Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment

 by

       M. Richard Maxson


      The U.S. considers itself the most democratic country in the world. At the same time, the country is a leader when it comes to surveillance of its own citizens. Recent passage of the government funding bill, the law that authorized the government to spend more than it will collect, was a part about funding for the 16 federal civilian intelligence agencies. Hidden in that was a clause authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments. "Nonpublic data" is the government's language referring to the content of the emails, text messages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of nearly every innocent person in America -- including members of Congress, federal judges, public officials and law enforcement officials. I say "innocent" because the language of this legislation -- which purports to make lawful the NSA spying we now all know about -- makes clear that those who spy upon us don't need to have any articulable suspicion or probable cause for spying.

      This is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. It was written to prohibit what Congress just authorized. That amendment was a reaction to the British practice of rummaging through the homes of American colonists, looking for anything that might be illegal. It is also a codification of our natural right to privacy. It requires that if the government wants nonpublic data from our persons, houses, papers or effects, it must first present evidence of probable cause to a judge and then ask the judge for a search warrant. According to Constitutional law professor Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Probable cause is a level of evidence that is sufficient to induce a judge into concluding that it is more likely than not that the place to be examined contains evidence of crimes. In order to seek probable cause, the government must first have an articulable suspicion about the person or place it has targeted. Were this not in the law, then nothing would stop the government from fishing expeditions in pursuit of anyone it wants to pursue." In the past,when the FBI used warrantless surveillance to wiretap and intercept the mail of anti-war radicals, those who did so were charged, tried and convicted.

      So what's going on here? Is our government trading away our freedoms? If you have read our blog then you know that our government is infected with Democratic Corporate Socialism. The Democratic party has a full blown case, which includes the Communists, and the Republican party is about to go critical. The driving forces behind the infection are the Western elite. They are the rich Leftists who set policy.

       So today, we live in a country that is a leader when it comes to surveillance of its own citizens. Every day, hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras record faces entering the metro and various buildings, as well as license plates of passing cars, and drones with high-definition cameras may appear in the sky. Other aspects of everyday life in Amerika today are:

• Cameras installed at every street corner in the United States scan license plates, and tracking the movement of any car and so-called "smart" lights are being installed that can take pictures of people, record video and listen to their conversations. Typically, they are installed in major U.S. cities.
• The U.S. government is also using microarrays RFID that can independently identify the owner. These chips are integrated into bank cards, so every American who uses a bank card can always be identified. (Have YOU received your "new" charge cards yet?)
• The U.S. is also implementing a system that allows fingerprints scanning at a distance of 20 meters. This is a very convenient system that can identify a person quietly in a public place. A person walks by a camera that reads her fingerprints and runs them through the database.
•  The U.S. company Raytheon created a program used for watching people on social networks. The U.S. authorities have been using it since 2010, tracking information on Twitter, Facebook and Foursquare. The program can also view pictures of the users and identify where they were taken. Each person's location can be followed, including the places they go and even what they eat. This information can help intelligence agencies to predict human behavior.
•  Predator drones , originally intended for military operations and the fight against terrorism, will now track movement of civilians. According to their characteristics, these drones should be able to determine even at night whether a person is armed.Using mobile phones frequency, these devices will be able to clearly identify the location of a person. The U.S. government has legalized the use of drones on its territory, which aroused a storm of outrage from human rights groups.
• The U.S. government is creating a cyber-security center to keep track of all citizens. The center will collect and store information on nearly any person on the territory of the U.S., including phone conversations. The U.S. government intends to spend $2 billion to establish the center. The center will be located in two hangars with a powerful server that can store the volume of data that is two hundred thousand times greater than that of all human knowledge. The above technologies allow figuring out the personality of nearly any person within a few seconds.
  
  
  
     The powers that be have used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to guarantee any surveillance the government wants without probable cause. When President Nixon’s men illegally wiretapped a few of his political opponents -- and they went to jail for it. This administration spies on millions and gets away with it.
  
      How can Congress defy the Constitution, you might ask? Hasn't every member of the government taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? It seems that this U.S. government is not overly concerned about violation of the rights of its citizens. The belief of most of those in government that they can write any law and regulate any behavior and ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold whenever they want and with the help of the media, the populace will follow like sheep.
  
