This Imperial President

 by

           M. Richard Maxson
  
       These are dangerous times because this is a lawless presidency. The president's willingness to violate the "The Framers would have been appalled that you can have very clear violations of the Constitution, but literally no one can actually get a hearing to review them," according to Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and professor at George Washington University Law School.

Constitution and the deafening silence from Capitol Hill foreshadows the beginnings of the end of our Republic. We have the emergence of what is often called an imperial presidency, something that we have resisted for generations.

      The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It established the three branches of government, and it delegated "all legislative powers" to Congress. American law rarely uses the word "all." Yet the Framers chose that word precisely to confine law writing to Congress and to prevent a president from altering federal law by the selective manner of his enforcement of it and thereby effectively rewriting it.

      The same Framers sought to guard against the same evils by compelling the president to swear at the commencement of his terms in office that he will "faithfully" enforce the laws. The use of the word "faithfully," like the use of the word "all," is intended to assure voters that they can count on a president who will do the job they hired him to do by enforcing federal laws, not evading them, and by enforcing them as Congress has written them, not as the president might wish them to be. 

      Presidential law writing violates the presidential oath of office, steals power from Congress, disrespects an equal branch of the government and, when unchecked, accumulates such power in the executive branch that it effectively transforms the president into a menacing tyrant who rejects his constitutional obligations and limitations. The American political system is being corrupted by a White House that doesn’t feel bound by the rule of law. …the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day.

     The Obama Administration has also announced that it arbitrarily will be ignoring one of the requirements in the ACA law. The president has modified the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), as of this date, 29 times, by changing its various dates of effectiveness for some but not for others.  He has done all of this on his own, with no input from Congress. He has even threatened to veto any congressional effort to enact into law the very changes he alone has made. Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress. It is basic Constitutional law, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. (Note: see Fascism- Websters)

       Until the Truman administration, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what a president could or could not do through an executive order. The rules and limitations were provided by the Supreme Court  in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. The Supreme Court ruled that a president could not make law; the Supreme Court ruled that a president could only clarify or act to further an already existing law.

     There are 156 Members of the House of Representatives and 55 Senators in the U.S. Congress who are lawyers. Not a single one of them does not know that the President has over-reached and is acting in an unconstitutional manner. Not a single member does not know that the historical precedent being set by this president is dangerous to the Republic. They were recently reminded of this by Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley (see:  http://youtu.be/nqiIZOyNC4A ) The deafening silence from Capitol Hill and our so-called "free" media is a frightening sign that our form of government is changing rapidly right in front of our eyes.

How the Left is Accomplishing it's Goals

 by

        M. Richard Maxson

     The Left's vision of the world is the implicit assumption that high-minded third parties like themselves can make better decisions for other people than those people can make for themselves. They are the powerful elite believe that they have wisdom superior to the masses and that they've been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Why they would imagine that they know what is best for people who are far poorer than they are, and with far fewer options, is one of the many mysteries of our world. Such a practice differs only in degree, but not kind, from slavery. 

      What are their core beliefs today and how do they promote their goals? 

• They start by  twisting the meaning of words such as liberal, compassion, justice and many others into their opposites with  doublespeak. In the US language has been appropriated in order to engineer a seismic shift in attitudes, concealed by a mind-bending reversal of the meaning of words. It is this hijacking of language and thought itself that has done so much to destroy any common understanding of the political ‘center ground’, the lethal confusion that has so unfortunately polarized political debate  that has precious little to do with reality.

•  They have hijacked the center-ground of politics. Left-wing ideology is now falsely said to constitute the moderate center-ground, while the true center-ground is now vilified as ‘the right’. Asserting that left-wing ideology is really ‘centrist’, the left has succeeded in presenting extremist, antisocial, and the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed. Their ideas are stated as unarguably good, and all dissent is promptly vilified as ‘extreme’

•   The onslaught of ‘political correctness’ – where concepts are turned into their polar opposite in order to give culprits a free pass if they belong to certain groups designated by the left as ‘victims’. They are thus deemed to be incapable of doing anything wrong, while groups designated as ‘oppressors’ can do no right.

