Meanwhile, just down the road...

From KWHI: 

The Austin County Sheriff’s office will soon be equipped with some heavy vehicles. 

Austin County Judge Carolyn Bilski says some Mine Resistant Ambush Protection or MRAPs, that were manufactured at the BAE facility in Sealy are being given to the sheriff’s office. 

Judge Bilski says these vehicles will not be used for regular patrolling duties but there are many situations in which they can be used.  She recalls floods and other dangers of past years.

Wow. Things must be really, really bad in rural Austin County.

I still stand by my stance last month that local law enforcement agencies don't need military vehicles and equipment.

Incidentally, on my travels today, I passed by one of these vehicles sitting outside the sheriff's office in the tiny town of Meridian, Texas (population 1,493).

Opening the Door in the Name of Saving Money

Yesterday I attended my very first Washington County Commissioner’s Court meeting. It’s something that I’ve been wanting to do for a very long time, but I work and am not usually available at the hours when they are held.  Yesterday, however, I made an exception because I was drawn to the meeting by a single item that was up for discussion – item 6: “Discuss and act upon granting the Washington County Sheriff’s office authorization to participate in the Texas 1033 Surplus Property Program and granting the County Judge authorization to sign necessary documents.”

The program is one that is authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – you know, the thing that Forbes Magazine called “the greatest threat to civil liberties that Americans face” – to allow local and state law enforcement agencies and municipalities to purchase surplus and used military property and hardware, including (as listed by the Texas 1033 website) weapons, aircraft and armored response vehicles.

I listened as Sheriff Hanak explained that the program had “been around 25 or 30 years” and that the items that might be considered were rifles and pistols and office equipment, such as desks and chairs. He said that none of these items would be new and that there was a risk that “the maintenance would eat us up” if the item was in rough shape and so that they would have to be very careful.

Sheriff Otto Hanak then spoke about the availability under the program of vehicles such as Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers. But he admitted that they don’t have any plans to buy items such as that, partly due to the cost of maintenance on items such as tires. But I gathered from his tone that if the money were there…

Then there was a very brief discussion and the motion carried unanimously.

There was no opportunity for comments from the public. I didn’t honestly expect there to be because I learned a long time ago that although a meeting might be “open to the public,” there is rarely opportunity given for unscheduled public comments.

I’m disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion and questions on the part of the Commissioner’s Court. The issue sailed through relatively unchecked. There was even uncertainty as to whether the authorization would allow the sheriff’s office to make future purchases or whether those would have to be approved by the court, and I don’t recall a definitive answer being given. And by contrast, the court seemed much more concerned about discussion of a complaint procedure regarding a sewer line. It seems as though the issue had already been decided prior to the meeting and that this was just a formality.

But the cause for my concern is this: I see on the news with increasing regularity that some local law enforcement agency somewhere – often a sheriff’s department – has acquired a piece of heavy military equipment such as an armored personnel carrier. I see police officers increasingly clad in tactical armor that was once commonplace only on a battlefield. It’s quite alarming enough in high crime urban areas such as Chicago or Detroit, but the thought of such a thing in Washington County, Texas seems appalling.

I just don’t think it’s the kind of message that Washington County wants to send, either to people visiting our community or to its residents. It’s just not who we are. We’re a rural county that thrives on our wholesome image – on Blue Bell and bluebonnets and rolling hills and historical landmarks. Do we really want people to infer from this that there’s a rampant crime problem that would necessitate military hardware? Is it really that dangerous to be in Washington County? If so, why would anyone want to come here?

I also have a problem with the overly-vague nature of the sheriff’s request. There were a lot of possible items thrown around in the meeting that could be purchased, ranging from the MRAP to desk chairs. That’s quite a disparity! And yet it was said that the authorization needed to be given to participate in the Texas 1033 program so that the sheriff’s department could find out what kind of equipment could be acquired (I say “acquired” because there was also some question as to whether these items would be purchased at a discount or whether they would be free. Both terms were used in the meeting.) That justification reminds me a little too much of Nancy Pelosi saying that we had to pass the Affordable Care Act so that we would all find out what’s in it. I refuse to believe that the items available to the sheriff’s department would be hidden from view until after joining the program.