     At question is the democracy in the USA, which allows intelligence agencies to check all electronic communications of people located in the country without a court order. The U.S. government continues to violate the rights of their citizens. In the U.S., there is no anonymity, the last remnants of private life gradually dissolve in the ocean of high-tech devices. These systems are controlled by people who want to control the society and establish a form of Socialist dictatorship, slightly covered with a thin veil of democracy.
  
  
  
  
  
  

The Lie That Helps the Rich Stay in Control

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      Looking across the political landscape in 2014 we see that we have an extremely wealthy Democrat President who lives a more opulent lifestyle than the Queen of England when he's not golfing with rich celebrities and attending $30,000 a plate fundraisers, or vacationing in Hawaii for 17 days at taxpayer expense. His supporters, people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are getting filthy rich in a capitalist country by selling really dumb people on how awful capitalism and rich people are for the country and lecturing everyone who will listen how their opponents are the party of the rich who take advantage of the poor. The demographic reality is that, today, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich".

      The mantra that the Republicans are the party of the rich is a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits. But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California. Four of five of the richest presidents are Democrats. The Democratic Party is the actual party of the rich. Democrats represent the richest districts in the country with a highest concentration of wealthy households and the richest Americans. There are 269 millionaires among Congress' 535 members and most of them are Democrats led by their leader Harry Reid who has resided in a suite at the Ritz Carlton since his election to the Senate in 1986.

      In the last two presidential elections, of those worth more than $30 million, two-thirds supported the Democrats. The reason - taxes. Democrats have

constantly lowered taxes on the rich by way of loopholes. Among the two-thirds that supported the Democrats, 88% cited tax policies as being “important” in making their decision. One only has to look at today's stock market to see how the super-rich are getting richer under Democratic rule.  By President Obama's own admission, his party's control of Congress and the White House has led to 95% of all income gains going to the top 1% in income.

      Another report at OpenSecrets.org, states that from 1989 to 2014 rich donors gave Democrats $1.15 billion — $416 million more than the $736 million given to the GOP. Among the top 10 donors to both parties, Democrat supporters outspent Republican supporters 2-to-1. Indeed, a recent book, "The New Leviathan," says donations to Democrats outstrip those to Republicans 7-to-1. How can this be? Democrat support soars when you include unions, universities, superPACs, nonprofits, left-wing interest groups, and — ready for this? — Wall Street (which overwhelmingly favors Democrats) Wall Street favored Obama and the Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1 during the 2008 elections. Goldman Sachs has been giving four times more to Democrats than Republicans since 2006, according to Jonah Goldberg of The National Review. Now we’re hearing a lot about how well Goldman Sacs has been doing.

       Of course, in today’s populist politics, the only thing worse than being the candidate of the wealthy is being the candidate of the super-wealthy. This truism is obscured by the perpetual lie, backed by the media, that it is the

Republicans who are at the command of the richest Americans. They fool the poorest Americans into supporting them when it is the worst thing the underclass should do. The Democrats represent the very rich and the very poor . . . those needing or wanting the benefits procured by a big, active, high-taxing government, and those who can pay those high taxes without even noticing (or find creative ways to prevent them from biting). They are also rich, powerful and connected enough to influence government policy in their favor, and often stand to benefit from government regulation that serves to stifle competition.

    

  It is the Democrats who are the party of the rich.  They are also the party of the poor.  Republicans are the party of the middle. Republicans are the party of the working and middle class, small business and of all those who have aspirations to prosperity. They are the only ones who are serious about protecting what used to be universally known and embraced as "the American Dream.  As Mitt Romney said, "We are the party of those who want to get rich." Under this Democratic administration, just since 2008, the number of people who call themselves middle class has plunged from 53% to 44%, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. Yes, there are rich Republicans but the Corporate Socialism that has taken over the Democratic party has only partially infected the Republicans. Any chance to return to the days of Constitutional Law rides with the remnants of that party. We want lower taxes for everyone’s prosperity and freedom.  The Tea Party makes this clear; the establishment does not.  So enough of this about Democrats being the party of the little guy. Voters need to stop listening to the lies and accept the truth.

