Can the American Citizens Return to the Constitution?

by

       George Sontag

      The great American experiment is staggering toward the brink of extinction from history. Rotting from the massive influence of the global elite who now control all media in the U.S. and most of Europe just as Joseph Goebbels did in 1930’s Germany as his was the model for the modern day propaganda machines. His everlasting quote is now the elitist mantra, “A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.” The truth is out there but will the elite allow it to come out and if so, how much of it will they allow?

      The Attorney General William Barr appears to be bringing back the rule of law and a sense sanity after eight years of the Obama administrations Department of (IN)Justice constantly violating the very Constitution itself. This may be a last gasp for America as we and our ancestors have known it. President Trump is not only fighting the Leftist wave, that fifty years ago would have been considered treasonous, but also the elitists on the right that reside in the party he was elected under.

      We, at The American Constitutionalist, try not to side with any one politician or party. We only want to speak to matters involving the Constitution. This president is a different breed. He is despised by the elite of both parties, not only because he is not a politician, but because he has disrupted their plans, and most importantly, he has interrupted and diverted the Washington money train. The fact is that five of six of the richest counties in the United States border Washington D.C. and that’s not a coincidence.

      For America to survive the citizens MUST take a more active role in government. It must be based on research outside the current propaganda sphere using critical analytical thinking, not five second soundbites. We purpose the following;

A Rebirth of Constitutional Government

• The American government is to operate with the consent of the governed, not the politicians and their elitist bankrollers.
• The Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. Changing the core values, as the Democrat Socialists want, WILL destroy the America we know.
• We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law – as it is written. The current trend, excelerated by the previous administration, of ignoring the parts that don’t jive with the Leftist views then hiding behind their own interpretation of the Constitution is not only disgusting, it is dangerous.
• The legitimate powers of government are rooted in the consent of the American people, not what the elitist’s puppets in Washington want things to be.

       Patriots, from the Founding Fathers to today have warned repeatedly of the dangers of all the populace not being involved in the affairs of their country.

      "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

                                                                                                             - Samuel Adams

      "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

                                                                                                            - James Madison

      "American creedal nationalism—the notion that we are bound not by blood, ethnicity, race, or religion, but by respect for a common set of beliefs as articulated in the founding documents. The American system of government functions properly only when embedded in a culture deeply committed to democracy; that culture sustains the Constitution, not the other way around."

                                                                                                            - Yoni Appelbaum

      "....there is a secret government that likes to control things and most people know what we talk about when we talk about the 'deep state.' And they do have a lot of clout, they are very much involved in the media and the leadership of both parties, so both parties and the media are very, very, annoyed with Trump [being so] independent."

                                                                                                                 - Ron Paul

      "Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms have accelerated public discourse to warp speed, creating virtual versions of the mob. Inflammatory posts based on passion travel farther and faster than arguments based on reason We are living, in short, in a Madisonian nightmare."

                                                                                                                   - Jeffrey Rosen

        It is time for Americans to get their heads up from their smartphones and televisions where fantasy and half truths, as Joseph Goebbels put it, are considered fact. The reality is the citizens need to find the real truth, not some news or entertainment personality’s opinion. The truth is hard. The truth is hidden. The truth must be pursued. The truth is hard to hear. The truth is rarely simple. The truth is rarely obvious. The truth doesn't take sides. The truth is not red or blue. The truth is necessary. The truth can't be glossed over. The truth has no agenda. The truth is hard to accept. The truth pulls no punches. The truth is worth defending. The truth requires taking a stand. The truth is more important now than ever.

Constitutional Crisis - Political Theater from the Democratic Party

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      Last week Attorney General Barr testified before Congress. He answered the questions with legal expertise as members of this partisan committee spewed their hatred for the administration and he suffered through hours their manipulative demagoguery which is not based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing, no, they still have only one purpose and that is to stir up fear and hatred to control people’s opinions to bring down this President. They want the full Mueller report - damn the law! They are issuing partisan subpoenas and they will get to the bottom of whatever fantasy they can to interfere with this administration’s agenda. It is what they have been doing since election day, but now the executive branch has now said - enough.

