Lawlessness. It’s what’s for re-election.

King Obam

"Sire, the peasants are REVOLTING!" "You said it, they stink!"

We have this principle in our country called the “rule of law.” It means that no matter who you are, the law applies to you. No one can simply set the law aside for personal gain. No one. This is a large reason America has flourished and from its outset was different from its European forbears: contracts are respected and enforced, and there is no nobility, royalty, or special immunities from the law for anyone.

We also have this oath that our President takes which reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Office of the President of the United States is charged with executing the laws of the land, enforcing the laws of the land, quite apart from whether or not he likes the laws of the land. There is some discretion concerning the degree to which some laws will be enforced, and Congress frequently passes vague laws that give the power to write the rules to the executive branch, but the President’s job is to enforce the laws.

President Obama’s set both of those aside yesterday.

Lockheed Martin is one of the largest employers in battleground Virginia. Lockheed Martin relies on a massive Defense budget for its lifeblood. If the Defense budget is slashed significantly Lockheed Martin can predict that its revenue stream will shrink significantly.

Because of the breakdown in budget negotiations between the White House and House Republican leaders earlier this year and last year deep, deep cuts are going to happen to the Defense budget on January 1, 2013.

Lockheed Martin, in compliance with the WARN Act‘s requirement that employers officially notify employees of expected layoffs at least 60 days prior to the layoff date, was set to send out many, many, many layoff notices on November 2, four days before election day.

This, of course, would look terrible for a President running for reelection who desperately needs people to believe that the economy is not, in fact, as bad as it is, and if it is that bad then it’s not his fault. Thousands of people in a crucial swing state—a swing state largely insulated from the larger economic mess in this country because of the massive growth of government and the large Defense budget—suddenly being told, “yes, in fact, the economy *is* that bad, and it just got that bad for you,” just would not do.

So the President of the United States, the chief executive, the one person in charge of enforcing all of the federal laws, allowed his Department of Labor to request that Lockheed Martin and other Defense contractors delay sending out the layoff notices until after November 6, election day. President Obama asked a private company to break the law, and the reason is pure, crass, base reelection politics.

But it doesn’t end there. Lockheed Martin will face penalties for complying with this request. No matter: the administration has assured Lockheed Martin that the penalties will be paid for by the government. So not only are they going to break the law at the request of the White House, but the White House has assured them that taxpayer dollars will be used to pay any fines and penalties. That’s a bribe, with your and my money, to assist Obama’s reelection.

But wait, as they say, there’s more! Barack Obama was an ardent champion of the WARN Act as recently as his first election campaign, and even tried to extend the warning period to 90 days!

“For too long, employers have failed to notify workers that they’re about to lose their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings even though notice is required by the WARN Act,” then-Sen. Obama said in a July 17, 2007 press release. “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.”

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama also railed against loopholes that allowed employers to avoid complying with the law — which is basically what his DOL seems to be advising now.

“Now, I believe we must act at the federal level to close the loophole that allows employers to disregard the WARN Act without penalty,” he said in statement to the Toledo Blade.

As senator, Obama even cosponsored the 2007 FOREWARN Act, which would have extended the minimum notice to 90 days and increased both the penalties for violating the law and the government’s ability to enforce it.

Is there anything this man won’t do or say, any position he won’t change, any law he won’t skirt—even laws he put in place or previously championed—to hold onto power?

1,755 views

Categories:Uncategorized

39 thoughts on “Lawlessness. It’s what’s for re-election.

  1. Allen Broomfield says:

    I hope Paul Ryan Quotes this article to Joe Biden
    during the vice presidental debate. Does anyone have
    his e-mail address?

