Intro on Conservative Perspectives of Trump Support


John R. Houk

© January 9, 2019

While I was surfing through some Social Networks I came across a couple of fantastic posts on why American voters made Donald Trump President of the United States (especially the Conservative base who truly believe in the principle of MAGA).

 

I can’t vouch for the original authorship of each post, but they present a perspective that sums up supporting Trump and may provide unwitting clues of American Leftist hatred of President Trump.

 

The first cross post I located on Facebook. The second post I located on soon to be terminated G+ in the form of a JPG.

 

I hope you enjoy the reads as much as I have.

 

JRH 1/9/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Raccoons in the Attic

 

Posted by Richard Houchen

1/9/19 11:02 AM

Facebook Group American Patriots for Donald Trump

 

You’ve been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean diseased infested raccoons have overtaken your basement.

 

You want them gone immediately. You call the city and 4 different exterminators, but nobody can handle the job. But there is this one guy and he guarantees to get rid of them, so you hire him.

 

You don’t care if the guy smells, you don’t care if the guy swears, you don’t care if he’s an alcoholic, you don’t care how many times he’s been married, you don’t care if he has a plumber’s crack, you simply want those raccoons gone!

 

You want your problem fixed! He’s the guy. He’s the best!

 

Here’s why we want Trump. Yes he’s a bit of a jerk; yes he’s an egomaniac; but we don’t care. The country is a mess because politicians suck, the Republicans and Democrats can be two-faced and gutless, and illegals are everywhere.

 

We want it all fixed! We don’t care that Trump is crude, we don’t care that he insults people, we don’t care that he has changed positions, we don’t care that he’s been married 3 times, we don’t care that he fights with Megyn Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell, we don’t care that he doesn’t know the name of some Muslim terrorist.

 

This country became weak and bankrupt, our enemies were making fun of us, we are being invaded by illegal’s, we are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo, and Hasid is a special group with special rights to a point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in; “AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED”. And Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.

 

We’re sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and sick of illegal’s.

 

We just want this thing fixed.

 

Trump may not be a saint, but we didn’t vote for a Pope. We voted for a man who doesn’t have lobbyist money holding him back, a man who doesn’t have political correctness restraining him.

 

We all know that he has been very successful, he’s a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a politician, not a cowardly politician. And he says he’ll fix it. And we believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.

 

Also, we don’t care if the guy has bad hair. We just want those raccoons gone, out of our house, NOW.

 

You are welcome to pass this on. Thousands of people who haven’t voted in 25 years seem to be getting involved. And the more people get this message the more that will understand why Trump was elected.

 

The raccoons have got to go!

+++++++++++++++

Why Tarnish your Reputation by Supporting Trump

 

Posted by Just IN-case

Jan 9, 9:19 AM

G+ Community MAKE AMERICA FIRST AGAIN!!

 

Dangerous Times


Justin Smith nails the sentiment on how real Americans must stand with President Trump even if he is not the perfect Conservative the Conservative-minded voting base that made him POTUS views flaws. Despite a lack of Conservative bona fides, President Trump drives the American Left into apoplectic fits and the President does have an agenda that makes America great.

JRH 5/22/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Dangerous Times

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/19/2017 7:03 PM

 

I was a “Never Trump” guy for a matter of only days, during the Republican primary for many good reasons, that remain true and valid today. But DAMN. Come on people. All of you are out there proclaiming your Conservative and Christian principles and your love for America, but you are sitting quietly by, even now, and watching Her be destroyed before your very eyes. Conservative principles are great. I’m every bit as conservative as any of you, probably more so, however, if you really need this explained to you, here goes.

 

98% of all news reports on Trump over the past three months, according to a recent Harvard study, have been negative [Blog Editor: Actually, depending on the news outlet the percentage ranges from 80% to 98% being the worst].

 

What does this tell You?

 

Concerning the Trump-Russia Scandal, initially beginning as a counter-intelligence investigation into Russia hacking the election, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF “COLLUSION” between Trump and the Russians. Aside from this fact, he is the President and he is empowered to speak to foreign heads of State on any issue by right of being Our President; if you seek real collusion, just look at when Obama was caught on an open mike, on March 26th 2012, telling the Russian President to wait until after the election, and he could “be more flexible”. Just look at Hillary Clinton’s deals to give away American uranium resources to Russia, as Secretary of State [Blog Editor: See how the Leftist MSM twist the truth into a lie with semantic spin moves].

 

Still Trump was acting accordingly, when he fired FBI Director Comey, because Comey was compromised from his affiliations with Clinton; he accepted $6 million from the Clinton Foundation, when he was CEO of Lockheed, and he mishandled the Clinton investigation into her handling of Top Secret and Classified information, trying to play both sides of the fence. Trump had to fire him. [Blog Editor: See HERE, HERE & HERE]

If James Comey believed President Trump was really trying to influence his investigation into Gen. Michael Flynn, when the President asked if he “could let it go”, then why did hid he wait three months to bring it up, and only after he was fired? Why is this memo, yet to be seen, just now being mentioned? If this memo exists, then James Comey’s ethical behavior once again comes under scrutiny. [Blog Editor: Justin’s wondering is right on the money! See HERE]

 

Comey evidently didn’t really believe that President Trump was trying to obstruct justice at the time. If he did, he was duty bound by law to report the conversation immediately to the House Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

Pragmatist, liberal Democrat, conman, convert to conservatism, Great American. Put any label you choose, however true or untrue it may be, on President Donald J Trump. The reality remains that President Trump has pursued more conservative items in his first 100 days than many “Never Trump” proponents suggested he would, and he saved the Supreme Court from going completely fascist. And I believe him to be a Fine American truly working to save this Exceptional America of Ours.