      Enough! The Attorney General has had enough of this political theater and so has the President. Now that the phony Russian hoax has been defused THIS Attorney General can now begin to investigate the REAL criminals behind what is really going on and the Leftist elite are starting to panic. The Democratic party is now screaming from the mountain tops – Constitutional Crisis!

 

      Oh my, we are going to have to look at the facts. Something most of these politicians would rather not do. The Constitution and the Rule of Law are a good place to start. First of all, there is no express provision in the Constitution giving Congress the power to investigate, issue subpoenas or question cabinet officials but it began to do so not long after the birth of the Republic. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in 1821, reasoning that without it, Congress “would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it.” The ruling gave Congress the right to imprison uncooperative witnesses for contempt, but for no longer than the duration of the Congress that passed the citation. Any charges or court case that dragged on past the expiration of the term of that Congress would be void.

     Until the middle of the 19^th century, Congress would enforce contempt citations itself, with the sergeants-at-arms taking guilty parties into custody. But the limitations of the 1821 court ruling led lawmakers to turn over the responsibility for prosecuting these citations to the executive branch. From 1857 on, a U.S. attorney was asked to certify contempt citations and bring them before a federal judge.

      A number of obstacles face this partisan committee in any attempt to enforce a subpoena issued against an executive branch official. Although the courts have reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas, efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance with a subpoena through criminal contempt will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances. Where the official refuses to disclose information pursuant to the President’s decision that such information is protected under executive privilege, past practice suggests that the Department of Justice will not pursue a prosecution for criminal contempt. (See; Eric Holder/Obama)

     The committee has three options. The committee could refer it to the U.S. attorney for criminal prosecution of contempt. Congress would normally need the Justice Department's help to pursue any of those options, how would that work out in this particular case when the guy that they're trying to hold in contempt runs the Justice Department? If the committee voted a contempt resolution and the U.S. Attorney concluded prosecution was not appropriate, the prosecutor could present the case to the grand jury — but urge them not to indict. If the grand jury voted to indict anyway, the prosecutor could refuse to sign the indictment, rendering it invalid. And even if the case were indicted, the prosecutor could move to dismiss it. The idea that Congress could remove discretion from the hands of the prosecutor and essentially mandate an indictment and prosecution makes little sense, either practically or constitutionally. Congress is free to send its contempt citations to the Executive, but has no real recourse if the U.S. Attorney decides that prosecution is not appropriate. At least when it comes to disputes with senior Executive branch officials, for Congress to hold a witness in contempt under Section 192 is usually more an act of politics than a serious attempt to result in criminal charges.

      They could use another process called inherent contempt where they use the sergeant of arms to literally go out and arrest the attorney general and put him in the House jail, (there is not really a jail) which is a very unlikely option. Congress has successfully used the courts to imprison people for contempt. But its power to compel government officials is limited. . As one committee member stated, “They have a lot of guns over at Justice.”

      The more likely option is that the House would direct counsel to go to court and try to enforce the subpoena civilly. However, relying on this mechanism to enforce a subpoena directed at an executive official may prove an inadequate means of protecting congressional prerogatives due to the time required to achieve a final, enforceable ruling in the case. In a 2017 study of the contempt power, legislative attorney Todd Garvey of the Congressional Research Service wrote, "Efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance with a subpoena will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances." Suing government officials in civil court may also prove inadequate "due to the time required to achieve a final, enforceable ruling in the case," he said. Although subject to practical limitations, Congress retains the ability to exercise its own constitutionally based authorities to enforce a subpoena through inherent contempt.

