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.


  

Are Our Elections Rigged?

by

        M. Richard Maxson

       More than two thirds of Americans surveyed in a recent Rasmussen poll say that they believe election rules are "rigged" 48 percent of likely voters believe that American elections are not fair to voters — the highest percentage since 2004. By contrast, 39 percent of voters say elections are fair. Of the likely voters surveyed, 14 percent say they’re not sure. Those are scary numbers. They say that most citizens do not believe that a core value of this nation, free and fair elections, does not exist. Are we allowed to vote only because it doesn't make a difference? No matter how we vote the elites will always get their way? What if the concept of one person/one vote was just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance?

       Most people don’t pay attention to the real news, and they never will. They will never search the world press for the truth. They’re busy, disinterested, low-information voters who form their opinions based on sound bites from the media, controlled by the Democratic Socialist Left, their friends, who have been fed the same pablum, or social media. They will never be aware of facts about our election process such as the fact that the votes are not even tabulated in the United States. They are tabulated in Spain by a company under contract with the US and this company has, for it's majority stockholder, George Soros! The old Communist, Joseph Stalin, was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes.

       The problem is that wealthy funders are holding the country hostage. What's needed is a team of legislators in Congress who will champion the public policies necessary to fix our broken government,

starting by ending the stranglehold of corporate money on our political system. Unfortunately that's not going to happen. Today, we have only one political party, the Government Party. It has a Democratic branch, walking and talking in unison, and it's Republican branch, where there are still a few holdouts. The party wants war and taxes and welfare and perpetual government growth, but offer only slightly different menus on how to achieve them. That's why the government remains the same no matter who wins elections and to retain their power the Government Party has enacted laws to make it impossible for meaningful political competition to survive.

      The former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams has said, “There is a growing toxic movement in some corners of the country that are perfectly willing to accept criminal acts in the election and furtherance of a broader progressive agenda. There is … this corrupt attitude that is beginning to gain total acceptance in some corners of government and academia, that accepts criminality in American elections.”

      The fraud of elections in the US starts at the top and works it's way down to the polling places themselves where accusations fly before, during, and after the "vote" and they are hurriedly dismissed and the accusers demonized in the press. To all of this talk about fraud, the George Soros funded Brennan Center at New York University, the Left’s election think tank, has a uniform answer: There are so few prosecuted cases of vote fraud out of millions of ballots cast that it makes no difference. Of course, "what difference dose it make," wait a minute, haven't we heard that phase before?

The US Elections are a Travesty

by

       Zeno Potas

      A massive study by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study reveals that hundreds of thousands of votes were cast illegally. Not a few, not a thousand, but hundreds of thousands! Most of these were "non-citizens," illegal in this country, lied, and registered to vote. How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Conservative estimates put that around two million votes.

      Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. An example of this is Sen. Al Franken (Dem/Soc.-Minn.) who won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin.  Previous studies presented serious evidence that Franken's margin in Minnesota was furnished by felons illegally voting; this new data suggests that ineligible non-citizens could have put him over the top. Elsewhere, a criminal investigation in Iowa turned up 80 cases of potential voter fraud. Many recent legislative races in Iowa were decided by fewer than 100 votes, including 10 decided by fewer than 50 votes. How important is that?  Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. This country's future was decided by "non-citizens."

       The fact that fully 80% of these illegal voters vote for Democrats gives the other party a huge incentive

to drive these people to the polls. Democrat-supporting voter registration groups don’t care if someone can legally vote or not. It has been proven that they target these voters for registration and studies show that non-citizens and convicted felons overwhelmingly support Democrats, but this is only part of the travesty that is now the American electoral process.

      Another Massive amounts of money, from outside the U.S. has been pouring into Democratic coffers for decades. They form Super PACs so that the money could be coming from anywhere. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from Communist China helped Bill Clinton win two terms. A foreign government can set up a shell company for that purpose alone and it could, and has, influenced the course of American politics.

       Accusations have been made and the media has been mostly silent on the subject of "rigged" electronic voting machines, unless the party and the media are trying to change an election result as attempted in 2000. Let us just look at the last weeks before this election.

•  October 22

  Calibration error’ changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois county

•  October 27
  Voting machines that switch Republican votes to Democrats being reported in Maryland.
  http://www.inquisitr.com/1567557/vote-flipping-shows-up-in-early-voting-in-illinois-and-maryland-2014-voter-fraud-looms/
   What if the United States isn't actually as democratic as it appears? What if the elections don't count, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if the vote counting that really counts takes place in secret? What if that's how we lost our republic? These and other questions are to be answered in the next American Constitutionalist.