 

I’m not debating the pros and cons of what he’s done. I will say, that attempting to present a GOP healthcare bill and the trillion-dollar budget shouldn’t have occurred.

 

What many seem to miss is this. Trump has given the GOP both Houses of Congress under the Republican platform and a Republican nominated U.S. President, and this can act as a respite from the transformation of the nation into a total authoritarian socialist country in which citizens answer to government bureaucrats; this is where Obama and the Progressive commies were taking us.

 

Remember Trump’s great words only days ago at Liberty University. He said, “In America we don’t worship government, we worship God.” These words will flow throughout history, however, they also solidified the D.C. Establishment’s view that Trump is dangerous. And immediately afterwards, all manner of hell broke loose in the Left Wing media.

 

Now in desperation, the Democrats refuse to release their power and give up any gains under Obama, while America hears people such as Representatives Al Green (D-TX), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and prominent Democrat former Rep. Tom Perriello call for President Trump’s impeachment. We are seeing an inner struggle, that is nothing short of a coup attempt by Deep State bureaucrats in the FBI, CIA and NSA, “anonymous” leakers, the Leftist Commies in the “mainstream” media and their Progressive allies in both parties, as well as their strong-arm thugs in the streets. This is a total complete attempt to takeover, a very real coup attempt.

 

The Democrats might proceed with attempts to arrive at impeachment, but such proceedings cannot even reach the floor of the Senate without the Senate Majority Leader’s approval. McConnell hates Trump, but even he knows the proof of evidence has to be very solid, before moving for impeachment. Aside from all this, 25 Republicans would have to cross over and join the Democrats. That isn’t happening anytime soon, not without more substantial evidence.

 

Something that doesn’t exist cannot be found, no matter how much the Democrats wish their Lie to become the Truth.

 

Yes, Trump should survive impeachment attempts, but he and his administration will remain under constant attack. In order to minimize the efforts of the Progressive Democrat Communists, Trump must immediately embark on a purge of all Obama bureaucratic holdovers and replace them with solid Conservatives, Christians and Constitutional-minded Patriotic Americans.

 

Keep your precious principles, but don’t attack the Republican President, regardless of his lack of conservative credentials, and don’t inadvertently or willingly join in the clamor for impeachment, when there is absolutely zero grounds for it, and it is completely unwarranted. Do not aid this coup.

 

If you and other Republicans jump on this pile of manufactured Democratic manure, you are setting in motion a terrible precedent for the future and possibly dooming America to becoming just like the banana republics where the” rule of law” means little and men answer to dictators, rather than the State answering to their citizens. You and your ilk are aiding in the destruction of our Republic.

 

Trump is America’s Man, but only if You’re one of the people who want out from under the Globalists and the Establishment DC fascists. If this all out assault on the Trump administration and President Trump continues, the path ahead looks very much like another Civil War brewing. Whether America on the whole understands just how much so, these are the most dangerous times America has ever witnessed in my sixty years of sunrises. Don’t let the sun set on Our Republic.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and any texts embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Fourth Estate Coup D’état Against U.S.A.


John R. Houk

© May 20, 2017

 

During the Primary/Caucus period of the GOP nomination for POTUS, I was not a supporter of Donald Trump. My support was behind stalwart Conservative Senator Ted Cruz. The same Senator dubbed by then candidate Trump as ly’n Ted. (Man, that annoyed me.)

 

But much to my then surprise, The Donald won the GOP nomination. Regardless of my distrust Trump’s Conservative bona fides, I was hugely amused with the rancorous needling of Leftists with campaign promises that sent the Left – including the Left Stream Media – into apoplectic fits of temper tantrums.

 

AND SO, I got behind Donald Trump even though the Leftist MSM was convinced by their polling that there was no way that Crooked Hillary could be beaten in the 2016 election.

 

AND THEN the Trump revolution had manifested. The American voters in a majority of States thumbed their noses at the Leftist MSM as The Donald became President Elect on election night 2016.

 

That is when ALL H – E – Double Hockey Sticks broke out among the Leftist Dems who were certain the continuation of the dismantling of our American Constitution to transform our nation into a godless Big Brother State would continue with Crooked Hillary after the corrupt President Obama left Office.