      The framers provided no remedy for a struggle between Congress and the president over congressional subpoenas — because they didn’t specify either the right of investigation or executive privilege in the document. In this conflict between constitutional powers, there’s no express constitutional answer. The upshot is that you can expect stalemate. Congress can keep harassing and embarrassing the president. The president can keep resisting. Ultimately the check on both branches is public opinion — in the form of the voters who will go to the polls in 2020 and perhaps resolve the conflict by picking a winner. The truth is, when it comes to the contempt statute there’s little Congress can do to enforce it if the Executive branch declines to prosecute. Votes to hold Executive branch officials in contempt have become largely about political theater rather than actual criminal prosecutions.

      The Constitution’s system of checks and balances sets the various branches against each other for the laudable purpose of constraining tyranny. However, due to partisan polarization, individual corruption, or any number of other reasons, sometimes the political institutions in these arrangements fail, sending the governmental system into a crisis. This “crisis” is completely manufactured by the Democratic party and their elite bankrollers as a continuing effort to obstruct this president and keep the real truth from the American people.

The Electoral College is Vital to the Nation

by

       M.Richard Maxson

     At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the framers established a federal government with sufficient power to ensure ordered liberty, but with a host of limitations on its power. Since history had proven that democracies all eventually failed they decided on a republican form for this new nation. Power was divided between the federal government and the states, and federal power was divided among three branches that would each check encroachments by the others. They set up a bicameral legislature, one for the populace and one for the states as individual entities. To further diffuse federal power and eventually drafted a Bill of Rights to expressly guarantee civil liberties against government intrusion.

  

      Later in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress, but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election. Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate. This would alleviate the fears if the president were chosen by a small group of men or factions, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by the Congress.

      This was monumental because once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates, including James Madison, openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, and faction. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.

      The framers understood that direct democracies cannot effectively protect personal rights and have always been characterized by conflict. One of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man and we must deal with their effects and accept their existence. The government created by the Constitution controls the damage caused by such factions.

       The framers established a representative form of government, a government in which the many elect the few who govern. Democracies cannot possibly control factious conflicts. This is because the strongest and largest faction dominates, and there is no way to protect weak factions against the actions of an obnoxious individual or a strong majority. Democratic forms of government are also vulnerable to mass prejudice, the so-called tyranny of the majority and the deadly power of their opinion.

      “The Electoral College is a very carefully considered structure the Framers of the Constitution set up to balance the competing interests of large and small states,” writes Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. “It prevents candidates from wining an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers, the large coastal cities, while ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country — the places that progressives and media elites consider flyover country.” Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations and ignore everyone else. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations? The people in “flyover country” don’t get enough attention as it is, but without the Electoral College, they’d be completely at the mercy of the majority.

 

      The Founders of this nation understood that democracy was important, but if you didn't filter it through a republican system you would eventually end up with a tyranny of the majority. The Founders recognized that the nation needed some procedural safeguards to protect its longer term interests from its short-term heated arguments of the day. Calls for removal of the Electoral College by those who the college was set up to protect us from should be demonized as it would be the beginning of the end of this great republic.  Perhaps such self-discipline accounts for the fact that ours is still the oldest active constitution in the world.It is the work of combined genius.

One Country - Two Constitutions?

by

        M. Richard Maxson

       At the end of the 19^th century, with the rise of the industry, the elite began to theorize in the political and social ideas of the time. They debated the allure of Socialism, which has its origins in the 1789 French Revolution, then with the publishing of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels in 1848 expressing what they termed "scientific socialism." There was even more debate of the pros and cons and comparisons to our Constitution. In the last third of the 19th century, when social democratic parties arose in Europe, drawing mainly from Marxism there were those in this country who wanted “change.”

       Before his election to the presidency in 1912 Woodrow

Wilson was a believer in these leftist views of government. As a young scholar he had contemplated a series of constitutional amendments to reform America's national government into a kind of parliamentary system. This went completely against the what Americans had fought so hard to endure in our civil war. He quickly realized that is planned to amend the constitution was going nowhere.