Communists March in America

by

       George Sontag

      Protesters  have suddenly popped-up simultaneously around the country in city after city to protest against perceived police brutality or have they? A closer look at exactly who is leading these protests reveals a much more ominous reality. These demonstrations have been planned for a long time just waiting for the spark to set them in motion. With the acquiesce of the Leftist media, very little of the "who" has been reported but it is no secret. Within forty-eight hours of the shooting of Michael Brown, buss loads of demonstrators, waving the banner of the Democratic Socialist party, drove into town. They were soon followed by the representatives of the Communist Party of the United States.

     Based in New York City, with it's openly Socialist mayor, the website is full of "the white man is the enemy' mentality that currently is their driving theme for the protesters. The Leftists interpretation of the American revolution is stated as " this country's occupying white patriarchal settler-colonialist independence from British rule." Throughout their publications they make it quite clear that their agenda is fully behind the oppressed people of color in the United States. They have played on liberal white guilt by stating that in the "struggle" to combat racism "...white workers have a particular responsibility in combating it." The bringing down of our Republic is justified by stating that ".... the struggle of people of color in the U.S. is one of "We hold up the fight for national liberation of every single oppressed nation within the U.S." They continue, "Communists of color, which is of belonging to oppressed nations, shouldn't be patriotic for the U.S."

      The media has failed to report that most of the organizers behind these marches are radical groups such as Rev Com, the Revolutionary Communist party, as well as Occupy and Answer Coalition. The Democratic Socialist multi-millionaires, who control the U.S. press, is fully behind this agenda. They make it seem to the

average American that this is a national uprising that has wide-spread popular support however the truth is that most of these groups have very small numbers that travel from city to city to make it appear like there are more. They are supported by leftist labor unions such as the UAW.   In case you make any mistake as to their ideology, the protesters let you know their true purpose, launching into a well-practiced rousing chant of “A, Anti, Anti-capitalista!."

       This country's Communist educated president and his administration is directly responsible for the breakdown of law and order in the United States today. It is not incompetence nor is it obstructionism by the opposition, as his supporters would like you to believe, it is the agenda to 'fundementally change America." The protesters in New York yesterday walked through the Murray Hill area chanting for “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” Add to that is the unbelievable display of anti-Americanism that is the story that black leaders are forming "their own - all black grand jury" to decide what is "justice" outside the laws of the United States. With this scenario playing out across the nation what we may be witnessing is the beginning of the end of the old United States of America.

Attacks on the Constitution Continue

by

       M. Richard Maxson

     There was a time when American liberals cherished the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. It seems that has changed especially in regards to political speech.  Many Democrats have been hopping mad about the exercise of free political speech since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. That's the case President Obama criticized in front of several justices in his 2011 State of the Union address. Currently 43 Democratic senators are so-sponsoring the constitutional amendment introduced by New Mexico's Sen. Tom Udall to amend the First Amendment so that it no longer protects political speech. The Democrats assure us that, "Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press."

       Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that the House of Representatives has filed a lawsuit

against the Obama administration, over its failure to implement Obamacare based on the law passed by Congress. “Time after time, the president has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress,” Boehner said. “That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well,” he said. “The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action.”

      Many on the left may want to help "the people." But once you start from the premise that you know what is best for the people, better than they know themselves, you have to figure ways around a Constitution. This is what the current administration is doing with the Executive Order on Immigration. Using the, beyond corrupt so-called Justice Department to un-enforce the laws that elected officials are supposedly sworn to constitutionally uphold.

       Mankind tends toward evil. Therefore, power must be separated. James Madison understood this. He noted that since men are not angels, government is necessary. But men are not angels, and since government is run by men, we also need protection from the government (Federalist #51).  Belief in the sinfulness of man can be seen in the Constitution with its strict separation of powers. He echoed this sentiment in Federalist 10, where he suggested we might cure our partisan ills via an engaged electorate who diligently watch their leaders.

