Well, I thought I could actually NOT mail you again this month, but this is too important to let go.

If you can't WATCH Glenn Beck's TV show tomorrow (Wednesday) on Fox News, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, tape it or TIVO it! 
Glenn did a masterful job today of showing how "Apollo" is the organization that is uniting all the liberal groups (ACORN, the
green movement, unions, etc.) into one massive marching army for Obama's Marxism.

Tomorrow, he's going to recap, tie it up and show how to go about dismantling it.  Get your friends and relatives to tune in.  This is
ONE way to help wake America up.  If this isn't stopped, we are going to become a Soviet Union-styled country. 
(Unsubscribe info is *still* at the bottom of every newsletter ... I lose subscribers every time I say that.  But it's true.)

Bruce
http://www.internet-grocer.net

Here's one the media totally ignored: (my guess is Pelosi and Reid were the ones who voted against the rebuke)

from http://www.jonchristianryter.com/News_Folder/Behind.html

Media ignored 429-to-2 House rebuke of Obama
If former President George W. Bush had been rebuked by the House of Representatives—particularly when it was controlled by the President's own party—by a margin of 429-to-2, it would have been the lead story on page A-1 in every newspaper in the country. It would not only have headlined the evening news on every TV network, it would have showcased the news with a segment analyzing how the President lost control of his own party. Yet, on July 9, 2009, when the House of Representatives rebuked Resident Barack Hussein Obama for telling Congress he was going to ignore the restrictions they placed on him in the 2010 supplemental spending bill for the State Department, the media—print and electronic—simply ignored the rebuke. In fact, they simply ignored the whole story. It apparently was not "news that was fit to print."

In a signing statement attached to the 2010 funding bill for the State Department and its foreign operations, which was enacted by Congress in June, Obama said that obeying the restrictions mandated by Congress would "...interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations and discussions."

A provision in that legislation required the US Treasury to provide Congress with an ongoing report on the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars in multilateral foreign assistance that would normally be dispersed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund [IMF]. The purpose of that stipulation was to control how US taxpayer funds, designated to foreign nations by the State Department, were spent. The provision was inserted into the 2010 spending bill by Rep. Kay Granger [R-TX], the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, and received enough bipartisan support to became law.

When the Democrats took back both Houses of Congress in Jan., 2007, Bush-43 began using signing statements to vacate specific provisions in laws. On April 10, 1997, the US District Court for DC overturned the line item veto (which was enacted by the Republican Congress and signed into law by former President Bill Clinton on April 6, 1996. Six liberal pork barrel Senators led by Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV], challenged the line item veto. US District Court Judge Harry Jackson found the line item veto to be unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court remanded the case back to the District Court on June 26, 1997, ordering Jackson to dismiss the case filed by Byrd because, the high court said, the Senators had not proved they had been damaged. Byrd tried again when Clinton erased some pork from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and when he cut two provisions from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Judge Thomas Hogan of the DC District Court also found the law unconstitutional. This time, in a 6-to-3 decision, the US Supreme Court agreed.

What that means is that Bush-43 could not attaching signing statements, revoking passages or ignoring passages in the laws he was signing—nor can Obama. Invalidate provisions with which he disagrees with that obligate the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch to obey all of the law. Signing statements that invalidate provisions of the law simply aren't a "presidential right by precedent." If Obama is unhappy with the fact that he does not possess the line item veto, he needs to blame Robert Byrd and several senior level pork barrel members of the House and Senate.

When Obama assumed for himself the dictator's imperial purple robe and asserted his authority over Congress by casually dismissing the oversight rules imposed on the Executive Branch in the legislation, the House members were stunned. Granger, who introduced the first measure as an amendment in the State Department funding bill, also introduced the rebuke of Obama that won the 429-to-2 vote to reaffirm the House of Representative's role as the keeper of the pursestrings of the nation with the sole constitutional authority to determine how the government spends the money that belongs not to the government, but to the People of the United States of America.

Senior members of Congress on both sides of the aisle railed at the notion that Obama believed he could arbitrarily ignore legislation they had passed and he had just signed into law. Angered, Barney Frank, one of those who led the fight to enact Obama's healthcare bill, issued a terse statement directed at the White House. "We do this..." the congressional rebuke began "...not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of democracy. There's a kind of unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements."

Frank and Congressman Mark Kirk [R-IL] commented that one way to to get presidents to stop issuing signing statements that casually cast portions of the law into a recycle bin was to simply refuse to fund their priorities. The amendment passed will nullify Obama's signing statements—which are unconstitutional—by withholding the allocated funds from any agreement involving the Treasury Department if the Executive Branch fails to follow the conditions established in the supplemental funding bill. "The signal we send to the Treasury is very clear," Kirk said. "Ignore statute at your peril."