist Republican members of Congress.
Our work is now finally beginning. The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn’t have it then; We don’t have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team.
Let’s throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus and let’s push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him.
(Editor’s Note: Please remember that progressives like Soros and the groups he funds are only oneagenda at the table. They aren’t the only ones playing the game of ‘Divide, Conquer, and Pillage America’. My money is still on the international central bankers who, in my opinion, are using the left and the far right to do their dirty work.)
NEW YORK – It was progressives who won the mid-term elections, particularly incumbents in a socialist-founded congressional caucus that emerged from last week’s ballots virtually unscathed, boasted an article published by the George Soros-funded Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C.
The article recommends that President Obama govern from executive order to push through a progressive agenda.
“Progressives won in the 2010 mid-term elections,” wrote Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, and director of the Cities for Progress and Cities for Peace projects based at the radical organization.
“The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members,” she wrote, in the piece published on the IPS website.
“By contrast, the conservative Blue Dog Democratic caucus was more than sliced in half from 54 members to only 26. Further, of the 34 conservative Dems who voted against Obama’s Healthcare Reform, a mere 12 won re-election,” she wrote.
Dolan declared that “our work is now finally beginning.”
“The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn’t have it then; We don’t have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team.”
She went on to recommend that progressives “throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and let’s push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him.”
WND reported the Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA.
Has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) was founded in 1963 as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization with seed money (derived from a fortune made in cosmetics sales under the Faberge trade name) from the Samuel Rubin Foundation. Samuel Rubin (1901-1978) was a Russian Bolshevik and the father of Cora Weiss, who headed the Samuel Rubin Foundation from its inception and is currently the principal financier of IPS. Weiss’ husband, Peter, is Chairman of the IPS Board of Trustees. He is also a member of the National Lawyers Guild and the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, both of which were created as Communist Party fronts. The Weisses selected Richard J. Barnet and Marcus Raskin to be the first co-directors of IPS, with the aim of transforming the United States by altering public attitudes, changing laws, and reversing foreign policy through an Academy that reached every nexus of the national nervous system.
Glenn starts out with the differences, or lack thereof, of the two parties controlling the District of Criminals. These two parties are just two sides of the progressive coin.
Glenn then covers Rahm Emanuel’s words about pushing Obama’s agenda through using executive orders; story here. A progressive congress has given away it’s power.
He also talks about Mishy pushing the fight against childhood obesity and mentions food deserts and how there probably is legislation that directly relates. Imagine my surprise when I realized he was talking about this bill that I read months ago; H.R. 3100: Food Desert Oasis Act of 2009. This bill was introduced on June 26, 2009 by none other than Bobby Rush of Illinois.
(Refresh for more segments to be added as available.)
Part 2,
Part 3, Obama Dictatorship:
Part 4, ClimateGate (How’s that utopia working out for ya?):
Part 5, Lincoln and Washington’s Birthdays (President’s Day), Lewis Lehrman – Lincoln Historian:
We may actually be getting closer to an impeachable offense since Barack-Baby is getting tired of partisan wrangling and is planning on going off the reservation while using executive orders to make his liberal left, socialist agenda happen. At least he is predictable…
WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.
Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.
What is the point of three branches of government that work as checks and balances if the president can just sign an executive order? I am so tired of this punk a** b*tch telling me how it is going to be in my country.
“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.
Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.
Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.
In an effort to demonstrate forward momentum, the White House is also drawing more attention to the sorts of actions taken regularly by cabinet departments without much fanfare. The White House heavily promoted an export initiative announced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week and nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants announced on Friday by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, and Hilda L. Solis, the labor secretary.
Would those type of operations over the course of the last 60 years explain the mess we find ourselves in now?
White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency.
So what he is really saying is that once the honeymoon (dog and pony show) is over, the president just does whatever he pleases?