       Our Founders charged us, the public, with the responsibility to elect those representatives that will rightfully uphold our Constitution – and reject those who place their own power and parties over the good of the nation. Patriots still stand tall and remain vigilant to defend attacks on the Constitution even with the Socialist leaning media demonizing them at every turn. All acts that contradict or attempt to circumvent the foundations laid down by the Constitution should be investigated to the fullest, not to be ridiculed in public for political gain.

The "Nazification" of Ukraine

by

       Phillip Todd


"The US approach to Ukraine could be a fatal mistake." -  Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

     
      What we are witnessing in the Ukraine today is Russia's reaction to what is now know to be a CIA led coup.  The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists. History tells us that during the military occupation of Ukraine by Nazi Germany, a large number of Ukrainians chose to cooperate with the Nazis and during this Nazi occupation of the Soviet Union the collaborators of Ukraine became a vital part of Hitler's genocide against the Jews.There are a number of contemporary far-right Ukrainian political organizations who claim to be inheritors of these political traditions, including Svoboda, the Ukrainian National Assembly and the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. They have been put into all parts of the new government.

      The Obama administration has vehemently denied charges that Ukraine's new regime is stock full of neo-fascists despite clear evidence suggesting otherwise. Yet after simply Googling the terms "Ukraine" and "Neo-Nazi," the official position of the United States government along with the stance taken by many in the American media both now seem quite dubious, if not downright ridiculous, especially considering that one would be hard-pressed to contrive the lineup that now dominates Ukraine's ministry posts.

     For starters, Andriy Parubiy, the new secretary of Ukraine's security council, was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), otherwise known as Svoboda. And his deputy, Dmytro Yarosh, is the leader of a party called the Right Sector which, according to historian Timothy Stanley, "flies the old flag of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators at its rallies." The highest-ranking right-wing extremist is Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych, also a member of Svoboda.

      The Svoboda party has tapped into Nazi symbolism including the "wolf's angel" rune, which resembles a swastika and was worn by members of the Waffen-SS, a panzer division that was declared a criminal

organization at Nuremberg. A report from Tel-Aviv University describes the Svoboda party as "an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism."

      These 21st century Nazi's, now in key positions, are set to take complete control of Ukraine as soon as the puppet regime shows any weakness. They may not have long to wait. President Viktor Yanukovych has revoked the hero status of Bandera and Shukhevych, the fathers of these political party's and largely put an end to the state cult of the ultra-nationalists, in Western Ukraine, however, apologetics for the Waffen-SS Galizien is entering the mainstream.

Sold in Ukraine this holiday season

       On April 28, 2011, the 68th anniversary of the establishment of Waffen-SS Galizien, neo-fascist ‘autonomous nationalists,’ together with the far-right Svoboda Party, which dominates the L’viv city government organized a march through the city. Led by Svoboda ideologue Iurii Mykhal’chyshyn of the L’viv city council, the nearly 700 participants (2,000 according to the organizers), carrying banners with neo-Nazi symbols marched down the streets of L’viv, shouting slogans like ‘Halychyna—division of heroes!,’ and ’One race, one nation, one Fatherland!’7 Svoboda, which dominates the L’viv city council, decorated the city with billboards with the symbol of the unit, accompanied by the texts ‘the treasure of the nation’ and ‘they defended Ukraine."

     The Ukrainian military is as separated as the politics, with the President controlling some and "others"

controlling the rest. Who are these "others"?  They want to be described as “patriotic businessmen,” they say, and one of them, whom we’ll call Alexander, is a very, very rich patriotic businessman. They have been funding Ukrainian self-defense militias formed in response to what they see as the ineffectiveness of the Ukraine Armed Forces in the face of pro-Moscow separatists and Russian troops in the country’s southeast. Allegations of widespread abuses – including abductions, unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft, extortion, and possible mass executions at the hands of pro-Kiev Nazi militias – have been reported by several rights groups, including Amnesty International. Meanwhile they wait for their opportunity at power.

A Quick Case for the Supreme Court?

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      His Majesty, President Obama will announce in a prime-time TV speech tonight the executive actions he will take to change U.S. immigration law.  After repeatedly insisting that he could not bypass Congress and change immigration laws on his own, President Obama now believes he has found a way to do just that. He will make his announcement tonight and it is expected to temporarily protect roughly 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. He will do this by prosecutorial discretion. The same way that he is allowing medical marijuana to flourish in the face of federal law by not prosecuting.