     He then went in a slightly different direction to “change America”. He created the idea of a “living constitution”. This “new” constitution, with it’s roots in the leftist political and social science of the late 19th century was born. Wilson believe the old constitution was just that old. It was difficult to amend. The liberal constitution would be easily amendable to experimentation and adjustment. While keeping the outward forms of the old constitution the idea of living constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the original constitution was understood. This goal of a “new” constitution has been at the very forefront of progressive politics for over 100 years.

      What is the difference in the Progressives approach to our country? There are normal politics and there are regime politics. Normal politics takes place within a political and constitutional order and concerns the means not the ends. Regime politics is about who rules and for what ends or principles. It questions the nature of the political system itself. Who gets the rights? Who gets to vote? What do we honor or revere as a people? With regime politics, all traditions are out the window. Nothing matters except from now... onward.

      This was the beginning of America slowly evolving into two peoples. The patriotic conservative vision of America is based on the original constitution. This is the Constitution grounded in natural rights of the Declaration of Independence. It has been transmitted to us with amendments and is still considered the original constitution. Those who favor this are know as “originalists.”

      The other vision is based on what Progressives and liberals for 100 years have now called the living constitution. They believe that the original constitution is dead, or at least on life support, and in order to remain relevant to our natural life, the original constitution must be infused with new meanings and new ends and therefore with new duties, rights, and powers. An example - new administrative agencies must be created to circumvent the structural limitations that the original constitution imposed on government. Rather than the people deciding through constitutional amendments, these new agencies would swiftly make the changes those in power deem necessary without debate.

      There's also a vast divergence between liberal and conservative understandings of the first amendment. Liberals are interested in transforming free speech into what they call equal speech ensuring that no one gets more than their fair share. The Democratic party's platform calls for amending the first amendment. There's also a big difference between the liberal constitutions freedom from religion and the conservative constitutions freedom of religion. In a living constitution there is no second amendment.

      Until the 1960s most liberals and progressives believed it was inevitable that their living constitution would replace the conservative constitution through a kind of slow motion evolution. But during the sixties defenders of the old constitution began to fight back and began to call for return to America's first principles. The conservative campaign against the inevitability of the living constitution gained steam and when it became clear to the left by the 1970s and 1980s that the conservatives and their constitution were not going away, the war was on.

      Confronted by the growing popularity of the conservative constitution and American originalist patriotism, the left radicalized. As a result the gap between the left the living constitution and the conservative original constitution became a gulf. We became two countries. Each constitutionally different. With this, America may be leaving the world of normal politics and entering the dangerous world of regime politics, a politics in which our political loyalties diverge more and more into separate camps, much as they did before the Civil War.

      How do we get back to thinking like one country? How can America's political civil war be resolved. According to Charles Kesler, professor of government and political philosophy, “One can think of only five possibilities. The first if some jarring event intervenes, a major war or huge natural calamity, it may reset our politics. A second possibility is that we can change our minds. Persuasion are some combination of persuasion and moderation may allow us to end or at least endure our great political division.”

      Since 1968 the normal has been a divided government. For the last 50 years no president has persuaded the American electorate to embrace his party as the national representative, of their vision of the constitution as the norm, worthy of long-term patriotic allegiance.

      “The third solution to our national problem would be a vastly reinvigorated federalism. A return to our roots. Unfortunately, since in the previous century we have abandoned so much of traditional federalism, it is hard to see a federalism could be revived at this late juncture,” Kesler lamented.

       “The forth possibility is secession, a danger to any Federal System and something about which James Madison wrote at great length and the federalist papers. With any Federal System there's a possibility that some states will try to leave it. Secession would be extremely difficult for many reasons. Not the least is that it could lead to the fifth and possible worst possibility, civil war.”

      The American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis. A crisis of two constitutions. Let us hope that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios. Our citizens, our founders, and our history, our country as we have known it, depends on it.

A Historian Puts the Trump Presidency in Prospective

By

       M. Richard Maxson

      Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow in military history at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and professor emeritus of classics at California State University, Fresno. The author of more than two dozen well-received books. His insight into politics and the forces behind the politicians which are the actual rulers of America are crystal clear.

