It’s not getting any better for our First Lady of Largeass. More school districts are opting out of her starvation guidelines “for the children”. Districts are deciding it’s actually better “for the children” to eat than have the food end up as garbage. Upon waking from their six year slumber, school districts have finally noticed MO was not elected to do anything. She has no power to do anything, can’t pass legislation or make demands. She is as much a walking disaster as BO and, a hypocrite as well. While her family dines at exclusive steak houses and resorts, she wants yours to be more vegan. Because…….she said so. Everything either one of them touch turns into a disaster. School board president rips Michelle O over lunch program: She was ‘elected by no one’
Under the school lunch program regulations, Petfalski said, the district’s food service was projected to be headed toward a $54,000 deficit. By opting out — and presumably selling more food — he expects about a $7,100 surplus.
“By leaving the program we will not be required to follow these onerous guidelines, pushed by and large by Michelle Obama, who last I checked has been elected by no one,” Petfalski said. (emphasis added)
Well, if you can’t find real discrimination, just make something up. Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company, Says English-Language Requirement is ‘Discrimination’
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, is suing a private American business for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees over their inability to speak English at work, claiming that the English-language requirement in a U.S. business constitutes “discrimination.”
Yes, we all know English is the basic language of business. We know that employers need to be able to communicate with employees but, the EEOC thinks it’s asking too much of anyone living in an English speaking country to actually speak the language of the country in order to work.
She cited numerous cases in which the EEOC has accused businesses of discriminating by requiring workers to speak English, running background and criminal checks, and enforcing company-wide restrictions on head coverings, including those worn by some Muslim women.
Running background and criminal checks is discrimination? Oh yes, what bank wouldn’t want to have an armed robber as a teller? As for the “head coverings”, it is not a religious obligation to wear one, it’s a choice. If a Muslima chooses to wear one, then she has to choose a job which will accommodate her. When a job requires hairnets and protective head covering, bakeries, food service preparation industries and other industries, then the work requirements can’t be changed for one individual and, definitely isn’t discrimination.
The challenge was initially written off by some as a fool’s errand because there’s a lack of evidence that the Democrats who crafted and passed the Affordable Care Act intended to block subsidies on the federal exchange, which was designed as a backstop on behalf of the states. (They’ve signed a brief saying as much.) But the challengers seized on an ambiguity in the language of the statute which says the subsidies are to be provided by “an Exchange established by the State.”
“If the legislation is just stupid, I don’t see that it’s up to the court to save it,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.
Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute “seems perfectly clear on its face” that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers’ claims as “preposterous.” So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn’t resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration’s defense, saying it had a “special burden” to show that the language “doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.”
They can’t redefine the meaning of words to suit their agenda.
But the D.C. Circuit Court may see things quite differently, especially in light of recent Supreme Court opinions holding that the Obama administration has exceeded its authority and violated separation of powers.
In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.” In Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stressed that “an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.” And a third strike came last week in National Labor Relations Board vs. Canning, when the Supreme Court unanimously found that President Obama had violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress through his use of recess appointments…
Moreover, a ruling against the administration would mean that Obama has been responsible for ordering what could amount to billions of dollars to be paid from the federal Treasury without authority. And it would mean the administration has committed yet another violation of the separation of powers.
Updating this when more comes out
Let’s not forget that Obama extending rule by fiat is absolutely against our form of government. If nothing else the House of Reps should start defunding or reducing funding for his acts of imperial diktat. That is why we sent them there in the first place in 2010. It isn’t because we love them, we want results. Despite court rebukes, Obama thinks he’s the only branch that counts
Obama is doubling down with this new immigration decision, so Congress must rein him in. In one area after another, Obama has been testing the limits, trying to govern the United States without the consent of its elected representatives. That he stands on the shoulders of his predecessors here is no excuse – the accumulation of abuses over the decades makes each president’s abuses worse than those of predecessors.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week the House will file in federal court against some of Obama’s excesses, with fuller details still to come. Such a resort to the courts is not unprecedented, and it might serve as a sufficient stop-gap measure. But Congress should focus on its power of the purse, which the Constitution places in the House of Representatives.
Not only can Congress attach strings to funding, it can also withhold or reduce it for selected activities. The president is a strong and sophisticated beggar, but a beggar just the same. Presidents must have prior congressional approval for spending. Congressional Republicans should make the first order of business the defunding of every activity in which Obama usurps power that the Constitution doesn’t give the chief executive.
Since BO won’t listen and keeps using the Executive branch as a position that does harm to every single American we have the right to keep protesting and defying. It’s the American way, whether he likes it or not.