 

With that in mind, I just read a fascinating essay that I believe rings very true by James Downton at The Federalist. Downton believes a coup d’état began to dismantle Trump’s Administration and came under attack even before he took his oath of Office as President of the United States of America. A coup that as yet has no defined leader but rather is perpetrated by what many call the Fourth Estate of our government – Federal Bureaucracy. In case you are unaware or didn’t pay attention in High School, the Federal Bureaucracy has ZERO standing in the U.S. Constitution as an independent Branch of the Federal Government. This Federal Bureaucracy stretches among the three Constitutional Branches of government; viz., Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

 

I should point out that the author Downton goes out of his way to say his essay is not a defense for President Trump but rather a condemnation of this Fourth Estate coup d’état undermining the U.S. Constitution and the Republic.

 

Here’s a tease from Downton’s:

 

Arguably, what has been branded as “The Resistance” — but in actuality is the totalitarian might of the administrative state and their partisan allies — began with the Democratic Party’s scorched-earth campaign against the political nominations of the Trump White House. But beyond the partisan rancor of the legitimate and often frustrating nomination process, more sinister forces were at work.

 

JRH 5/20/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

We Are Watching A Slow-Motion Coup D’etat

This coup d’etat is not only about President Trump. It represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.

 

By James Downton

MAY 19, 2017

The Federalist

 

It’s nearly incontrovertible that a slow-motion coup d’etat is now taking place. Since November 9, 2016, forces within the U.S. government, media, and partisan opposition have aligned to overthrow the Electoral College winner, Donald Trump.

To achieve this they have undermined the institutions of the Fourth Estate, the bureaucratic apparatus of the U.S. government, and the very nature of a contentious yet affable two-party political system. Unlike the coup d’etat that sees a military or popular figure lead a minority resistance or majority force into power over the legitimate government, this coup d’etat is leaderless and exposes some of the deepest fissures in our system of government. This coup d’etat represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.

This article outlines the mechanisms, institutions, and nature of this coup d’etat; not in defense of President Donald Trump — who has proven himself bereft of the temperament of a successful president — but in defense of the institutions of our republic that are now not just threatened, but may very well be on the verge of collapse.

‘1984’ Is An Apt Comparison, But Not As the Left Thinks

Shortly after the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, a sort of “meme” appeared among activists on the political left comparing the status of the United States to that of George Orwell’s “1984.” “Think pieces” from The New YorkerCNNThe Atlantic, and Salon drew comparisons between President Trump and the brutally authoritarian future Orwell envisioned. In April of this year, screenings of the film version of Orwell’s dystopian novel were hosted around the world. “1984” surged up Amazon’s bestseller list. The tragedy of this exercise was that the comparison was very apt, but for different reasons.

The villain of “1984” isn’t a “man” but an entity — a bureaucracy with an authoritarian impulse. Big Brother isn’t so much a man or a leader but a symbol of the omnipotent reach of the bureaucratic state that dominated the dystopian future. The fear of an elected leader turning into a tyrant — as the political Left and some on the political Right feared in Trump — doesn’t play into the narrative of the novel. Rather, it is the fear of a nearly faceless administrative state; a state that has achieved a near totality in terms of tyranny.

This fear of the administrative state was a key feature among at least two individuals writing at the Claremont Review of Books, Publius Decius Mus and professor Angelo Codevilla. Decius’s “The Flight 93 Election” essay acted as a sort of rallying cry for some conservatives and small-“r” republican intellectuals against the very real fear that a Hillary Clinton victory would cement the totalizing power of the administrative state — that is career bureaucrats and administrators who view the virtues of the republic as something to be washed away and remade in their own “progressive” image. Decius writes:

If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

For Decius, Trump represents the final option to head off the transformation of the American republic into an administrative state where bureaucrats would wield an immutable regulatory dictatorship over the American citizenry.

Codevilla, prescient, went a step further and surmised that the republic was already dead; the Caesarism of an imperial presidency had already usurped it:

Electing either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump cannot change that trajectory. Because each candidate represents constituencies hostile to republicanism, each in its own way, these individuals are not what this election is about. This election is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone. But since the Democratic Party’s constituencies differ radically from their opponents’, and since the character of imperial governance depends inherently on the emperor, the election’s result will make a big difference in our lives.

If asked at the time of authorship, one doubts either man could have predicted the swiftness in which the administrative state would be able to consolidate power and isolate the presidency. Yet that is what has exactly occurred. With the aid of the media and the Democratic Party, the institutions of the republic are crippled, the levers of power having been seized not by the elected but by the unelected bureaucratic state — from ideologues at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the partisans and paranoid who inhabit our intelligence community.

The Administrative State Versus the American People

Arguably, what has been branded as “The Resistance” — but in actuality is the totalitarian might of the administrative state and their partisan allies — began with the Democratic Party’s scorched-earth campaign against the political nominations of the Trump White House. But beyond the partisan rancor of the legitimate and often frustrating nomination process, more sinister forces were at work.