• On the election of Donald Trump:

      “Trump was greeted by the Washington media and intellectual establishment as if he were the first beast in the book of Revelation, who arose “out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. Never before in the history of the presidency,” Hanson writes, “had a commander in chief earned the antipathy of the vast majority of the media, much of the career establishments of both political parties, the majority of the holders of the nation’s accumulated personal wealth, and the permanent federal bureaucracy. The deep state and media despised him “because they were often one and the same thing.”

      “Besides the Washington press and pundit corps, Donald Trump faced this third and more formidable opponent: the culture of permanent and senior employees of the federal and state governments, and the political appointees in Washington who revolve in and out from business, think tanks, lobbying firms, universities, and the media. Or as the legal scholar of the administrative state Philip Hamburger put it: “Although the United States remains a republic, administrative power creates within it a very different sort of government. The result is a state within the state — an administrative state within the Constitution’s United States.” The power of the deep state is twofold: it has the unlimited resources of government at its call in any fight against individuals. And it knew how government worked and could be manipulated.”

• On why the Deep State hates Donald Trump:

      He is a disrupter - “Trump was not so much critical as ignorant of the deep state’s rules and its supposed sterling record of stable governance. Trump proved willing to fire lifelong public servants. He ignored sober and judicious advice from Washington “wise men.” He appointed “crazy” outsiders (rather than the same old faces) skeptical of establishment institutions. Because Trump ran against Democrats, the Republican establishment, and the deep state, in victory he had few Washington insiders left to pick from. He purged high government of its progressive activists. And he embraced deep-state heresies and blasphemies such as considering tariffs, questioning NATO, doubting the efficacy of NAFTA, whining about federal judges, and jawboning interest rates. And he also left vacant key offices on the theory that one less deep-state voice was one less critic, and one less obstacle to undoing the Obama record.”

• On why the Washington elite despise him:

      “Trump doesn't have the credentials. The last few presidents have come from Harvard or Yale Law schools or their business schools and if Trump succeeds without that resume and it's a commentary on the people who failed to win it. That's one thing he doesn't need them he doesn't consult them are all your he doesn't call and a wise man of Washington or New York or Ex- presidents. He just barrels ahead.”

• On why members of his own party despise him:

      “The Republicans especially and never Trump people say this cannot happen because we have not been advising or him. He's not listening to our commentary on television, or whatever. We are not going into the oval office he's not reading our Op-Eds. It's a frightening thing on his success because it's a referendum on the status quo.”

• On his chances for re-election:

      “First, to be reelected he must pound on the economics, the economics, the economics. and he's going to have to put it more on a moral terms that what ever you think of his commentaries, his presidency has changed the lives of millions of Americans who have jobs and higher wages.”

    “Second, he has to emphasize that this is not the Democratic party that we have known through the years. This is a party of infanticide, reparations, sanctuary cities, a 16 year old vote, and Socialism. The fact that only Trump is the only one standing between you and a socialist agenda and that's going to be a powerful argument.”

      “At the end of two years, this base of support for Trump remains solid. This is in part, Hanson notes, due to Trump’s recognition that “the America ‘era’ was not ending, but at that time enjoying the strongest GDP growth, job reports, energy production, business and consumer confidence, and foreign policy successes in fifteen years. The latest figures show that this administration’s economic policies have resulted in the highest number of job openings ever recorded in the United States, with more women and minorities employed than ever before.”

      Henry Kissinger, quoted by Hanson, best sums up what Donald Trump may come to represent: “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretense.” We can only hope that he is right. While Washington’s political theater continues, the country waits, and waits, and waits for elected Congressional officials to do their jobs - the business of the country.