There’s also this: why now? Sheriff Hanak himself said that the Texas 1033 program (or a predecessor program) had been around 25 or 30 years. So why the sudden push to join it? Why not ten or twenty years ago? What’s so important now? What are we preparing for? Or are the government office chairs and desk just so delicious and irresistible that we simply can’t hold out anymore? Is our sheriff department’s budget so strapped that office items can’t be purchased, even at a discount, from an office supply vendor? Should we be taking up a collection? Are we in danger???

As increasing police militarization and government overreach and overspending (on a national and state level, anyway) are an increasing concern, is now the proper time to be making this move? We, as citizens, are forced to wrestle increasingly with distrust of our government entities. Everything form the NSA spying on everyone (and then lying about it) to the erosion of our rights through “free speech zones,” imminent domain property seizures, random highway checkpoints, firearm confiscation, the forcing of compact fluorescent light bulb use and even over-zealous homeowners associations have eroded our confidence in even the most local governmental entities. And that’s sad.

I’m quite sure that Sheriff Hanak and the Commissioner’s Court are honorable people and that they don’t have any intent on causing mistrust in local government or law enforcement. But that said, it is very important that we guard against opening ANY door, no matter how slightly, for government abuse or overreach. And I believe that approving the participation in this program does just that. It offers military tools to local law enforcement, and call me naïve, but I believe that the function of local law enforcement is to protect its citizens from crime and to enforce local laws. I don’t believe that it should function as a paramilitary organization that further turns our country into a police state. The local police are not at war. And what happens when we have a new sheriff someday?  What happens if that person doesn’t have the apparent self-control of Sheriff Hanak?

It’s important to remember that we’re talking about a county sheriff’s office, not the National Guard here. If it’s drugs we’re worried about, there’s a federal agency for that: the DEA. If it’s guns we’re worried about, there’s a federal agency for that, too: the ATF. And if it’s terrorism we’re worried about, there are federal agencies to handle that, as well.  If there were riots in the streets, well that’s where the National Guard comes in.

I’m not anti-police – far from it, in fact.  I know several police officers and deputies and they’re all great people. My objections are not personal – they’re purely philosophical. It’s just that I’m aware that police are just people, too, and governments are made up of just people. And I know that it’s human nature when one has a tool or a toy to want to find a use for it. It’s not the tool that misuses authority. It’s people – even the most well-meaning or otherwise honorable people just doing their jobs. The officers who confiscated guns in New Orleans after Katrina were people, just doing their job and following orders. Cops who break down doors to the wrong house or use excessive force are just people doing their job and following orders. Bureaucrats that close National Parks and open-air memorials are just doing their jobs, following orders. Agents who spy on Americans on American soil without warrants are just people, following orders.

“You’re paranoid. That won’t ever happen here!”  I can hear it now. But who would’ve believed a few short years ago that the sheriff’s department in Montgomery County, not too far from here, would have its own drones?  Who would’ve believed that the federal government would record every single one of our phone conversations and track all of our internet traffic without a warrant? Who would’ve believed that despite protection specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution that people would try to disarm Americans? It CAN happen here, and it always happens incrementally and usually in the name of security. Here, though, we’re opening the door in the name of the potential of saving a few dollars.

Finally, it’s also important to realize that this isn’t a conservative or liberal issue. Do a quick web search for “police militarization” and you’ll find articles expressing concern from the entire political spectrum, from the Huffington Post to the ACLU to the Washington Post to the Cato Institute. A whole lot of people are concerned about this issue.

So there it is: the argument by the nutjob who thinks that the sheriff buying some used office chairs could lead to a police state. Who knows – maybe this really is all just about office equipment. Maybe the questions I raised are just me being a little too sensitive to the news of the world. But can we really ignore the possibility that this decision has opened the door, even ever so slightly, to police militarization in our community? And at the very least, can we all agree that without vigilance that it might be possible someday, and that that would be bad for everyone? I’d like to think that our local government officials would be willing to take the time to deliberate such ramifications.

Losing Hope

This video shows police trying to rip a flag out of the hands of a protestor in D.C.

It's stuff like this that is making me lose hope that if the order ever came for the police and military to turn on the citizenry that it wouldn't be carried out.