Mother Jones, unwittingly, sheds light onto the mindset of the administrative state in a piece detailing the resistance of EPA bureaucrats. An anonymous and unelected government employee wrote to Mother Jones laying out a lengthy argument justifying his or her resistance to reforms by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and objection to directives from the White House:

What type of nation are we when we allow our leaders to sign into law a rule that makes it EASIER for mining companies to pollute local waterways? These same politicians will try to convince their voters that making it easier to pollute local streams is somehow good for them… [The anti-democratic notion that careerists at the EPA have a greater authority than the will of the people and their elected representatives is astounding and stands against concept of a representative republic]

Here in the US, those of us who work to protect the environment and human health from corporate pollution are lucky enough that we do not live under the specter of murder. We are, however, acutely aware that the forces behind these heinous crimes against environmental activists abroad are the same forces that are working against us in the US today. And make no mistake: These forces are poised to grow even stronger…

..Will the capture of EPA by corporate interests be swept up in all the other horrifying news of the day or week? Or will the public finally decide that it is not acceptable to allow EPA, the only agency with a mission dedicated to protecting the environment, to be systematically dismantled, allowing those at the top to further concentrate wealth and power among themselves? Despite the long odds we face, we will never stop working to protect every person’s right to have a healthy place to live, work, and play. And if the new administrator casts me out of the job I love, I will not stop working toward the principles that have always animated my life. This is who I am, and that will never change. I stand in solidarity with brothers and sisters that work to protect human rights, human health, and the environment here in the US and all over the world. The struggle continues.

This is not the words of a dutiful civil servant but of a partisan tyrant who would see his own view, his own agenda, and his own lens of politics dominate over that of the elected government of the United States. In their minds they are but a guardian of the people, albeit one that must stand up to and ultimately negate the will of that very same people. Were the United States governed by a different political system, this view of the role of the unelected and their duty to act as sovereign over the people might even be admirable, but that is not a republican system.

Which Side Is Really Treasonous?

Complicit with the authoritarian nature of the administrative state is factions within the United States intelligence community both inside and outside the White House. They have engaged in a campaign of selective leaks and plots to undermine the president of the United States and weave a media narrative of Russian influence, conspiracy, and now obstruction of justice. With their media allies, they have leaked information and intelligence that — while lacking any actual criminal element — has allowed a narrative to arise that casts a dark shadow over the White House and those who live and work in it.

A narrative comprised of the Russian government “hacking” the presidential election, collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and Trump being compromised by the Russian government dominated the media before the final votes of the election were even tallied. Skepticism was suspended for what can only be described as a concerted effort to undermine the elected president of the United States.

Shortly after the inauguration, this narrative escalated via select leaks — and was admirably exacerbated by White House actions. We now face a crisis over a fired director of the FBI, with current and retired officials spinning stories to the media with little basis other than the whispers of anonymous sources.

We are told that President Trump demanded a loyalty oath from FBI Director James Comey, demanded Comey drop the FBI investigation into the foreign connections of Gen. Michael Flynn, and that this constitutes obstruction of justice and, in the most hysterical cases, that this among other offenses even constitutes treason.

Yet in all of this we have yet to see the purported Comey memo detailing some of these moments — although from the media treatment it is understandable that many would constitute the media reports as truth. The meeting between President Trump and the Russian foreign minister has resulted in a similar tale of collusion and gross breach of intelligence tradecraft, with Trump’s national security advisor and the secretary of State, both present for the meeting, have both denied.

The Media Slips Loose the Dogs of War

In all of this, the media has abandoned their role as watchdogs with a healthy dose of skepticism and become the propaganda arm of the unelected administrative state, complicit in and even cheering on the actions that have superseded the will of the people. A cursory glance at the social media feeds of most Washington DC-based press more than illustrates this.

Bolstered by their partisan allies, the media has acted as a beachhead for the assault on the Trump administration. Partisan organizations like Media Matters for America have helped to provide ammunition to the media and pour fuel on the fires of resistance among partisan activists. Eric Boehlert, a former journalist and now a writer at Media Matters, tweeted, following the revelation of a possible memo from Comey: “Trump obstructed justice THREE WEEKS INTO HIS FIRST TERM”

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Trump obstructed justice THREE WEEKS INTO HIS FIRST TERM

5:40 PM – 16 May 2017

Boehlert provides no actual evidence of obstruction of justice. Rather, he runs with an intentional media narrative that the mere whisper, the idea, is in-and-of-itself proof that obstruction occurred. Thus Boehlert is affirmative in his tweet, not speculative. Because the administrative state, the progressive political partisans, and the media oppose the Trump administration, any whiff of maleficence is treated as the Gospel Truth.

Boehlert’s follow-up tweets provide insight into the mindset that has taken over our media and political institutions. “Comey’s firing signaled the end for Trump; he upset forces that were unseen to him. [sic] and now they’re exacting revenge…..as they should”

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Trump obstructed justice THREE WEEKS INTO HIS FIRST TERM

5:40 PM – 16 May 2017

This should be a disturbing revelation, even one coming from a mind so addled and partisan as Boehlert’s. Justice, properly pursued, is a good end, but what Boehlert is cheering on is the revenge of a man who was legally and constitutionally fired. This is the partisan nature of the administrative state revealed. Partisans of the political Left cheering on bureaucrats to help create a narrative and the appearance of malfeasance where there has yet to be any evidence of such.

Boehlert continues: “ftr, these leaks are unusual: Mon, WP got scoop then quickly lots of reporters filled in. today, NYT, then lots of reporters filled in.”

