By firing the Inspector General last week, the Obama administration has openly violated the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which was signed into law on 10/14/08. Following is the particular section of this law that has placed the Obama administration in open violation of the law of our country:

HR 928, 110TH CONGRESS
(SIGNED AS LAW ON 10/14/2008)

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.
(a) ESTABLISHMENTS.—Section 3(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting ‘‘If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.’’.
(b) DESIGNATED FEDERAL ENTITIES.—Section 8G(e) of the Inspector General Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ‘‘shall promptly communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of the Congress.’’ and inserting ‘‘shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.’’.
Although some news agencies have reported on the firing of the Inspector General, they have failed to site the actual law that was openly violated, even Fox News, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Apparently, the news media is hesitant to let We, the People know that an actual law has been violated by the executive branch. How long will we allow this usurping of the laws of our nation and of our U.S. Constitution to continue? When will the news media accurately report how the Constitution was violated by the creation of "czars", who can establish policy without being liable to being called before any House or Senate committee? It's time for We, the people to demand justification from our government and accurate reporting from our news media.

I sent the following to several members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee regarding Rep. Waxman's desire to push this legislation, which is still in draft form without a HR #, through the Committee by end-of-day Thursday (5/21/09):
FIRST, this is NOT a politically-generated argument against the so-called “carbon tax” bill. Rather, I will try to convince you to review this legislation very cautiously with scientific and economical proposals.
It is imperative that the House Energy and Commerce Committee carefully deliberate on the proposed 648 page “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”. Since plans by Rep. Waxman is to push this through your committee by end of day tomorrow (Thursday), no one can justify how they gave this important legislation careful review in just one day. The subcommittee members have been working on this legislation proposal for several days, but the remaining Committee members must insist on reviewing this proposal in an efficient and careful manner. I will address 2 points regarding this proposal. First, you must be careful if you think that a “smart grid” will work efficiently. Having over 20 years experience working in a nuclear power plant, I can attest through experience and observation that synchronizing the energy output from an electrical-producing facility with the electrical grid takes crucial coordination, and this is using the output from a consistently supplying source. Locking into the grid by only one-tenth of a second early or late can cause serious problems with the grid-coordinating facility accepting the output and also causes generator problems with the electrical-producing facility. Now imagine trying to accurately tie into the electrical grid with an inconsistent source, such as from wind generation and solar energy generation. Changes in atmospheric conditions such as wind speed deviations or temporary loss of consistent generation due to adverse weather conditions would be detrimental to synchronizing into the electrical grid. If changes in atmospheric conditions occurred during the period of synchronizing with the electrical grid, this could result in brownouts within small communities (which will probably be your main “client” of electricity from wind or solar generating facilities) and probable generator problems at the source of electrical output. This is very costly on a large scale and would be costly even on a smaller scale when discussing wind or solar generation. I’ll close on this point by pointing out that this proposal is for 2 megawatt-electric facilities; this is on the scale with typical nuclear power plant electrical outputs ranging from 1400 to over 1800 megawatt-electric (keep this in mind when deliberating on wind and solar generation and my discussion regarding synchronizing with electrical grids). Now for my second point: When presented with findings from an OMB –released document (Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege) at a Senate hearing on 5/12/09, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was unable to justify that EPA-sponsored studies performed several years ago were based on “scientific” findings as related to greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) affects on public health or global warming studies. The OMB document also pointed out the recommendations of the EPA-sponsored studies would create adverse economic impacts to small communities and small businesses. The memo also states “In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.
Again, I implore that you insist on spending the proper amount of time needed to review this 648-page legislation so that careful and deliberate researching and debate can be achieved. There is not an emergent need for this to fast-track thru your committee. We have the time to make our decisions based on logical and informed conclusions.
Thank you for your consideration,
William P. Conant
Mount Vernon, Georgia
How long will We, the People allow Congress and Obama push through costly legislation thru Congress? Remember, they work for us serving our needs, not the other way around. Like 1Swimmer said, TAKE ACTION NOW! Call, email, fax and basically barrage your Representative on the House Energy and Commerce Committee with your objections to this style of moving bills thru Congress. I'm getting extremely ticked off (trying to be civil).

ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACCESS TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES

This is particularly for my fellow citizens in Georgia; however, this is also for all fellow Patriots in America as well:
This is a letter I sent to Saxby Chambliss, with a copy going to Johnny Isaakson and John Barrow (my district's U.S. Representative) using Congress.org:
(The following is an email sent thru Saxby's Senate website earlier this evening)

Saxby, I have sent several concerns regarding current issues within our federal government to you in the past few weejs. I continually get the following reply:
I appreciate hearing from you and knowing your concerns. This automated response serves as a receipt of your e-mail message and allows me to respond to your direct question or comment in a more timely manner. *** If you are having a problem with a specific government agency, the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires that I have your written authorization, signed by you, in order to contact the agency about the problem. Since electronic communications do not meet the requirements of the Federal Privacy Act, please call 1-800-234-4208 or visit my website and select "How Can We Help?" from the menu at the left, then select "Help with Federal Agencies" for information on beginning the process.***

However, my issues have not centered on a specific government agency. Thus, how do I get in touch with one of my Senators for help? I have no problem getting responses back from Johnny Isaakson, even though he has yet been able to directly respond to any concerns at hand. What do I need to do to get some kind of response from you that is not an automated response?