  2. Just Ignore Half the Facts says:

    … and twist the other Half, heh Tom? The alarmist smears in the article totally ignore the reality that the Labor Department told contractors back in July that it would be “inappropriate” for employers to send such warnings because it is still speculative if and where the $110 billion in automatic spending cuts might occur. Indeed, any action to cut defense contracts would not occur for SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER JANUARY 2ND. And the smears ignore that the crisis originated because of Republican’s being hell bent on stoping government business instead of concerning themselves with the good of the people. And that’s a funny photoshop of President Obama, but I’ve always pictured you, dear Tom, as being more of the martinet dandy.,

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Three things: 1) Your argument is with Lockheed Martin, then, for choosing to send the layoff notices on November 2. They chose to do that, not me; I’m just interpreting the events. 2) Government business is funding Planned Parenthood? That’s what Obama hung his entire negotiation upon. All this would have been avoided had he been open to cutting federal funding of PP. 3) Your imaginings of me seem a tad unhealthy. I promise I don’t have any imaginings of you. Cheers.

      1. Bear Lion says:

        Yet, you pictured Obama in just such a way. Who woulda thunk?

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Apparently someone like you.

          1. Royal Pains says:

            Lord Prince Viceroy of Stubbenville, indeed. Your lordship, sir, your presence is requested at the costume inaugurial ball for President Obama. Please wear your wig, ascot and sash.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            You can’t even be bothered to look up how to spell “Steubenville.” sheesh

          3. Heather says:

            Stubbenville…heh-heh! That made my day! :D

          4. Reality Bites says:

            Why would anybody want to look up Stubbenvile unless they were into joining a cult?

    2. Soros Troll Alert says:

      Please ban this liberal troll, who is only here to sow the seeds of discontent.

  3. Jennifer Lambert says:

    May the LORD GOD Almighty have mercy on us and get this man out of office.

  4. RJChavez says:

    Someone hasn’t been paying attention…

  5. Phantasm says:

    The law requires that companies notify employees OR pay a fine. The company is choosing to pay the fine. No law is broken.

    1. Frank says:

      Right, and who is paying the fine? Taxpayers. The White House has assured the company that the government will cover the fines. This is beyond crazy. Just imagine if GW Bush had done this. This president MUST be defeated.

      1. fring says:

        I think you should take that up with the Republicans who decided to cut billions of dollars out of the federal budget across the board without understanding the impact that those cuts would have or even having any understanding of where the cuts might come from.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Yes, yes: the GOP unilaterally cut this money. Would that they could! Planned Parenthood wouldn’t see another red penny! But alas, President Obama refused to allow any cuts to PP’s federal handouts, thus killing the negotiations. It was at LEAST a bi-partisan failure.

          1. fring says:

            My wife got her prenatal care at Planned Parenthood because I couldn’t afford to go anywhere else at the time. You are against prenatal care for American citizens?

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and employees have been caught on tape assisting in the cover-up of statutory rape and other crimes. They also get millions from private contributions and fees. Your wife’s prenatal care could have been covered by that money, or they could divert money from the abortion part of their business. My tax dollars ought not go to the Nation’s largest abortion provider

          3. Julie T. says:

            Nonsense; Planned Parenthood is *not* the only source of care for uninsured women. The alternative are *community clinics* that treat everyone young, old, female, male. Payment is sliding scale. I know because since losing my full-time job, I am uninsured and one of these clinics provide me with access to a doctor when the need arises.

          4. Heather says:

            @Julie T. THANK you! sheesh.

          5. Julie T. says:

            You are welcome, Heather. The claim that PP is the sole source of medical care for the low-income drives me up the wall. It is a cynical Democratic “talking point” (a phrase invented by the Clinton administration), even as *both* political parties provide Medicaid funds to community medical clinics in order to provide access to the poor. They aren’t *free*, but neither is PP, and unlike PP, *everyone* receives care, not just one segment of the population.

    2. Tom Crowe says:

      Levying a fine is a punishment for failure to comply with a law. Your logic is like me saying the speed limit signs require me to drive below a certain speed OR pay a fine. Ridiculous.

      1. The Law on Your Side says:

        That’s exactly what the law requires. Drive the speed limit, or pay a fine. You decide.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Right: the fine is the penalty, the punishment, for failure to comply, intended to dissuade speeding. But if the government is willing to pledge taxpayer dollars to cover the fine for me, what’s the point of the speed limit or the fine?