Welcome to Mother Russia

I was incensed by this. I could feel my blood pressure rise as I watched what happened to this man at a school board meeting in Maryland.

What has happened to our country?

That Didn't Take Long

From the Washington Times:

Just hours after the deadly shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, gun control advocates tried to reignite the national debate over gun laws that had only just subsided. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and a longtime gun control advocate, denounced “the litany of massacres” over the past few years and asked rhetorically, “When will enough be enough?”

Wait.. wasn't the NSA spying on us all supposed to stop things like this?

The Most Transparent White House in History

From the Washington Examiner:

President Obama and his successors in the Oval Office are not obligated to make public the names of individuals visiting the White House, according to a decision of the federal Circuit Court for the District of Columbia made public Friday. 

The case was brought by Judicial Watch, the government watchdog nonprofit that has been fighting a long legal battle seeking to force release of the White House visitor logs as public records under theFreedom of Information Act. 

But in a decision that is drawing intense criticism from across the ideological spectrum, the circuit court said the president has a "constitutional perogative" not to tell the American people who he or his staff meets with in the White House.

So much for it being the People's House, especially since Obama's "sequester" has closed the White House to the public.

Obama Goes After Guns Again

From the AP:

Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Would not, could not... big difference there. 

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of a cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

In the words of President Obama - "we won. Move on." But no. Here we go again. But thins while the nation is waiting to see of President Obama is going to decide to strike Syria. Shouldn't he be doing that, instead? I get the feeling he's been waiting months for this moment - a moment when everyone's attention was turned elsewhere. Laying in wait... like a snake.

And what kind of weapons were used to kill the people at Newtown? Handguns - not "assault rifles. There was a rifle found in the trunk of the shooter's car - in the parking lot. But it wasn't used in the shooting. Here we go again with the "assault rifle" nonsense. "Assault rifles" are responsible for only two percent of gun crimes.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

That's rich. The administration that brought us Fast and Furious is worried about weapons that we sent to other countries ending up on American streets.

And hold on just a minute - why would "surplus" arms be sold (or donated) to other countries and then bought back from them by the military? Wouldn't that mean that they weren't surplus, after all? Sounds a bit like the way money laundering works to me.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Wouldn't this require some sort of a database of people within the organization (potentially hundreds of thousands of people, depending on the size of the corporation)? And then wouldn't that database then have a record of the guns owned by those within the corporation? This sounds like a sneaky first step to gun registry to me.

Although Obama and Biden have said the fight is not over, there is scant evidence that there is more support for gun control legislation than there was in April, when efforts died in the Senate amid staunch opposition from the National Rifle Association and most Republican senators.

And the overwhelming majority of American people. And the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Let's not forget about those very important things that are against gun control.

"Sooner or later, we are going to get this right," Obama said that day in the White House Rose Garden, with the families of Newtown victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — herself a victim of a gunman — at his side. "The memories of these children demand it, and so do the American people," the president said at the time.

Let's breathe for a moment and also remember that Representative Giffords was shot with a handgun - not a rifle. And the gun used wasn't surplus or reimported into the United States. It was purchased legally.

These days, Obama mentions gun control with far less regularity than when it appeared the Senate was poised to take action, although Obama did meet Tuesday with 18 city mayors to discuss ways to contain youth violence. And with immigration and pressing fiscal issues dominating Congress' agenda, the prospects for reviving gun legislation appear negligible.

I wonder if Rahm Emanual, the mayor of Chicago, was among those whom the president met with. You know - the gun control Mecca where gun crime and homicides are out of control.

School "Security" Gone Too Far... Again

From CBSDFW:

For some it’s the end of a tradition that has taken place for generations. Security enhancements at many North Texas schools this year may keep parents at the curb. 

All of the extra security is in response to what happened nearly nine months ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It was December of last year when a gunman opened fire at the school, killing 20 students and six adults. 

But there’s a new rule waiting for parents like Tamara Moore and Angela Shamblin.  It deals with access to their youngsters and both mothers have a certain view about the rule. 

“I really want to take my son to class. Since it’s his first time in school,” Moore said protectively. “They may have security, but I want to know where my kid is going at all times.” 

Shamblin had a different viewpoint as she dropped off her little one. “As long as I can see him walk in that building, that will be fine. Because once he’s in that building they’ll take care of him.”