(The following is the response I received from Saxby shortly after sending the first email):
Thank you for contacting me. Representing the State of Georgia in the United States Senate is an honor and a privilege. I appreciate hearing from you and knowing your concerns. This automated response serves as a receipt of your e-mail message and allows me to respond to your direct question or comment in a more timely manner. *** If you are having a problem with a specific government agency, the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 requires that I have your written authorization, signed by you, in order to contact the agency about the problem. Since electronic communications do not meet the requirements of the Federal Privacy Act, please call 1-800-234-4208 or visit my website and select "How Can We Help?" from the menu at the left, then select "Help with Federal Agencies" for information on beginning the process.*** Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I look forward to staying in touch. Very truly yours, Saxby Chambliss

Look familiar?! In my correspondence thru Congress.org, I included this and informed Saxby that I and some fellow Georgian contemporaries whom I have talked/chatted with are fed up with being unable to raise any type of reasonable response from our elected officials in Washington. Even though I don't agree with all of his actions and votes in the House, John Barrow has been very responsive and even agreed with me on some issues and acted on one particular issue as I had recommended (I'm sure he was getting other correspondence to the same effect as what I was requesting). My point to Saxby Chambliss was that we, as Georgians, were becoming (or were already) fed up with the inability to access our elected officials. If this was going to be continued, then we would be handing out pink slips in their next elections. My message to all U.S. citizens is to continue to try to reach your elected representatives in government. If they cannot respond in a reasonable fashion (anything but the same automated response), then it's time to replace them in their next respective elections.

reply #3: Hence, the wishes of the majority of any state's population as it affects the order, improvement and prosperity of that state and does not affect the definition of the powers of the federal government are not unconstitutional when those wishes are voted in as a majority of the state's populace, which reflects the people's wishes within that state. This closely relates to the dissenting argument by judge Thomas. "U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton" clearly violates states' rights as granted by the Constitution and needs to be readdressed again. Today's news is to call, email, fax or simply barrage your state representatives and senators to readress this issue; whatever the initial decisions it will eventually go back to the US Supreme Court where we have more constitutionalists on the bench as opposed to the decision on the Thornton case in 1995. (end)

reply #2: As James Madison wrote in "The Federalist Papers", [paraphrase] the poweres delegated to the federal government are few and and defined. The powers delegated to the States are numerous and indefinite. The powers delegated to the federal government are principally on external matters, such as war, peace and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the states are those which directly or indirectly affect the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the order, improvement and prosperity of the state. ( cont. on reply #3)

Reply #1: In U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton, Judge Stevens argument was invalid because he invoked the definition that restricting term limits within the states was a violation of people's rights for selecting their representatives as granted by Article I. However, he failed to see that when a state puts up a state Amendment for voting to limit terms of the elected representatives of the state to the U.S. Congress, for either house, the result of the voting for that state Amendment was a declaration by the people of that state to the majority of their wishes, which was granted within the wording of the Constitution. The Constitution mandates to the federal government those powers which involves the whole people as a nation. (cont. on reply #2)

Supreme Court decision violates States' Rights: The XVII Amendment strictly defines the composition of Senators from each state and the method to be used by the applicable state to replace it's Senator if a vacancy appears. Nothing within this Amendment remotely refers to or is inherit to term limits of Senators. Article I of the U.S. Constitution defined a method for the state to replace Representatives; hence, the 17th Amendment was invoked to provide a means to replace the Senator, when applicable. Again, for Article 1, no obvious or implied references to term limits are contained within the Article. (to be continued in reply #1)

Did you read the Washington Post, April 25, 2009 article by Porter Goss? Following are excerpts from this article which prompted Nancy Pelosi to claim that she was never briefed by the CIA of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used, including waterboarding, during a House Intelligence Committee hearing in the fall of 2002:
“Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now. A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers. Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned….Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:
-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
-- We understood what the CIA was doing.
-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.
-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.
I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have. “
Recall, Porter Goss was director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006 and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004. Nancy Pelosi was the ranking Democratic of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during 2002 and has been confirmed as being physically in attendance during the briefings. So, either she was sleeping during the briefings, has brief memory lapses (apparently at the most opportune times) or is simply lying. The facts point to the latter. Pelosi’s credibility (or what little she might have had to most American’s eyes) is eroding away as the minutes march by. If Obama really thinks that the House will effectively be able to pass his desired legislation, he must consider pushing Pelosi into relinquishing her role as Speaker of the House. Personally, I would rather see Pelosi simply disappear from the Washington “world of politics”. Perhaps the other untrustworthy delegates in the House (like Franks and Murtha, for examples) might get the message that “there, by the grace of God, go I” and work on reforming their own principles and values. It’s obvious that so many members in both houses of Congress, from both parties, have no idea of the values and principles followed by our Framers of the Constitution during their successful effort of creating the U.S. Constitution.

Based on your response, I've spent some more time researching Barrow's voting record (between researching political issues, writing a book and working, it makes for long nights), the totals definitely lean towards the liberal. Call me naive, but I thought that he would have been a little more open-minded to the Fair Tax issue. Now, I havea new issue to discuss with him; he needs to justify his position on this issue. By the way, he signed on as co-sponsor to HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Now we'll see which way he votes on the floor.

Part 5: Pelosi’s credibility (or what little she might have had to most American’s eyes) is eroding away as the minutes march by. If Obama really thinks that the House will effectively be able to pass his desired legislation, he must consider pushing Pelosi into relinquishing her role as Speaker of the House. Personally, I would rather see Pelosi simply disappear from the Washington “world of politics”. Perhaps the other untrustworthy delegates in the House (like Franks and Murtha, for examples) might get the message that “there, by the grace of God, go I” and work on reforming their own principles and values. It’s obvious that so many members in both houses of Congress, from both parties, have no idea of the values and principles followed by our Framers of the Constitution during their successful effort of creating the U.S. Constitution.