• The use of the term "racist" to silence debate. An example of this is why do they afford next-to-no news coverage of Arab atrocities?  It's because there is a double standard. It is their belief that the Third World does not subscribe to the same ethical beliefs as the West about the value of human life. The West therefore was not entitled to judge any mass killings in the Third World by its own standards. For them that is racist. To the contrary, these views they have expressed amounted to pure racism. They are in effect saying that citizens of a Third World country are not entitled to the same assumptions of human rights, life, and liberty as those in the developed world.

 This twisted thinking is what now passes for ‘Progressive’ thinking in Britain and America. The Progressives actually abandon the oppressed of the world to their fate, bemoaning their plight while sanctimoniously condemning ‘the right’ for its heartlessness! American Progressives see people in a role much like that of sheep, and see themselves as their shepherds.  The Progressive vision  is not just a vision of the world, it is also a vision of themselves -- a very flattering vision of people trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create "social justice" and otherwise be on the side of God and the angels. This is an exalting vision that few are ready to give up. It is a chilling vision for those of us who value freedom and live in reality.

How to Destroy Democracy

 Guest Column
       
        by
            
            Phillip Todd

      America's president has torn his land into a thousand pieces. The propaganda media machine covers Obama's trail of blood and shows the president in a good way without a word of dissent. During his time in office there has been a boiling pot in America that began with the Tea Party in 2010 that took back the House of Representatives. The original Tea Party of 1773 protested the British government's high taxes on the American colonies. The modern Tea Party was formed when citizens began to realize that both of the major political parties were drifting away from what the country had been founded upon, the Constitution, but their success was short lived by Obama's illegal interference. It was proven that Obama's regime openly went after Tea Party leaders and other members with the IRS whose power it is to impose higher taxes and force audits upon them. Now things began to be clear as to why the conservative movement seemed powerless.

     America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian. In addition, these American Christian conservatives feel their voice ignored by the 2 major political powers in America: the Democrats and the Republicans. And though America's elite may be found at the epicenter of anti-conservatism and anti-traditionalism, the American people have never been more alienated or more divided culturally, socially and morally. They feel betrayed and helpless in a land turned upside down and conforming to the beat of Democratic Socialism. We are two countries now.

     Slowly they began to notice President Vladimir Putin's actions and deemed him worthy of admiration and respect by all conservatives. While much of American and Western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback, Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War mentality. Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically. The "destruction of traditional values" in these countries, he said, comes "from the top" and is "inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people." Peoples all over the world, claims Putin, are supporting Russia's "defense of traditional values" against a "so-called tolerance" that is "genderless and infertile." While his stance as a defender of traditional values has drawn the mockery of Western media and cultural elites, Putin is not wrong in saying that he can speak for much of mankind.

       "There are more and more people in the world who support our position on defending traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilization in every nation for thousands of years: the values of traditional families, real human life, including religious life, not just material existence but also spirituality, the values of humanism and global diversity."

      Hinting at the U.S., Putin said that today, "many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures." "Society is now required not only to recognize everyone's right to the freedom of consciousness, political views and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning," Putin said. He said such "destruction of traditional values from above" produces problems for society and essentially is "anti-democratic."

      As the world's attention turns to Russia this February what you will hear from the controlled western press is the ridiculous assumption that Russia has made homosexuality illegal. THAT IS AN OUT RIGHT LIE! The widely-criticized law bans propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among the minors. However, Maksakova pointed out, no one hears that it is only aimed at protecting children, “everyone reads only the first line” of the law and is not interested in “what exactly we meant.”