16 May

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Comey’s firing signaled the end for Trump; he upset forces that were unseen to him. and now they’re exacting revenge…..as they should

 

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

ftr, these leaks are unusual: Mon, WP got scoop then quickly lots of reporters filled in. today, NYT, then lots of reporters filled in.

5:46 PM – 16 May 2017

“ie.e. this is a quality roll-out. Q: will there be another tomorrow?”

16 May

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

ftr, these leaks are unusual: Mon, WP got scoop then quickly lots of reporters filled in. today, NYT, then lots of reporters filled in.

 

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

i.e. this is a quality roll-out. Q: will there be another tomorrow?

5:53 PM – 16 May 2017

“after today, how does he not apt special prosecutor??”

16 May

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Rosenstein looking even worse this week…..

 

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

after today, how does he not appt special prosecutor??

5:58 PM – 16 May 2017

These series of tweets illustrate the broader problem of collusion between the various elements of the partisan Left, the media, and the administrative state. The attack on Trump from within and without is coordinated and purposefully geared to make a lack of evidence seem like a mountain of evidence and be as damning as possible, although what it truly amounts to is a paper tiger. With the administrative state leaking and the partisans giving context, the media gins up a plot that declares Trump guilty of crimes of which there is no concrete evidence he committed. This is how you build the consensus behind a coup d’etat.

A Smear Production Factory

One only need look at the case of Sebastian Gorka to see just how far and how petty the media has gone to act as the enforcer of the administrative state. Some in the intelligence community and partisan bureaucracy viewed Gorka unfavorably, resulting in an organized campaign in the press against him.

The magazine Forward began running poorly sourced articles tying Gorka to a Hungarian order of merit called the Vitézi Rend, which, during World War II, had factions that supported the Hungarian dictator Horthy, the Imperial House of Habsburg, and the Nazi party. Despite no clear evidence, Forward labeled Gorka, in essence, a Nazi. The media ran with that narrative, bolstered by activist campaigns by partisans of the Democratic Party and those opposed to Gorka in the intelligence community.

In truth, the real objection to Gorka was his view of Islam as a civilizational confrontation and of radical Islam as a hostile force against the West. There as yet remains no evidence of Gorka or his father being tied to the Nazi party in any way — yet that did not stop journalists from surmising on social media that Gorka’s immigration to the United States and status as a U.S. citizen should have been blocked and should be revoked.

The scale of the administrative state and its allies’ war against the duly elected government of the United States should be startling. The media should be an institution of skepticism and concern for this usurpation, yet they have chosen to be complicit. In this, Codevilla is correct. We have emerged into a new system of government, though perhaps not truly an imperial one.

Whereas some continue to try and enforce republican values and norms, a large swath of what administers the government of our nation has chosen to embody the Roman dictator Sulla — in the form of a multitude of bureaucrats and careerists; a dictatorial court without an emperor to bring them to heel.

We may already be past the point of no return. Some in the White House made it a point to seek dismantling the administrative state, but it appears the administrative state is more than capable of fighting back and seizing additional power through leaks, obstinacy, and partisan rancor — ensuring its survival and propelling what can only be described as a coup d’etat.

James Downton is the pen name of a Federalist contributor who is contractually prohibited from writing publicly about politics under his real name.

______________________

Fourth Estate Coup D’état Against U.S.A.

John R. Houk

© May 20, 2017

_____________________

We Are Watching A Slow-Motion Coup D’etat

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

Guns or Bibles or Both


Is it Time to Consider?

John R. Houk

© June 27, 2015

Bible believing Christians must show their displeasure with SCOTUS, Congress and of course President Barack Hussein Obama. The only way to prevent the further threat to our Liberty to be practicing Christians is to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the curse that SCOTUS has placed on our nation. That a Leftist Congress has promoted. And that our Leftist-in-Chief President has sent in his so far successful agenda to fundamentally transform America.

VIDEO: Fundamentally Transform America- the Obama Promise

Posted by obamacare

Published on Jul 24, 2013

Remember 5 days before the 2008 Presidential Election? President Obama promised to fundamentally transform America? How’s He doing? Join the Fight against Obama and the Progressives’ attempt to destroy Individual Liberty at http://freedomist.com

Getting Congress to pass an Amendment to address Traditional Marriage may be a daunting task. I suspect not one Democrat would vote in favor of such an Amendment. ALSO I have a horrible feeling the Establishment Republican RINOs and pretend pseudo-Conservatives would join the Democrats in naysaying. Under those conditions I have serious doubts that Congress could muster even a simple majority in favor of Traditional Marriage with one man and one woman. A simple majority in favor of a Traditional Marriage Amendment isn’t enough since 2/3 of both Houses of Congress is required. And if a 2/3 majority passes both Houses still the Amendment to the States requires the ratification of 3/4 of States (currently 38 out of 50) to be a part of the Constitution. There is another way to constitutionally amend the Constitution that bypasses Congress, the President and SCOTUS.

If 2/3 (34) of each individual State passes a resolution petitioning for a Constitutional Convention to construct an Amendment for Traditional Marriage. This has never happened since the first Constitutional Convention that brought us our U.S. Constitution.