That's right - they'll take care of him.  They'll lead him to class and he'll be perfectly safe there in the hall and in the classroom with no parents around that might cause harm.

Nevermind that it wasn't a parent that shot up the school at Sandy Hook.

Nevermind that the gunman killed teachers and students that were already in their classrooms.

Nevermind that at Sandy Hook they already had a video security system and locking doors that the gunman managed to get through or around... somehow.

Once again, this is solving a "problem" with a solution that doesn't even fit the issue at hand. How does  prohibiting parents from walking kids to class eliminate the threat that happened in Sandy Hook? If some parent had snapped after taking little Timmy to class, I could understand, maybe. But that's not even remotely what happened.

"Well, it takes additional people out of the school who might wish to do harm. That way there are only those in the school who are supposed to be there," you might say.  That makes no sense at all.

What they're doing is taking other adults, other parents - people who have a vested interest in there being a safe environment at their child's school - out of the hallways. Those parents are a deterrent. Gunmen are cowards. Every time they are met with resistance, they fold or kill themselves. Every time. Those additional parents in the hallways walking their kids to class are almost insurance that some sicko isn't going to come into a school and start shooting.

What we need is a security officer in the school. An armed, trained security officer. We don't need to b further elevating the government (the school district and the school is still the government) as the protector of our children by further stripping rights from parents.

This is the school looking at parents as potential victims should a gunman invade the school. I saw that's the wrong way to look at the world. That's the doom and gloom way. That's the pessimistic way. People are not sheep, especially when their children are concerned. If I were walking my son or daughter to class and someone came in shooting, you can bet your life that I would do everything I could to stop that gunman. I bet almost any parent would.

They're relying on teachers and administrators to keep the halls safe. Ask yourself this - in the event of a gunman, what is a teacher going to be most concerned with (and let's use Sandy Hook as an example)? They'll be concerned with getting their class and any other kids to safety. That's engrained in them. But while they're doing that, who's trying to stop the gunman?

No one is.

Just as in Sandy Hook, a gunman is probably going to take out the front office staff first. They're the most likely to call the police. Most classrooms don't have phones with an outside line. So that means that teachers and kids are helpless targets for a gunman who has freedom to roam a school. And hopefully someone survived to call the police. It'll take them a few minutes to get there. Meanwhile, it's a target shoot for the gunman.

No - I'd rather go down like the passengers on United flight 93 on September 11 - by taking my life into my own hands and actively trying to stop whomever is trying to kill me and others. Especially if those others are my kids.

I have more to say, but I won't. You get the idea.

Don't be sheeple. Oppose any government entity that strips your rights in the name of "security," even if it's the local school board or the principal at your kids' school.

The 1st Amendment Don't Live in Missouri

Outrageous.

Occupy thugs foul things up for weeks in cities across the nation and nothing happens. But two guys try to protest on an overpass in Missouri and it's the freaking end of the world.

What have we come to?

No, Mr. Culberson, We Want ALL of the Spying to Stop

From The Blaze:

While the most talked-about news out of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday was the defeat of the so-called Amash amendment that would have defunded the NSA’s massive data collection program, another amendment related to NSA spying was quietly passed overwhelmingly by lawmakers.

The amendment that passed is reportedly intended to “ensure none of the funds may be used by the NSA to target a U.S. person or acquire and store the content of a U.S. person’s communications, including phone calls and e-mails.” 

Culberson told TheBlaze in a phone interview why he supported the Pompeo amendment over the more sweeping amendment authored by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.).
He argued the amendment properly requires that no funds can be used by the NSA to collect or store the content of American citizens’ communications data. This includes phone calls and emails. The amendment; however, does not seem to restrict the NSA’s ability to continue collecting and storing massive amounts metadata. 

The Amash amendment would have prevented the NSA from using any funds to collect any data on persons that are not under investigation.

Then, this:

The Pompeo amendment may not fully address privacy advocates’ concerns about NSA spying, but those like Culberson feel it’s a step in the right direction.

Damn it, man.  I don't want a step in the right direction! I want to get to the destination! If you have a roach problem in your house, squashing one of the bugs is a step in the right direction.  But it doesn't solve the problem!

