Obama v. the Constitution

 M. Richard Maxson *

    A look at President Obama’s first term shows his repeated disregard for the Constitution that he has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Since taking office, Obama has betrayed contempt for our constitutional system of separation of powers. Our framers established three distinct branches of government so that each would serve as a check on the others, and so that none could trample on individual liberty. Obama has continually circumvented Congress’s constitutional role and he has denigrated the job of the judiciary. These repeated infractions seem to stem from a fundamental disregard for the rule of law and the text of the Constitution.

    President Obama, like many leftist constitutional law professors, subscribes to the view that policy results are more important than law. For instance, our Constitution gives the Senate a key check on executive power by requiring the president to seek Senate approval to appoint senior officials. Article II provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ... officers of the United States.”

     The president may bypass the Senate under only one circumstance: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” This winter, the Senate did not go into recess and on January 3 conducted a pro forma session. But the next day, the president simply declared the Senate to be “in recess,” though it plainly was not. Then, he purported to appoint several officers, evading the Senate’s constitutional role. It was the first time in U.S. history that a president attempted to make recess appointments when the Senate -- by its own lights -- was not in recess. Obama flouted the plain language of the Constitution, pronouncing a naked assertion of power: “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer.” These appointments have been challenged in court, and it is likely that they will be declared unconstitutional.
Making illegal appointments is just one way Obama has undermined the separation of powers. He has also infringed on freedom of speech by banning all disruptive demonstrations around (his) political events

    When he is not denigrating the work of the judicial branch, Obama has found it convenient to sidestep the judiciary altogether. Last September, the administration targeted and killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Alwaki in Yemen without any judicial review whatsoever. This violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which provides that “no person shall be deprived of life . . . without due process of law.”

    The Obama administration stated very clearly that they have the right to kill anyone they please. http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/constitutional-expert-%E2%80%9Cpresident-obama-%E2%80%A6-says-he-can-kill-you-his-own-discretion-without   Five months after al-Alwaki was killed, Attorney General Eric Holder asserted unchecked power to target and kill U.S. citizens. He claimed that judicial review was not needed because the executive branch had done its own internal evaluation. But due process is essentially a judicial check on executive power, which safeguards citizens’ life and liberty. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “the words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the proceedings of courts of justice.”

    Because the Constitution creates a unitary executive, vesting all executive power in a single person, it follows that an intra-executive check on executive power is no check at all. Indeed, recent reports have revealed just that; Obama makes the final targeting decision acting as judge, jury and executioner. The administration’s position undermines the judiciary’s constitutional function and turns the Due Process Clause into a dead letter, eliminating a core constitutional right. And Obama’s manipulation of “due process” – like his manipulation of “recess” and “hostilities” – undermines another fundamental check on executive power.

    Again and again, President Obama bypasses the Constitution to enhance his own power, sidestep the other branches, and reach the outcome he wants. This should come as no surprise. Obama believes that the law should not always be dispositive, and that one’s “deepest values” and “core concerns” should carry the day.

    But this outcome-based theory breeds lawlessness. A results-oriented approach is purely subjective; a good result to one person is usually a bad result to another. And putting one’s “deepest values” and “core concerns” above the law leads to the exploitation of power that our founders sought to prevent.

    The notion that public servants – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – may substitute their own judgment for the rule of law subverts the axiom that our country is “a nation of laws, not of men.” We have agreed to be governed by an objective body of law that our elected officials have a duty to evenhandedly uphold and apply. Our framers understood this concept, which is why they created a system where no person – including the president—is above the law.

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact legislation but requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Obama failed to do this when adherence to the law would not reach his desired result. If the President cherry picks which parts of the Constitution to obey and which to ignore, our Constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper. It is time to restore the rule of law and end the rule of Obama.                          

  


 * Many thanks to Stephanie Hessler who is a major contributor to this piece .                     

Guest Column

  
 A Letter to America by John Porter

Obama 's Second Term Transformation(Change) Plans

    The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama 's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America " in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.


    The most significant accomplishment of Obama 's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.


    During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama-worshiping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.


    The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.


    For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.


    The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation 's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress.  
    
    This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.

    Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.

    None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.

    It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.


    Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago- style political tactics.


    The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists. The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.


    Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g., the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department (DoJ) has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.


    Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.


    Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term, but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.


    The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the Founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.


    What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them.


    Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party,  and we the American people also must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. 
 

                                                                                                    Ed.

Another Sign of the End of America

Forward by M. Richard Maxson

     Is the "great experiment  " known as the United States coming to an end? Has it already happened and we just don't realize it? It may already too late! 
   

Guest Column

In second term, Obama will allow UN to tax Americans

 By Zeno Potas

    

    It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is re-elected.  But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly.  And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World.  In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father. There are pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth – not to other Americans – but to other countries.  These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress.  Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give.  They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens.  And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress --  only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board.  The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.

Here is what Obama, and his backers with the UN are planning for us:

• A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions.  Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while travelling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN.
  
• A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).
  
• A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit.  Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans.  Again the funds will go to the UN.
  
• Under the Law of the Sea Treaty – up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session – offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world.
  
• A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe.  Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world.
  
• A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.
  
• These taxes are, of course, only the first steps.  Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.

Is there any organizations less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations?  Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the UN is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations.  In "Black Helicopters," we document how pervasive this corruption really is.
And where would the money go?  To so-called less developed countries.  The taxes are part of a global plan of redistribution of wealth from the Northern Hemisphere (US, Europe, Japan) to the Southern Hemisphere (Latin America, Africa, and South Asia).
But don’t think that this flow of wealth will reduce poverty.  Foreign aid doesn’t work.  It really just puts a pot of money on the table in third world countries that automatically goes to whoever controls the presidential palace.  Coups, civil wars, revolutions, and all sorts of violence usually ensue as various factions, tribes, or ethnic groups try to get their hands on the money.  Real reduction in poverty can come only through foreign direct investment and trade, not via massive exports of northern hemisphere wealth to countries controlled by corrupt oligarchs.
Even a victory in the election of 2012 may avert the threat of rampant globalism.  Obama and his lame duck Senate will sign and try to ratify a broad range of global treaties to give away our sovereignty and expose us to UN taxation.
This is a warning call to saving our freedom while we still can!

The Greatest Danger is Here

by M. Richard Maxson

    Constitutional violations are a regular occurrence under this administration. It is apparent that there is no stopping this slide towards a new constitution and new form of government in the 21st century. It is happening right in front of our faces. The media propagandists have ignored and side lined these events in as it serves the purpose of the Democrat/Socialists that now transforming this country. We have failed to remember what  Benjamin Franklin said “(You have) A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.” We are losing it. These are some examples of the trampling of the Constitution.

   The Ruse: - During the 2008 election campaign, Obama  spoke of "opening up and creating more transparency in government," so that government spending plans would be posted on the Internet for days before they passed into legislation. After he was elected president, Obama said, "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."
    The Result: -  The D/S passed a mammoth ObamaCare bill so fast that even members of Congress didn't have time to read it, much less the general public. It was by no means posted on the Internet for days before the vote, as promised.

    The Law: -  The Constitution of the United States requires transparency as well. When people are nominated by a President to become Cabinet members, the Constitution requires that they be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office, so that facts about them can become known before they are given the powers of their offices.
    The Violation: - Obama appointed Cabinet members, he also made other appointments to powerful positions created by Executive Orders -- people aptly called "czars" for the vast, unchecked powers they wielded, in some cases greater than the powers exercised by Cabinet members. These "czars" never had to be confirmed by the Senate, and so had no public vetting before acquiring their powers. We had unknown and unaccountable rulers placed over us.

    The Law: -  The Constitution's requirement that Congress pass a budget every year.
    The Reality: -  The Democratically controlled Senate during the Obama administration has not passed a budget for three consecutive years.

    The Law: -  In his oath of office, the President swears to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
    The Reality: -  Once in the White House, Obama  proceeded to explicitly waive the enforcement of laws he didn't agree with. The immigration laws are a classic example. Failing to get Congress to pass some version of amnesty, Obama simply issued an Executive Order exempting certain classes of illegal immigrants from the immigration laws on the books.

     If any President can unilaterally change the law, we are not likely to have the same freedom under rule by presidential fiat as under Constitutional government. This is especially dangerous in a President's second term, when he need no longer have to consider what the voters want. With a couple more Supreme Court appointments he can permanently change the very nature of American government.