The Conspiracy Continues

by

       Zeno Potas

"Over the course of the last two years, I have communicated with current and former government employees who told me that a number of operatives at various three-letter agencies have been actively working to undermine first the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and then his presidency. Most of them are Obama appointees. All of them doing so for political reasons." - Robert Barr


      It is now a known fact that President Trump’s campaign was spied on by the previous administration. While not running for re-election, the fact remains that the Obama administration and the Democratic party decided to spy on the presidential campaign of the opposing party. President Obama and others may need to be subpoenaed to answer questions throughout the course of this investigation on what now appears to be his personal involvement in this treasonous plot. All of this happened when he was in office and none of it could have proceeded without him knowing. It’s serious. It’s not fake news. 
 
      It was well documented between the election and the inauguration, Mr. Obama, many in his party, and other co-conspirators did everything in their power to, not only to tamper with the constitutional transition of government, but to set up obstacles and “land mines” to insure the failure of the incoming administration. They even bragged about it as they did it! The objective was to cause the incoming president to fail and/or be removed from office. The extent of the conspiracy is massive and the whole truth may never be known as the elite responsible, the shadow government, has so much control over the minds of the masses that they can actually convince a large chunk of the citizenry that blue is red, i.e., falsities are facts.

      The Russia collusion investigation was the vehicle and they seemingly had that locked down. The plot was made international with the Steele dossier and the accusations were broadcast 24/7 from the shadow government’s outlets. (“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” - Lenin) The problem is, that it was a lie, a sophisticated one, but a lie. 
 
      Then there was WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks released Podesta’s emails, which were hacked six months earlier. Enter the Deep State. Our intelligence community told us, Russia was in effect running a campaign to help Trump and WikiLeaks was being used as a Russian front. Additionally, leaked transcripts attempting to show that WikiLeaks was actively trying to boost Trump’s campaign and tank Hillary Clinton’s. Again, Americans were fed a meal of lies – false truths if you will. It WAS Russia.

     The name of the spy the FBI used to gather information on the Trump team during the 2016 election is Stefan Halper, a CIA operative that’s been named as the source, and his past activities, including the reported actions he took in 2016 to supposedly gather intelligence from the Trump team. Spying on a political campaign, in this country, by a government agency should run shivers down the spine of any American. It rips at the fabric of a free society.

       Fortunately, the elite underestimated the intelligence of some Americans – again. They still believe the fact that 87.3% of the world population will believe any oddly specific statistic you give them. They ignored the other 12.7% that are still using critical analytical thinking to make an informed decision. Patriotic Americans found the truth. Enter the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise and with this expertise came the “Russia-did-the-hacking to assist Trump assessment,” a study of the available forensic evidence. The VIPS’ analysis of the known download speed of one batch of Democratic emails concluded in July that the emails were likely extracted by a local download, not an external hack over the Internet, i.e., an inside job by someone with direct access to the computers. But the VIPS findings were largely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media, which has treated the original “assessment” by those “hand-picked” analysts as unchallengeable!!! 


      The release of the AG’s special prosecutor’s report did nothing to stop the shadow government’s minions such as Adam Schiff, who in response to the Mueller Report finding no evidence of Russian collusion, and a request from all Republicans to step down as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, simply continues to investigate links between Russia and Trump.


      The arrest to silence WikiLeaks Julian Assange at this time is not a coincidence. We seeing signs that the Deep State is in desperation mode, with few options left in trying to prevent their long-standing crimes from being revealed and prosecuted. This ruling class of elites employs the services of people in various spheres of human activity, including politics, banking, industry, science, military, intelligence, education, judiciary and media. With their virtually limitless wealth, power, and knowledge, they control key players through bribes, threats, and blackmail. If the past is any reference, prosecution will never happen.