Critics of a Constitutional Convention on both the Left and the Right believe such a convention will rewrite the entirely new Constitution. However I have since learned that each State legislature can call for a Constitutional Convention with a specific mandate for a specific Amendment or specific Amendments or a whole new Constitution. The next convention which would only be the second since the 1787, can assign the delegates with specific instructions on what kind of Amendment or Amendments to work on. AND THEN still 3/4 of the States would be needed to ratify said Amendment or Amendments under a specified mandate; i.e. 38 out of 50.

Calling for such a convention only needs a simple majority of the legislature of each State OR if the State runs an Initiative law, a voters plebiscite can call for a convention. The U.S. Constitution does not actually lay out the framework on how each State issues a petition for a convention. That method is left to the devices of each State. The U.S. Constitution does issue one caveat for States calling an assembly of a national Constitutional Convention. After 34 States submit a Constitutional Convention petition, then the U.S. Congress must convene the Convention.

I have to wonder what happens if the U.S. Congress refuses to convene a Convention after 34 States validate such a petition. The next logical Constitutional path would that the several States have SCOTUS force Congress to convene a convention as per Article 5 of the Constitution. I perceive the problem with SCOTUS fulfilling its Constitutional duty is that the recent two rulings validating Obamacare and same-sex marriage contrary to Amendment 10 of the Constitution will continue a rogue Supreme Court thus ensuring political tyranny.

It is political tyranny that America’s Founding Fathers initiated a rebellion against British rule because the British Crown and the British Parliament ignored the Liberty and Freedom of their citizens in the 13 American colonies.

Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and … Dear God in Heaven you should READ THE REST (The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription IN CONGRESS [i.e. under Articles of Confederation], July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

It is my opinion that if all three Constitutional Branches of government form an oligarchy of despotism, then a new American Revolution may be necessary for WE the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to a political despotism that separates us from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

I suspect the Founding Fathers responsible for the Bill of Rights (viz. the Second Amendment) foresaw a future rogue National Government. Hello: rogue President, rogue SCOTUS and an indecisive Congress essentially the essence of a rogue legislature swayed by special interests and huge ideological divisions making statesman a 19th century concept.

It was there I took a couple of courses with Dr. J. Rufus Fears, professor of an incredibly manly subject: the history of freedom. One of the things the good professor emphasized to us captivated students was that a politician and a statesman are not the same thing. A statesman, Fears argues, is not a tyrant; he is the free leader of a free people and he must possess four critical qualities:

1. A bedrock of principles

2. A moral compass

3. A vision

4. The ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision

Let us now explore these four criteria of a democratic statesman in READ ENTIRETY (The 4 Qualities of a True Statesman; By Brett & Kate McKay; The Art of Manliness; 1/30/12)

The only moral compass among Obama-Democrats are the godless fallacies of Secular Humanism:

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe.”[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that “Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.”[6]

Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”[8]

Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.”[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism – the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. READ ENTIRETY (What is Secular Humanism? Adapted from Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth, and Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin By water of Summit Ministries; ChristianAnswers.Net; Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved)

The SCOTUS decision on Same-Sex marriage has just about robbed me of all confidence that the operation of the current Federal Government will preserve an exceptional United States of America under God with Liberty and Justice for all. The “Justice” here is NOT the social justice advocated by a godless Secular Humanism. RATHER this “Justice” is Justice under God Almighty as displayed in the Holy Bible (and not the antichrist Quran of Islam).

In a cross post of Robert Smith’s email submission yesterday, he volunteered Americans have two choices to take back the Constitution of the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent:

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

Robert had submitted his thoughts at about 11:00 PM on June 25 referencing the SCOTUS support for Obamacare subsidies which was a stretch on the Constitution. However his thoughts came to mind after listening to Fox News the morning of June 26 announcing the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. AGAIN: the ballot box or armed intervention.

I always conceived an armed confrontation might occur between American citizens standing for Conservative-Christian principles and a rogue operating unconstitutional Federal government, BUT I really did not conceive such a situation viable in my lifetime. NOW I am not so sure.

The existence of a Rogue Presidency and a Rogue SCOTUS could be hard pressed for Americans to make their wishes be heard at the ballot box. SCOTUS has demonstrated that a disregard for the Constitution in which their mandate was to preserve when broken and to instruct Congress to make corrections to bad legislation unless that legislative purview belonged to each individual State of the Union.

A SCOTUS majority has embraced the Secular Humanist Leftist (Progressive, Liberal or whatever appellation) concept of a Living Constitution rather than the Original Intent (See Also HERE) of the Founding Fathers and the original intent of succeeding Amendments after the Bill of Rights. The Living Constitution theorists believe the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to the perceptions of modern culture and associated rules of law pertaining to the global legal environment.

It is my increasingly lack of confidence in all three branches of the Federal government that leads me to believe America’s last chance is in the never yet used Constitutional process of Amendment by State origin regardless of the potential to rewrite the entire Constitution. If a new Constitution favors a Left Wing perspective and is ratified by 38 States is America is lost to the past of insightful American Founding Fathers.