    

Citizens Rights Begin to Disappear

by M. Richard Maxson*
  
    Today marks the 225th anniversary of the signing of this unique and prescient document. Every American should take a moment to reflect on what a treasure we have in America. Our constitutional republic has survived for over two centuries. The Framers of the Constitution believed in a separation of powers, so that no government—and certainly no particular branch of government—would become so mighty, so imperial, as to threaten the God-given freedom of the People.

     Our framers established three distinct branches of government so that each would serve as a check on the others, and so that none could trample on individual liberty. And so they created a House of Representatives to represent the people in proportion to the population of a state. They created a Senate to represent the interests of the states. They vested executive power in the President. And they created an independent judicial branch.

    The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them.

     When the Framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, they lived in a society in which anyone could walk up to George Washington or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson on a public street and say directly to them whatever one wished. They never dreamed of a regal-like force of armed agents keeping public officials away from the public, as we have today. And they never imagined that it could be a felony for anyone to congregate in public within earshot or eyesight of certain government officials. And yet, today in America, it is.

    Mr Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited.
    
      Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. 

       The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a “restricted” area may be prosecuted. And because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well. This abominable legislation enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties in Congress because the establishment loves power, fears dissent and hates inconvenience, and it doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and only three members of the House voted against it. And the president signed it in secret.

    Another one of those God-given rights is the right to self-defense, embodied in the Second Amendment as the right to “keep and bear Arms.”  That right has faced some severe challenges in recent years.. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is, indeed, an individual right. Two years later, the Court held in that the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. Both cases were decided on a 5-4 vote. Put another way, Americans are just one Supreme Court justice away from losing those rights.

    The make-up of the next Supreme Court may well hinge on the outcome of the elections this November. Should any of the five conservative jurists on the Court retire or leave, a re-elected President Obama would almost certainly replace him with yet another judge in the mold of his two picks thus far--Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Both are liberals hostile to Second Amendment rights.  The margins in many Supreme Court decisions are razor thin.

     Certainly, we cannot take it for granted that the Constitution will always be faithfully interpreted to support the freedoms and proper role of the federal government. As we celebrate the U.S. Constitution today, many conservatives worry that the next 225 years may not be as kind to the idea of a limited federal government committed to protecting the natural rights of all citizens.

Read the Constitution here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html


*With thanks to Brian Darling and Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Don't Remain Silent

by 

       M. Richard Maxson                  

    The governmental structures in America are set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution was written -- largely by James Madison -- to define and to limit the federal government, and it was quickly amended by adding the Bill of Rights so as to be sure that natural rights would be respected by the government. The Constitution provides for protection against the tyranny of the majority.

    The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States -- and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans. No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with.

     The greatest distinguishing factor between countries in which there is some freedom and those where authoritarian governments manage personal behavior is the Rule of Law. The idea that the very laws that the government is charged with enforcing could restrain the government itself is uniquely Western and was accepted with near unanimity at the time of the creation of the American Republic. Without that concept underlying the exercise of governmental power, there is little hope for freedom.

     If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under. 

    When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws, and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.

 
    When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution -- and ourselves.

    We live in perilous times. The president acts above the Rule of Law and fights his own wars. Congress acts below the Rule of Law by letting the president do whatever he can get away with. And this summer, the Supreme Court rewrote the Rule of Law.

    There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.

The Demise of Constitutional Freedoms

  by M. Richard Maxson

  Over the coarse of my lifetime I have seen the freedoms guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution disappear in bits and chunks through legislation slipped into law by the Congress. Except for a few years during the 2000's the Congress of the United States has been controlled by the Democrat-Socialist party. It is they who have inched this country quietly to the left.

    Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

   One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience's attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about "giving back" distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom There have been three huge pieces of legislation that have deprived Americans of their individual freedoms.

They are:

The"War" on Drugs - 

Property rights are terminated if charged with a crime under this law in complete violation of the Constitution.

The Patriot Act - 

In the name of protecting the "Homeland" the right to privacy, free speach, and due process have been almost eliminated. The President even has the right to kill American citizens anywhere in the world.