    3. Soros Troll Alert says:

      WRONG. Begone with you.

  6. Grand Catholic says:

    But most likely, after the election, the Senate and House will find a compromise and stop the scorched earth policy requirement that was put in place by the Republicans. So, the layoffs at Lockheed Martin most likely will never happen, at least not if we re-elect Obama.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Two things: 1) this reply appears to mean you’re *okay* with the President blatantly ignoring the rule of law and his own Oath; 2) you mean the sequestration cuts agreed to, begrudgingly, by both parties that would be triggered only if the negotiations failed, which did fail primarily due to the intractable stance of President “I Won” who would not allow eve one red penny to be taken away from Planned Parenthood? Yes: he put Planned Parenthood funding over reaching common ground and sequestration was the result. Now he doesn’t like the consequences, so he’s ignoring the law. And you are okay with this lawlessness.

      1. fring says:

        He’s not ignoring the law. As was noted in other comments, the cuts won’t come for a number of months, and therefore the layoffs won’t happen until even later. The only thing Obama is doing is telling the companies the reality of the situation.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Companies like Lockheed Martin deal in massive programs and millions of dollars with highly paid professionals and need to plan many months in advance. If they have a good reason to believe their business is going to dry up they have to make a decision about what to do for the sake of the business. LM looked at the likelihood that the funding for programs they are conducting will go away on or sometime after January 1 and decided that they could nothing’s against that uncertainty, so they could not keep the people working on those programs on the payroll beyond that date. LM made that decision, I didn’t. The Obama administration told them to go ahead and plan to possibly lay people off on January 2, but don’t send out the notices as required by the WARN Acrt, and don’t worry about fines levied for failure to comply with the WARN Act because the federal government will use taxpayer dollars to cover those. How is that okay?

          1. fring says:

            I’m glad you are suddenly an expert in high level management at aerospace companies such that you can decide what they need to do to plan. ROFLMAO little man.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            You might note: I have said more than once that I didn’t decide anything for them: they made the decision. I observed what they did, observed the President’s response, and commented upon it.

          3. fring says:

            You are writing as if you are an expert and claiming that you know more about running an aerospace company than the executive at Lockheed Martin. Little man.

          4. Tom Crowe says:

            Okay, so then poke holes in my argument if my observations and analyses are so obviously naive and off-base.

          5. Julie T. says:

            I can say something here, too, since someone close to me IS an engineer specializing in thermal properties and he works for Lockheed-Martin’s Littleton, Colorado facility. Through him I know about the difficulties, the cuts, the BROKEN promises of Obama, who will do anything or say anything to hang onto power. What you need to understand, dear Troll, is that these people are highly-skilled and are VERY DIFFICULT TO REPLACE when they are forced to go elsewhere because of cuts.

          6. fRaNkLiN says:

            weird. it’s the Republicans that cut the budget, not Obama. It’s the Republicans that are going to cause all these people to be laid off.

          7. Tom Crowe says:

            fRaNkLiN — check out my previous comments in which I point out that you’re at least mostly wrong, and perhaps rephrase?

          8. Julie T. says:

            Uh….that would be a “No!” In relation to Lockheed-Martin, the FIRST act of Mr. Obama upon taking office was to CANCEL and REMOVE funding approved by President Bush for projects that were *already underway*. It took *Republicans*, to fight tooth and nail to claw back a portion of the funding for said projects to continue. Even then, it triggered *big* layoffs of talent that will be hard to replace.

          9. Too Much Nonsense Here says:

            If everybody is getting laid off under Obama, how will talent be hard to replace? You folks want to have it every whcih way.

          10. Julie T. says:

            Hardly “having it every which way,” fring/fRaNkLiN/TMNH. The talent will be hard to replace in important sectors of our economy WHEN *Barack Obama* is REPLACED.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.