      This will take the fear of arrest and deportation off the table for the millions of illegal aliens in this country, but is it constitutional? Could it be that a presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional?  The president does have the legal power to defer deportations. This is a power traditionally recognized as inherent in the presidency that enables him to defer or modify all federal law enforcement. The theory is that the president needs the ability to allocate resources as the changing times, emergent events and public needs may require. The check on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is that the action cannot be used by either improper executive motive or effective nullification of a law.

      In exploring this we must ask, if the president nullifies deportations on such a grand scale isn't the effect  the nullification of federal laws?  By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. It is our opinion that it does.

      It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them -- particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just. Some may agree with his motives but in doing so they are advocating Fascism.

      The reaction by some in Congress reflects the chilling reality of our times. "We are unfortunately witnessing a constitutional crisis. What President Obama's doing is he is defying the law, he's defying the Constitution. This is a moment of testing and I know that Congress will stand up and side with the people against the lawless president," stated one high ranking Senator. "The president can't do this. This goes against the fundamental separation of powers that we have in our country."

       The Constitution requires, if you want to change immigration law is the president has to work with Congress. The Framers of the Constitution required that every president swear to do his job “faithfully” to

serve as a reminder to him that his job requires fidelity to the enforcement of laws with which he may disagree. The American people, Congress, and the courts need to know we have a president who will enforce the laws, whether he agrees with them or not. Without presidential fidelity to the rule of law, we have a king, not a president.

       As a Constitutionalist, I know you understand the danger of the Liberal Socialist Progressive movement and its assault on America's Constitution and its underlying principles of liberty and limited government. We must defend this Constitution and we must defend the separation of powers. That is what this comes down to, our constitutional oaths when the president potentially violates his the House of Representatives should immediately pass a resolution saying that Obama's executive action is "contrary to the will" of the House. That would set up, I think, a very clear-cut case in the (Supreme) Court and once the executive action on immigration is found to be unconstitutional, Congress could issue a "resolution of disapproval that would stipulate the constitutional violations and the limitations of the powers of the president." Impeachment should not be on the table. He is only a symptom of America's problem.

WHO WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE USA?

by

       M. Richard Maxson

 
       I suspect George Washington was your first guess. After all, who else comes to 

mind?  George Washington definitely was not the first President of the United States.  

George Washington  was the first President of the United States under the 

Constitution we follow today. Think back to your history books - The United States 

declared its independence in 1776, yet George Washington did not take Office until

April 30, 1789, so who was running the country during these initial years of our 

young country? It was the eight, pre-constitution, U. S. Presidents. In fact, the 

first President of the United States was one John Hanson. I can hear you now - John who?

John Hanson, was the first President of the United States. John Hanson, first President

of the United States. Check Google for more detailed information. There was also a 

U.S. stamp made in his honor. 
   

      The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of 

The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776,

but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777.  Maryland refused to sign

this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was

afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new  government from such

large amounts of land). Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed

to run the country. John  Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included 

George Washington. In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against

him, as he was a major player in the revolution and an extremely influential                                                  

 member of Congress. 

      As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been

President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set

precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War

ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected 

after any long war, but there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, 

the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the 

throne as a monarch. All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson as 

the only guy left running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops down

and hold the country together. If he had failed, the government would have fallen 

almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington. 

     Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as 

the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite the feat, considering the fact 

that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days 

following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which 

all Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents. President

Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, 

and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth

Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.

The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one year term 

during any three year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such

little time. Seven other presidents were elected after him:  
   

     1. John Hanson 

     2. Elias Boudinot (1782-83), 

     3. Thomas Mifflin (1783-84), 

     4. Richard Henry Lee (1784-85), 

     5. John Hancock (1785-86), 

     6. Nathan Gorman (1786-87), 

     7. Arthur St. Clair (1787-88), and 

     8. Cyrus Griffin (1788-89),
   

....all prior to George Washington taking office.

      So what happened? Why don't we hear about the first eight presidents?  It's quite 

simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states 

had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be 

written - something we know as the Constitution.