 Obamacare - 

Congress can now lawfully command any behavior of individuals that it pleases whether or not the subject of the behavior is a power granted to Congress by the Constitution, and it may punish noncompliance with that command, so long as the punishment is called a tax.

    The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, Caucasians in the US(although they do it to themselves), or foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments.

    The Democrat-Socialists believe that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.They have a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. The left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

    The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
    

Ignoring the Law

by M. Richard Maxson*

   The President, when he is sworn into office, takes the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the the United States. Mr. Obama’s first term shows his repeated disregard and contempt for the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold. He has continually circumvented Congress’s constitutional role and he has denigrated the job of the judiciary. These repeated infractions seem to stem from a fundamental disregard for the rule of law and the text of the Constitution.
    Our framers established three distinct branches of government so that each would serve as a check on the others, and so that none could trample on individual liberty. For instance, our Constitution gives the Senate a key check on executive power by requiring the president to seek Senate approval to appoint senior officials. Article II provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ... officers of the United States.” The president may bypass the Senate under only one circumstance: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” This winter, the Senate did not go into recess and on January 3 conducted a pro forma session. But the next day, the president simply declared the Senate to be “in recess,” though it plainly was not. Then, he purported to appoint several officers, evading the Senate’s constitutional role. It was the first time in U.S. history that a president attempted to make recess appointments when the Senate -- by its own lights -- was not in recess.
    These appointments have been challenged in court, and it is likely that they will be declared unconstitutional. Making illegal appointments is just one way Obama has undermined the separation of powers. He has also skirted his duty to fairly implement the laws. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact legislation but requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Obama failed to do this when adherence to the law would not reach his desired result.
     Policy results seem to trump law when it comes to the role of the judicial branch as well. The Supreme Court is the final word on the Constitution. Mr. Obama has disparaged the judiciary’s constitutional function when the court has not rubber-stamped his agenda. Mr. Obama does not believe in the Constitution. To him it is just an obstacle in his way to a new America. It must be pointed out to him by critics that judicial review has been part of our constitutional system of separation of powers for over 200 years.
    During oral arguments on ObamaCare, many of the Justices asked pointed questions about the law’s constitutionality. Several justices were clearly troubled by this unprecedented intrusion upon individual liberty.
Their fear is that if this stands then government would be allowed to  regulate “every human activity from cradle to grave".
     When he is not denigrating the work of the judicial branch, Obama has found it convenient to sidestep the judiciary altogether. Last September, the administration targeted and killed U.S. citizen. Five months later, Attorney General Eric Holder asserted unchecked power to target and kill U.S. citizens. Recent reports that Mr. Obama makes the final targeting decision acting as judge, jury and executioner. He claimed that judicial review was not needed because the executive branch had done its own internal evaluation.
     Due process is essentially a judicial check on executive power, which safeguards citizens’ life and liberty. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “the words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the proceedings of courts of justice.” The administration’s position undermines the judiciary’s constitutional function and turns the Due Process Clause into a dead letter, eliminating a core constitutional right. And Obama’s manipulation of “due process” – like his manipulation of “recess” undermines another fundamental check on executive power.
     Again and again, President Obama bypasses the Constitution to enhance his own power, sidestep the other branches, and reach the outcome he wants. The notion that public servants – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – may substitute their own judgment for the rule of law subverts the axiom that our country is “a nation of laws, not of men.” We have agreed to be governed by an objective body of law that our elected officials have a duty to evenhandedly uphold and apply.
    Our framers understood this concept, which is why they created a system where no person – including the president—is above the law. If the President cherry picks which parts of the Constitution to obey and which to ignore, our Constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper.

*Special thanks to  Stephanie Hessler

 

Most American Voters Worry About the Constitution.

Comment By,
  

     M. Richard Maxson

    Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging Obamacare, five Supreme Court justices — a majority — asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional. They think the document is too old and doesn't apply well in the 21st century. So the Constitution — and the limits it places on Congress' powers — is once again part of our politics. And will continue to be, whichever way the Court rules.