If THIRTYEIGHT American States choose a godless path to America’s future that means twelve States are willing to remember Liberty and Freedom under God.

Franklin Graham Facebook post 6/26/15 screen capture

If there are 38 States ratifying godlessness, I suspect there will be Conservative Christians who will be willing to participate in a Declaration of Independence-style rebellion throw the godless bands of tyranny off their necks by guns or Bibles or both.

JRH 627/15

Please Support NCCR

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs – Republican In Name Only – that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

SUPREME COURT: ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ LEGAL NATIONWIDE – By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human natureLife Site News; 6/26/15 10:19 am EST

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex MarriageBy John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justicesBy Ben Johnson; Life Site News; 6/26/15 1:14 pm EST

SCALIA: MARRIAGE RULING ‘THREAT TO DEMOCRACY’ – By ART MOORE; WND; 6/26/15

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

Super Power Poker – Live from Iran


In my Clarion Project update email today was a fantastic link to a video that could be labeled as Iran Nukes for Idiots, but is actually an animated parody with the leaders of the USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran playing poker (or black jack – some kind of gambling card game) over who wins a good Iran nuke deal that benefits all the nations in the game.

JRH 6/9/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Super Power Poker – Live from Iran

Is America prepared to go ‘all in’ for Iran?

Email Title: IRAN VIDEO #4: Nuclear Poker

Sent: 6/9/2015 7:49 AM

The Clarion Project

Write to your Representative in Congress

See what happens when the world plays (nuclear) poker with Iran.

Share this ANIMATED video, which uses satire to make a serious point:

Don’t gamble with a nuclear Iran.

VIDEO: Super Power Poker – Live From Iran

Published by Clarion Project – Challenging Extremism | Promoting Dialogue

Published on Jun 9, 2015

The stakes are the highest they’ve ever been. Nuclear Iran. The US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel play for the security of the world. This is the ultimate hold’em game. Who holds the aces, who will go all in, who is bluffing and who has a tell that will leave them with nothing but a mushroom cloud. No nukes for Iran.

Watch the Iran Film Series

_______________

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

 

There are times that require people to step out of their comfort zone, to step up for justice, tolerance and moderation. We know going in that the repercussions of taking action will draw a rain of accusations and attacks from the forces we are confronting.

 

We do it anyway. We do it because it must be done.

 

Founded in 2006, Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund Inc) is an independently funded, non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.

 

Clarion’s award-winning movies have been seen by over 50 million people. They grapple with issues such as religious persecution, human rights, women’s rights, the dangers of a nuclear Iran and what the concept of jihad means for the West. Our dynamic website, viewed by 1.1 million unique visitors in 2014, covers breaking news, provides expert analysis on relevant issues and acts as a platform for Muslim human rights activists.

 

Clarion Project draws together Middle East experts, scholars, human rights activists and Muslims to promote tolerance and moderation and challenge extremism.

 

Mailing Address:

Clarion Project, Inc.

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Suite 1025

Washington DC 20006

 

News Desk (ClarionProject.org):

info@ClarionProject.org

 

For Media & Press:

Tel: (646) 308-1230

Email: press@ClarionProject.org

 

A Constitutional Crisis


BHO Laughs ripping Constitution

Intro to Smith’s ‘A Constitutional Crisis’

Editor: John R. Houk

November 23, 2014

 

Justin Smith writes a brilliant piece on President Barack Hussein Obama’s immigration amnesty speech notifying America on television he has the constitutional authority to provide amnesty on his terms for illegal aliens (the more pc term these days is illegal immigrants) coming and staying in America beyond the rule of law’s stipulations.

 

I am trying real hard not to mar Justin’s essay with my editorial comments and links so I am handling that issue with a quote some interesting links to the quote:

 

During Obama’s speech, he used the example of Astrid, a young female illegal alien, who in spite of “hiding” from ICE completed three college degrees. Those degrees took taxpayer dollars and one American’s place in the admission rolls, while Astrid broke U.S. law again by falsifying her college application using someone else’s Social Security number: That’s acceptable I suppose, since Obama’s S.S. number is a fake too. [Bold Emphasis Mine] –Justin Smith

 

o   Homeland Security Bombshell: ‘President Barack Obama is not eligible to work in the United States’. Dean Garrison – 11/7/14

 

o   Judge Rules: Obama Social Security Card Fraud May Finally Get Answers. Tim Brown – 12/22/13

 

o  A Possible Explanation for Obama’s Connect Social Security Number. Jack Cashill – 9/14/12

 

Now I realize Mainstream Republicans claim impeachment is a bad idea because of the belief the Senate would never garner the sufficient votes for a conviction. AND I realize the Leftist Dems are openly daring Republicans to proceed with an impeachment process propagandizing the same fears of the Mainstream Republicans. BUT dear God in Heaven, there is more than enough constitutional criteria to impeach Obama and to convict him.

 

If the Republicans fail to make a substantial effort to smear the Dems’ faces with the legitimate impeachable criteria, then Justin’s solution in his last paragraph becomes a greater possibility to occur!