“The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”
SINCE WHEN DAN? Sheeple voted for this empty suit because they were tired of Bush’s heavy hand; change which might actually include following the Constitution and the law. I know those concepts are foreign to you, but allow me to lay another on you. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. That is probably the only reason why a certain sector of the population has not stepped in already. That would set one hell of a precedent, wouldn’t it?
When is somebody going to slap some sense into these people and remind them that as much as they may find it distasteful to have the two bodies of Congress make laws, that is whose job it is. Here let me remind you:
The use of executive authority during times of legislative inertia is hardly new; former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush turned to such powers at various moments in their presidencies, and Mr. Emanuel was in the thick of carrying out the strategy during his days as a top official in the Clinton White House.
Yeppers, two progressives setting the trend for a freakin’ dictator.
But Mr. Obama has to be careful how he proceeds because he has been critical of both Mr. Clinton’s penchant for expending presidential capital on small-bore initiatives, like school uniforms, and Mr. Bush’s expansive assertions of executive authority, like the secret program of wiretapping without warrants.
See above comment.
Already, Mr. Obama has had to reconcile his campaign-trail criticism of Mr. Bush for excessive use of so-called signing statements to bypass parts of legislation with his own use of such tactics. After a bipartisan furor in Congress last year, Mr. Obama stopped issuing such signing statements, but aides said last month that he still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch.
A president ignoring sections of bills? Just don’t sign the damn thing! SEND IT BACK if you don’t like it. Do you have the American peoples’ back or not? Don’t answer that, we already know…
Go over and read the rest if you can stand it. As for Obama’s current maneuvering to push his anti-American agenda, no shock or awe there. I know the left is loving their dictator-wanna-be now because he might actually push some progressive crap through. The only thing that I am actually surprised about is that he kept up the charade for over a year before he decided to go sideways on the country.
************ I just found this video. Hold onto you hats:
WHEREAS, the duly-elected President of these United States, Barack Obama, a Democrat, has determined that,
a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically; and,
b) he chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline, and having duly decided that,
c) one more meaningless advisory body probably couldn’t hurt anything, and might actually look good, and,
WHEREAS, the first anniversary approacheth of said Democrat taking the oath of office two times just to be safe, this 44th president having been duly stung by growing whispers that he’s paying way too much attention to the usual Democratic domestic spending programs in general and….
…expanding healthcare specifically at an enormous cost to be finally paid by someone else years down the road, possibly to the detriment of time and money invested in national security affairs in general and connecting terrorism plot intelligence dots specifically in the present,
THEREFORE, be it known that said president, under the authority granted to him by a pretty sizable majority of American voters in November 2008, and in the midterm election year interests of appearing to do something, anything, about national defense beyond admitting to unacceptable “screw-ups” by others over not dot-connecting, has this previous day ordered the creation of a new, really important Council of Governors.
Said swell body shall consist of ten (10) governors, half from said president’s esteemed Democratic Party, and half from the other crowd still trying to get its political act together 14 months after crashing in electoral flames piloted by, well, a pilot and a pitbull wearing lipstick;
These governors, surely to include those of both the male and female persuasion from representative regions of these United States and having both light and dark skins as determined by the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, hereby referred to herein as Harry Reid of Nevada, shall meet now and then and talk at great length with federal designees with uselessly long job titles to discuss the National Guard and other topics involving the homeland, the results of which may or may not ever seep up to the big guy who no longer needs to wear a suit coat in the Oval Office.
None of this Executive Order shall be deemed to matter whatsoever beyond the PR associated with its perfunctory issuance on the 11th day of January in the year of our you-know-who-but-we-can’t-say-or-the-ACLU-will-sue 2010, the 356th day of said president’s reign and the 234th year, give or take, of this Nation’s independence.
The actual text of the order:
January 11, 2010 Executive Order
Establishment of the Council of Governors
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council). The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive Director to coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support, assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may be necessary for the performance of the Council’s functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose, scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate, among members.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term “State” has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and (b) the term “Governor” has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or (2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
/s/ BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 11, 2010 ###
So the question continues to be; “Do You Trust Barack Obama?”