    The assumption by the Democrat party is that the federal government's power to regulate the economy has no limits. Fortunately for Americans the arguments, developed by Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett and others, that it is beyond the powers conferred by the Constitution for Congress to mandate the purchase of a commercial product — health insurance in Obamacare — were certainly taken seriously by a majority of Supreme Court justices last week and the government's lawyers were unable to answer the questions of both liberal and conservative justices, if Congress can do this, what can't it do? (Refer to the US Constitution)

     Members of Congress may reasonably regard themselves as bound to vote against measures they conscientiously believe unconstitutional. Barry Goldwater did this when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though he had integrated his own business many years before, on constitutional grounds.
    Goldwater's constitutional argument, predictably, wasn't accepted by the Supreme Court. And his vote gave the Republican Party an unfair reputation for being anti-civil rights. But I think he was entitled to think his oath required him to vote that way.

    Clearly, the two parties are divided on the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate. Polls have shown large majorities of voters think the provision is unconstitutional.

    Voters can and should reasonably ask candidates for Congress their views on this and other constitutional issues and call on them to vote against measures they consider beyond Congress' constitutional powers.

    The constitution is the foundation of our society and has proven over the centuries to be rock solid. True Americans should continue to oppose these Progressive/Liberal/Democrat, or whatever they want to call themselves, that are hell-bent on making our constitution irrelevant.

McNaughton responses to Criticisms of " The Forgotten Man"

Comment By,
   M. Richard Maxson

This is a painting by Jon McNaughton and below is his reasoning for the endeavor. It is a powerful piece so make of it what you will. His explanation is also listed along with his latest project and a short video.

             McNaughton responses to Criticisms of
                          The Forgotten Man

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.

1. Why did I paint this? Like many Americans I feel shock at the direction our country is heading. There is a great polarizing effect taking place in America today. There are many who swoon over Obama's policies of redistribution of wealth. What will the government give me? If you believe this is the proper role of government you will certainly see great CHANGE in your lifetime. I wanted to paint a picture that portrays the plight of the common man. Perhaps the FM is already experiencing this now or will in the future. My hope is that he will "wake up!" now before it is too late.
2. There is no racial meaning or undertone that the FM is not black. This is not a racial painting; it is about the vanishing of the American dream.
3. It is not a partisan painting. I take no favoritism of Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are guilty.
4. The only solution I offer is to take a 180 degree turn and return to the principles of the Constitution, which define a limited government, protect individual and states' rights and make no allowance for any of the baggage we have accumulated over the years in the form of entitlement programs. The only way to cure the cancer is to root it out and endure the painful healing. Perhaps, with God's help, we will survive.
5. Is it disrespectful to have in my painting the President of the United States standing on the Constitution? Is the President without reproach? I am simply one American speaking to another American. The painting symbolically suggests the actions of Barack Obama as well as other presidents. Yes, their actions speak louder than words—as do the brushstrokes in my painting.
6. I have endeavored to keep this information simple and to the point. The information is historical, if it is not familiar to you—Google it.
7. I picked the trashed papers based on the issues that I believe have been the most damaging to America. These issues have been trampled by politicians of both parties for over a century. When will the American people decide to defend the Forgotten Man? Let us raise our voices together and demand the kind of CHANGE that will truly save our way of life.
8. Why did I not mention critical information about some Presidents which defined their presidencies? My only purpose is to identify each President and with simplicity express what they have done to either help or hinder the Forgotten Man. I invite all to search deeper into the history of the painting's message and discover if what I paint is true. Can you truly say our house is in order when our debt is stealing away the future of every man woman and child in America?

www.mcnaughtonart.com

                                                                            

“’I pledge allegiance to the United States of America,
And not to an ideology, which can never stand,
One nation under socialism, divisive,
With no liberty or justice for anyone.’
This November, you will make a choice. Will you choose One Nation Under Socialism?”

 http://youtu.be/qtHQE2zNpwc

Are Most People to Dumb to Vote?