      Putin and other politicians have defended the June propaganda law as a protection of child rights, but critics believe (mistakenly) that the law discriminates against sexual minorities. The law specifically refers only to "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations." "We aren't banning anything, we aren't rounding up anyone, we have no criminal punishment for such relations unlike many other countries," he said. "One can feel relaxed and at ease, but please leave the children in peace." "We have no ban on nontraditional sexual relations. We have a ban on propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia, I want to underline that, on propaganda among minors," he said.

      What exactly does this mean? It means no parades or demonstrations of  a sexual nature with the intent of glorifying or justifying a minority life-style. No "in your face, like it or else" taunting and definitely not in front of minors. They believe that elevating the minority above the majority destroys democracy and leads to Socialist Communism and you know what?......they're right!

     

The Next President Has Already Been Chosen

by                  

       George Sontag


     The wait is over. The decision has been made. The next president of these Democratic Socialist States of America has been anointed by the elitists who control this country from outside the former USA. ‘Some of the biggest names and deepest pockets of the Clinton and Obama eras are involved in various digital efforts, including billionaire financier George Soros, Clinton insider Harold Ickes, Google's Eric Schmidt and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. ... The super PAC intends to deploy the new database as early as January to mobilize supporters.


Soros donates big bucks, joins Ready for Hillary national finance council


      Billionaire investor and hedge fund titan George Soros is backing an effort to lure Hillary Clinton into a 2016 White House bid. Soros signed on to be a co-chair for Ready for Hillary, a super PAC trying to trump up support for a presidential run by Clinton. “We are proud to welcome George Soros as one of the co-chairs of @ReadyForHillary’s national finance council,” the organization tweeted Thursday afternoon. Soros’ political director, Michael Vachon, said in a statement that the 83-year-old is “delighted to join more than 1 million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary.” Soros, a longtime Socialist, donated $1 million to Priorities USA, the former pro-President Obama super PAC that was responsible for launching multiple negative attacks against Republican challenger Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential election.


      Hillary's only problem is that she is not as far to the Left as the Democratic Socialists want. That is why they are touting Socialist Elizabeth Warren to run against her in the primaries. The Clintons want all the Liberal Socialist money people, who are keen on her, to think twice. By having her husband swear in New York City's Socialist Mayor she is trying to convince them that she can be their champion. The new mayor of New York is far more liberal than Bill Clinton, so it’s a surprise(?) the former president would swear in the progressive idol. Until you consider 2016.


      Bill Clinton thinks that De Blasio-style left-leaning Progressivism represents the real Democratic Party. So the bigger question is what positions will Hillary Clinton take that will move her a bit to the left? Inside the liberal activist world, there’s already a Hillary-centric debate going on about this: Should we just make our peace with her because she seems inevitable and we want a woman president and so on, or should we declare our allegiance to candidates like Bernie Sanders-D, the self proclaimed Democratic Socialist? By doing that early, the powers that are feel they can push her a little more towards their Democratic Socialist agenda.
  
      Next there is a need to change the legacy at the State Department.  The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The bipartisan report placed significant blame on the Obama administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton’s State Department, but the media-engineered rehabilitation of Clinton has already begun. A recent seven-thousand-word piece in the New York Times whitewashed Clinton’s role in the 2012 Benghazi scandal. The piece dismissed strong evidence that the administration failed to respond to repeated warnings and appeals for more security at the U.S. consulate. Hillary’s press office itself couldn’t have mounted a better defense of her botched handling of the attack.

      Clinton's press office won't have much difficulty in getting her message out.  A study by UCLA politics professor Tim Groseclose disclosed how different media outlets report political news. He found that “every mainstream national news outlet in the United States has a liberal bias,” and calculated that media bias helps Democratic candidates by as much as ten percentage points in a typical election.

      While we debate about voter fraud, whether an ID is required or how many times a Democrat is allowed to vote, let us not forget that the news media today is controlled by four major corporations. These entities long ago came to the conclusion that the profit now lies in Capitalistic Socialism. This is the direction of our country. This is why, we believe barring any major developments, that the next POTUS has already been ordained.