Obstructionism Derailed

By

       M. Richard Maxson

"I have a concern that we're in this mad cycle of mutually assured destruction, and if our attitude is we're not going to do anything — even if it's meritorious because it might redound to the benefit of this president — I think that we are only going to increase the level of already very significant cynicism people have about whether the system can work. If that happens, it's actually Democrats who will suffer the most" 

                                            - David Axelrod, Barack Obama's longtime political strategist

       Democrats, enraged by the 2016 election, have sought to obstruct and delay the functioning of the American government by leaving key presidential appointment vacant. For the first time in memory, the minority party in the Senate has exploited procedure to systematically obstruct the president from staffing up his administration and it has gone on for over two years! Top Democrats have admitted that their obstructionism is political at its core. We aren’t talking about limited opposition to a few high-profile nominees or unusual circumstances. It’s mindless, undiscriminating, almost endless obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Even uncontroversial lower-level nominees whom literally no senators oppose are not spared and when they do come up for a vote, as the Democrats usually vote FOR the nominee.

       Here is what is happening: Democrats are requiring that Republicans check all the procedural boxes on most nominees, even those they intend to eventually support. That requires the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, to request a formal “cloture” vote to move forward. An “intervening day” is then required to allow the cloture request to “ripen.” Next is a vote to impose cloture followed by 30 hours of “post-cloture” debate before a final vote. Democrats have refused to shorten the debate time — to “yield back,” in the parlance of the Senate — though in most cases there is little to debate. In the end, many Democrats end up voting for the nominee.

       The Senate, under the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations combined only had to hold 24 total cloture votes on nominations. That’s the once-rare procedural step that unlocks an up-or-down confirmation vote even though a minority has sought to block it. In President Trump’s first two years the Senate had to hold a stunning 128 cloture votes to advance nominations. The Senate proposal would only reduce the time a minority can keep delaying lower-tier nominations after a majority has invoked cloture.

       This new, across-the-board obstruction is anti-American and unfair to the American people who expect a functioning government. With the exception of the acrimonious Civil War era, the Senate has always deferred overwhelmingly to presidents who need to staff the executive branch. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have been extremely hesitant to change Senate rules and traditions, but they finally had enough. So after more than two years of putting up with the Democratic obstruction or resistance or whatever other Leftist catchphrase they want to call it, Senate Republicans finally voted to curtail abuse of Senate prerogatives and restore the principle that most presidential appointees can be confirmed with a simple majority vote. In other words, most people nominated by the president for government positions will now actually get a fair up-or-down vote, just as the framers of the Constitution envisioned.

      In most previous administrations, the Senate has confirmed almost all political and judicial nominees. The Senate’s confirmation power was intended to stop only those who were patently unqualified. Obviously the ones nominated were qualified as the Democrats eventually vote for them so their obstruction is completely political. This is a fundamental and unpatriotic break with the past. It also puts Americans in danger.

      Crucial jobs are still being held empty out of political spite. Here are just a few examples of what the Democrats abhorrent behavior has not done:

• It’s been 354 days and counting for the president’s nominee to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

• There is still no assistant secretary of state for East Asia, despite the critical need to coordinate our foreign policy toward a threatening China.

• Two-hundred eighty-seven days and counting for the under secretary of state for management.

• There is still no confirmed president of the Export-Import Bank, which makes loans crucial to finance big-ticket U.S. exports such as airplanes.

• There is still no undersecretary of state for economic growth, despite massive change in the way we trade with the world.

• It took six months of partisan delays and several railroad accidents before Democrats let the Senate confirm a federal railroad administrator, even though none of them actually voted against the nominee in the end.

• Noncontroversial lower court nominees have languished for months for no discernible reason before they, too, were confirmed unanimously.

      These are just a few examples of the historic obstruction by Senate Democrats but without missing a beat, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tried the old Communist tactic of shifting the blame when the facts are plain to see by stating that it was a “sad day in the Senate’s history,” adding that he was sorry “that my Republican colleagues have gone along with Sen. McConnell’s debasement of the Senate.”

      Americans know hypocrisy when they see it. This is a classic case of "projection," where one takes their own conduct and accuses someone else of engaging in it. This shows something Constitutionalists have long known: For Democrats, forwarding their Leftist agenda and destroying the other party is more important than the prosperity of the nation. We disagree, because we know that partisan bickering is never worth cheating Americans out of policies that help them and their communities. Patriots want a strong prosperous country, not Progressive Socialism at all costs.