 by M. Richard Maxson

     Constitutionally speaking should everyone be allowed to vote? Is this what the founding fathers visualized? It wasn't like this at the beginning of our Republic. Only men who were supposedly intelligent had that privilege. Today the rules are different. The United States touts itself as a Democratic Republic where it's one person, one vote so we must ask ourselves  is democracy wasted on humanity?
      That’s the conclusion of a new study led by Cornell University psychologist David Dunning, which shows that the vast majority of voters are not only too stupid or ignorant to know that they are stupid or ignorant. They are also too stupid or ignorant to tell when the same is true of a candidate. People who aren't talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. Their political polarization blinds them to good ideas or candidates. As political analyst Thomas Sowell observed in his book,  Vision of the Anointed, "disagree with someone on the Right and he is likely to think you wrong, obtuse, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the Left and he is likely to think you insensitive, selfish, a sell-out, possibly evil."
     This may impede the democratic process, because the assumption is that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can not recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. A growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to prove this notion. Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills.
      It’s almost inevitable whenever any political group loses an election that they blame the stupidity, gullibility and/or lack of moral character on the part of their opponents for the loss. When George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, liberals infamously tried to say that stupid people preferred Bush by a 4-to-1 margin over Kerry.
     He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. The research shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments. " In the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise."
     As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea or a candidate really is."

WHY OBAMA WILL BE RE-ELECTED - No Matter What

Guest Column

By Dr. Walter Williams

Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going
on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.
The media won't tell you this but the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012.

The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets
reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win.
Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins.
The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins.
War in the Middle East ? He wins a second term.

America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Just what he wants!
The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to
sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to
inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? No matter.
Obama wins handily.

Many will say, “You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining?” Sure I do and that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.

                                                           

Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics that Obama and his supporters in the media use to explain why it isn't his
fault.
 

Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider
the following:

1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he
does. It's a race thing. He's one of us.
That’s why the media destroyed Herman Cain so handily. Too big a threat.


2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be
offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more
complex than that.

3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope.

4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party
and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide.

5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are here illegally and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to
the USA in fewer than five years.

6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key
to money and power in business, state and local politics.


7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more every day. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.

8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. 

 After all, to not love him would be racist.(sic)

9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him.
Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him
because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him.
Homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly…

10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he
doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups
previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.

It's believed the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
 Please think this through. And then vote. The future of our Republic is literally at stake

-- Dr. Walter Williams

An American for America

 by M. Richard Maxson*

  The year was 1968. The war in Vietnam was raging in full force. There were riots in the streets of major American cities. Assassination of politicians had been controlling this country's future since 1963 and it was an election year. The Democrats were running Hubert Humphrey who was the current vice-president who promised more of the same. This infuriated many which was evident as riots broke outside the Democratic National Convention.
   There was a third party, the American Independent Party who had Gov. George Wallace of Alabama as their candidate. His platform was that of pro-segregation and to returning America to the past.
   The Republicans had a number of candidates with Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, and the early front-runner George Romney, the father of their current front-runner. George Romney was a  four term Michigan governor who had a fatal problem for a politician, he told the truth!
   Initially a  pro-war candidate he had his suspicions so during the campaign Romney personally went to Vietnam. His return was momentary historic. Romney stated that, unlike the propaganda that the American people were being fed, we were losing the war! Romney told a news reporter that he had been "brainwashed" by the military and the diplomatic corps about the Vietnam war. The remark set off the shadowy American press to destroy his campaign. After weeks of ridicule in the national news media his popularity fell and he dropped out of the presidential race.
   In 1992  under the heading "An American for America," he begged voters to "subordinate their partisan affiliation and economic interests to their God-given responsibility as citizens."Romney offered a 10-point manifesto spelling out in precise language the principles that would return America to greatness.
                                    
                     Still relevant, it should inform his son's campaign.

- Our principal problems are within and not without.

- America's unprecedented success has spawned unprecedented problems; in particular, horrendous social problems.

- Too many of our children are not being educated and trained for the future.

- To remain great we must emphasize politically, economically and socially those basic methods that made us great in the first place.

- It is the individualism that freedom permits that makes superior American teamwork possible.

- It is free competitive enterprise that produces the greatest economic progress — not, primarily, government regulation and control.

- The power of monopolies and excessive special interests stifle education, economic growth and social problem solving.

- It is people helping people, not money, that most effectively solves social problems.

- Excessive reliance on government to solve social problems has become counterproductive.

- No family, no enterprise, no government can continue to spend beyond its income, as we are doing, without becoming dependent, bankrupt or impoverished.

   From father to son, a gift: A message to help Mitt Romney clarify his vision for the country and rally Americans to the simple truths that would set the nation on a better course.

*With thanks to Nolan Finley.
   