Solve the problem already!!! Quit playing games with our rights, our privacy and our civil liberties!!!!

The Government Wants Your Passwords Now, Too

From CNet:

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed. 

Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.

This, the day after the House (including my own Representative, Michael McCaul) killed an amendment that would defund the NSA's unconstitutional spying programs.

What Orwellian hell has this country become?

This Is Where Erosion of Rights Has Led Us

Yikes.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if, ever given the order to use force against civilians, that the military and the police might just do it. Oathkeepers might not be enough.

The rights afforded to us in the Constitution are not a joke or something that can just be cast aside by any government agency that feels like they have a greater need, such as keeping us all safe.

We must demand that our rights be respected all the time - every time - or we may as not have any rights at all.

The Virtual President on Gay Marriage

Told Ya

I hate to say it, but I called it two years ago. My mistrust in Google was well placed. I just never suspected that there were so many other companies involved in providing data to the government.

Simply put - the government that spies on its own people - people who have not committed or are even suspected of having committed - a crime is unacceptable. That government is not to be trusted in anything.

They're Spying on Us ALL

From the Washington Post:

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post. 

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley. 

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

Wow. And all Nixon did was authorize the break-in of a hotel room.

Ask yourself: "does this sound like a government that is using its power responsibly?"

They Really Are Watching and Listening

From the Guardian:

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largesttelecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. 

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries. 

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. 

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. 

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

Remember, back during the Bush administration when our friends on the left breathlessly accused the president of wanting to wiretap and listen to every call in the United States?  Yeah. Well now something like that is actually happening.

Ask yourself: "does this sound like a government that is using its power responsibly?"

What Fourth Amendment?

The whole"we can collect your DNA any time we want" thing that came out this week has troubled me, but I couldn't really put my finger on why.

This is why.

The Death of the Constitution by Laziness and Local Bureaucrats

From the Seattle Times:

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.” 

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. 

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal. 

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this: 

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.” 

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

Then:

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on. 

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.” 

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

Mistake my arse.  This is exactly what the gun control crowd wants in their deepest, darkest wet dreams  - gun confiscation of scary "assault weapons," then registration and inspections  - first on "assault weapons," then on all other types of firearms.

The only mistake here is that someone actually read the bill before it was made law and saw what was in it. They would have pushed this through easily, riding on the backs of dead children in Connecticut every step of the way.

I don't know which is worse - the fact that we live in a country where our elected representatives feel emboldened to introduce such clearly unconstitutional legislation or that our elected officials often pass such legislation without even reading what's in it. And what's worse - we rareley hold them accountable.

The Supreme Court Just Fixed Everything

So Obamacare is a "tax."

By declaring Obamacare a "tax," the Supreme Court has just also confirmed that he has enacted a hefty new tax directly on the middle class.

This new tax and all this new government power and upheaval of the best medical system in the world just because 7% of the population didn't have health insurance.

Note to Republicans in Congress: this is exactly why it's a really, really bad idea to pass a flawed law in the interest of compromise and let the courts "fix" it later. Yeah, they fixed it real good, didn't they? They fixed us all.  As in- they just neutered our economy and out health care system and our individual rights.

And what really makes me mad is that Elena Kagan shouldn't have even been allowed to rule on the subject because she helped write the law as Solicitor General.

Note to Republicans in the Senate: this is why Supreme Court confirmation hearings matter!  Kagan essentially got a rubber stamp appointment because Republicans didn't have the stomach to fight for a better candidate due to the fact that she was a) Hispanic and b) a woman.

I'm really, really ticked off today.  Can we please have an election, already?

Obama Throws a Tantrum

From the Washington Times:

Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs. 

Mr. Obama said the appointments, which he previewed during a campaign-style speech in Ohio, were necessary because Senate Republicans have blocked him at every turn. But in making the move, he rejected three precedents, including two in which he played a part, that would have blocked the appointments. 

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

That kind of language is dangerous and un-American from the president.  That's the kind of language a dictator of a banana republic uses to impose his will despite what the people and the rest of the government wants.

What makes this even more ludicrous is that Obama's own administration argued against this same thing - twice - as recent as last year.  Talk about hypocrisy.

A sad, sad day for our country.