The Rise of Bolshevik America?

By 

       M. Richard Maxson

    Tell me where have you heard this in America's press? In his recent presidential directives President Obama has ordered that  doctors, and other health care providers be forced to ask questions regarding gun ownership of patients. What could possibly be the motive behind such an order? It reeks of the same system of informants the KGB used. If health care providers are required to ask invasive questions, other federal employees in different spheres certainly will be asked to.
    The KGB employed informants and quotas to counter anti-revolutionary measures. The American government is already preparing itself for revolution, with CDC concentration camps and the ability to create martial law, and removing constitutional laws enabling the American people to change their form of government if they so choose. This new network of required informants is yet another step in the direction of repressive regimes reminiscent of the former Soviet Union. How far is America from asking students about their parents activities at home?
   The news media in America has been almost completely taken over by people who share Communist/Socialist ideals. Everything in my lifetime has turned 180 degrees. First you  have to understand propaganda comes in two forms- political and cultural. There are those in the news media that have an agenda - they want to see a certain world-view. The entertainment media are more powerful than the political media today.  The political propaganda comes from the news media. 

 Look at some of the comments from Americans in Russian newspapers:

•    "I must confess, the irony of history. I was born in 1958. I remember the Soviet Union, I remember reading the Gulag Archipelago. Oh how things have changed. Here we have people leaving the west for Russia. Just 30 years ago Russians fled to the US for freedom.  I used to read Pravda for laughs. I used to listen to Radio Moscow for kicks. Now I turn to Pravda for a voice of freedom. Well done Russia, well done, you have proven that freedom will never die." - Philip Rauschert · Wheaton College

•  USA television networks are all owned by 6 liberal  families who have Bolshevik sympathies so clueless uninformed USA voters voted in a Bolshevik who is wrecking USA. Even President Putin recently warned Obama he is following a failed Soviet strategy that led to an economic collapse. - John Richard Walsh

• I often wondered the same thing: who really owns America? That's right the media must be owned by someone who directs the thoughts and beliefs of clueless Americans who just eat it up thats how Obama got re-elected, by adoring sheeple who love their free stuff that he promises them! Where are they going with this?? They already are taking our guns away, freedom of religion is going next. I am afraid of what is coming next. The constituion is being ripped to shreds. Remember that a lot of Americans did not vote for BHO and are not buying his bull. - Joanne Albrecht

•   What is happening in America today is the beginning of what liberal democrats have planned since the 60's and earlier. They are much more patient in "transforming" america than we conseravtives are at restoring it. The republican establishment is on board with this transformation...only they are stealthier today about it. Our nation is being purposefully destroyed by a small group of people but they are supported by a large group or people. They will remake america into a socialist, marxist, communist state the likes of which has no been seen in human history. The answer to this problem does not lie in emailing, writing calling elected representatives or protesting and marching. The answer has been given to us by the founders. The answer has been shown to us by history. The answer...the ONLY answer is all out armed civil war. Like it or not! - Mark Greene

     There is also the cultural propaganda that comes from the entertainment media. The entertainment media ultimately are more powerful than the political media because so many more people watch it. You have those in the entertainment media who have an agenda- they want to see a certain world-view. Ask Michael Moore. He’s just the most blatant of them all, but just about everyone in Hollywood these days has an leftist agenda- they have a mission. If you expose' Constitutionalism, you may be out of work.

Warping the Constitution

 Guest Column

 

        by G. Sontag  
  
    What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat. The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

                                             
     That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.
    

     So how secure is any freedom when there is this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one man? 

    The checks and balances of the Constitution have been evaded time and time again by the Obama administration, undermining the fundamental right of the people to determine the laws that govern them, through their elected representatives. Let's look at the record so far under the current leadership of the Social- Democrats recently.
   

• What they have been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. 

•  For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. The government will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. is about power and a total power over the people…Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology.  [Emphasis added]They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. One of the first things [the Soviets] did was to disarm the population. 

  

       A recent Gallup poll said that 53 Percent of Democrats Have ‘Positive Image’ of Socialism. We are becoming a culture of dependency. We are becoming a neo-socialist experiment. We are becoming a dumbed-down nation unappreciative of its founders. We are losing touch with the Constitution and the very concept of liberty.

    It wasn't supposed to be this way. Every elected official has pledged to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I promised I would "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Notably, the words promise loyalty not to a political party or a particular individual but to the Constitution, which enshrines our liberties and the limits and responsibilities of those who govern us like no other foundational document on earth.

Obama v. the Constitution

 M. Richard Maxson *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  


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

Guest Column

  
 A Letter to America by John Porter

Obama 's Second Term Transformation(Change) Plans

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

                                                                                                    Ed.

Another Sign of the End of America

Forward by M. Richard Maxson

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

Guest Column

In second term, Obama will allow UN to tax Americans

 By Zeno Potas

    

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

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

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

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

The Greatest Danger is Here

by M. Richard Maxson

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

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

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

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

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

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

    

Citizens Rights Begin to Disappear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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