Do You Believe?

by M. Richard Maxson

  Do you believe in the United States of America and its ideals, as expressed in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation? Do you believe in the American Dream: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Do you believe being an American is an honor, as well as a great responsibility – and a wonderful adventure?
   Do you  believe we live in a great country, a welcoming refuge for legal immigrants who want to contribute their talents and abilities to make our way of life even greater? Do you believe we should enjoy the company and support of each other, delighting in the creativity, ingenuity, and work ethic of one and all, while observing the rules of civility and mutual respect and, most importantly, strengthening our diverse society by striving for unity?
   Do you believe in  the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and fair and balanced coverage of the news? Are you opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship?
                                 Then you have come to the right place.
 

                                                       

Who Controls Your Thinking?

  by M. Richard Maxson

   There was a time that older folks can remember when there were hundreds of newspapers in this country. You had a choice in big cities of more than one or two as we do now. This made for a wealth of information and different ideas. Through the years these newspapers were bought and condensed with many of them being eliminated thus restricting information in some cities across America to just one. Journalists who worked for these organizations who were "not in line" with what the new owner were also eliminated. (Note: recent surveys show that over 85% of all journalists consider themselves to be liberal/socialist.) Television and radio stations around the country were also sold to complete the stranglehold on everything you see and hear.

   It didn't just happen here! Around the world free press was becoming a problem for those men in the shadows. WWII had diminished their hold on eastern Europe .These elite wanted more control over world news and events than they currently had. The fall of the Soviet Union gave them the opportunity they had been trying to achieve for many years.  In the backround they brought most the western world's information under one governing group. Today this group is known as Project Syndicate, which calls itself “the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries” reaching “456 leading newspapers in 150 countries.” It’s financed by George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

   In America liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.*

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “ to avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”*

   This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media. The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts. ProPublica is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press.

   The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.*

   If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to do this. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.*

* Thanks to Dan Gainor for his contributions.

Islam is not a religion - It is a cult

by M. Richard Maxson

                       Islam is not a religion.

                                It is a cult

    What is a religion? All religions are basically the same; do these things -- pray, penance, repent, be good to others, etc -- and earn your salvation. Christianity says your salvation has already been given and will not be lost as long as you practice the aforementioned. 

    There are some violent passages in these "holy books" of religion but nowhere does it say to murder, rape, lie, and degrade our fellow human beings as it does in Islam. 

    To understand Islam one must understand the prophet Mohammad himself. His words and deeds. Mosab Hassan is the author of "Son of Hamas". His father was one of the founders of Hamas. Hassan says, "In order to know what Islam is all about we need to study and learn the behavior of Mohammad, the same in Christianity we need to study who Jesus is.

 

   In Islam's early days, Mohammed spread the faith with the sword. He was a murderer, a rapist, and a pedophile who showed no mercy to anyone who opposed him. This is made quite clear in the five Islamic holy books which details Islam. (see Craig Winn (teawithterrorists.com) and his soon-to-be-released manuscript, Prophet of Doom.)

   In the translated versions of the Koran and the Hadith (books of Mohammed's teachings) show the manuscripts to be riddled with exhortations to commit violence and terror against those who don't follow their doctrine. Peaceful Muslims are only deluding themselves. The fact is that "According to Allah the most vile of creatures is a peace-loving Muslim," said author and Islamic terror expert Craig Winn "Muslims are the victims of Islam"

   The basic message of these Muslim fundamentalists is to "slay the infidels wherever you find them," which includes Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims who don't believe in the Jihad. "I came to the conclusion that this so-called religion, Islam, is poison." Winn believes it is essential to fully comprehend doctrines such as the Koran in order to understand the roots of terrorism.

The big problem is that the public is widely misled about Islam, thinking that it is a peaceable religion that was hijacked by a small segment of fundamentalists, when it is actually based on violent teachings. Winn puts forth that the western world must own up to the fact that "Islam is at war with us."

   When will this happen? After a "nuclear dirty bomb" is detonated in New York, or Washington, or Los Angles is probably the correct answer. there is too much political correctness in this country to allow the truth to shine through.

 

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari’a law tells them to.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America and Canada , while no American nor Canadian group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

                                  I'm tired of the lies