 

JRH 11/23/14

Please Support NCCR

************************************

A Constitutional Crisis

A Republic Lost

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/21/2014 11:38 PM

 

No U.S. President has the right to destroy the U.S. Constitution and completely disregard it, in the course of his duty to all Americans. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but on November 20, 2014 Obama became a rogue president, and he unilaterally declared amnesty for 30 million illegal aliens, by my count, as he violated the principles of separation of powers that serve as the bulwark to protect our liberties, defying the American people, the election results and usurping the legislative process and essentially saying “to hell with the Constitution.”

 

President Obama has threatened to enact an “immigration reform bill” through executive order for months now, if Congress did not pass a bill he could sign, even though the real issue is not one of reforms but rather one of enforcement. All the “immigration reform” in the world will not matter in the face of a Congress reluctant to enforce the law. This is the reason the Secure Fence Act of 2006 still leaves a fence with holes in it, and our southern border is porous as ever.

 

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization … “And it is the president’s Constitutional duty under Article II Section 3, to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed … .”

 

Can anyone point to a single provision, Article or Section of the Constitution that suspends the principles of separation of powers and supersedes Congressional authority anytime a president, in his sole discretion, decides such because Congress hasn’t met his legislative demands?

 

This new Executive Amnesty of Obama’s will protect approximately 5 million illegal aliens from deportation and grant them work permits, according to Josh Earnst, Press Secretary, and other White House sources. Other than certain far-left, fringe progressive law professors, who advocate a post-Constitutional America, no one seriously believes that Obama has the authority to do this, even under “prosecutorial discretion,” and not a single Democrat has been able to cite any authority for this act.

 

Immediately after Obama’s Executive Amnesty Speech, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) stated, “Attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are dangerous. The President himself recognized his inability to do [this] …” in the past.

 

Twenty-two times Obama has stated that he does not have the legal or Constitutional authority to grant amnesty to millions, once saying he is not an “emperor” but a president. He even argued against amnesty in his 2006 book ‘The Audacity of Hope’.

 

The Obama administration is now justifying Obama’s action through prosecutorial discretion, as they contend that he can decide which groups of immigrants should be a priority. Obama is also arguing that he can go further and use “deferred action” to formally protect certain immigrants from deportation.

 

During Obama’s speech, he used the example of Astrid, a young female illegal alien, who in spite of “hiding” from ICE completed three college degrees. Those degrees took taxpayer dollars and one American’s place in the admission rolls, while Astrid broke U.S. law again by falsifying her college application using someone else’s Social Security number: That’s acceptable I suppose, since Obama’s S.S. number is a fake too.

 

Significant differences exist between Obama’s recent EO and President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 policy. Reagan deferred deportation for children of illegal aliens, who had been granted amnesty, placing them on a path to becoming naturalized citizens, which was the general intent of Congress at the time, since a “one time” blanket amnesty had just passed. Obama is going against the will of Congress again, which considered and rejected his DREAM Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democratic Party.

 

Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unConstitutionally revising existing law and, without Congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress numerous times, thereby acting like the emperor of immigration policy.

 

Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said, “Tonight President Obama issued a royal decree, as any good monarch would do … This president is single handedly creating a Constitutional crisis and hurting the citizens he took an oath to protect and defend.”

 

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #47, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

 

One countermeasure is to defund all non-essential government agencies, since the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services is self-funded through immigration application fees, according to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY). Defunding most of the government will force Obama to choose between his Executive Amnesty or a government shutdown, and Congress should not be afraid or balk at using this option. A government shutdown would show Obama that the Republicans are willing to fight.

In a Fox News appearance, Rep Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called on Americans to rally on December 3rd at high noon on the west steps of the Capitol and tell Congress to “defund amnesty.”

 

Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against Obama’s executive overreach, represented by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, is a sham. Everybody understands that Obama will be gone by the time it is settled, and his Executive Amnesty will have become de facto law, unless a successor has the guts to rescind it. One must wonder if Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell are siding with Obama, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal, because McConnell stated “there won’t be any shutdowns on my watch” after winning re-election.

 

It is no accident that the Constitution’s first substantive words are “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Because of the problems experienced through delegated authority in England, the Framers understood that such authority, currently utilized by today’s U.S. Congress in empowering Presidential Executive orders, leads to dangerous absolutism – extra-legal, supra-legal and consolidated power. And, although the Constitution carefully barred this threat, Constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power; therefore, Americans should no longer accept some vague notion of “rule of law” that allows uncontrolled delegation through executive orders, but rather, Americans must demand rule through the law and under the law.

 

If the Republicans in Congress do not act more forcefully than a lawsuit by March 10th, by March 15th every Son and Daughter of Liberty, who loves America, must arm themselves and march on the Capitol Building and the White House, prepared to fight if necessary, to end this elective despotism, or otherwise, accept that the Republic, the rule of law and Freedom in America have vanished. Americans must not let any President place himself above the Constitution and accountability to the American people he is duty bound to defend and protect.

 

By Justin O Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Ted Cruz Just Made a Bold Prediction About Harry Reid …


Ted Cruz - Scottie Hughes TPNN

Scottie Nell Hughes interviews Senator Ted Cruz in a TPNN interview. In summary Cruz tells Scottie that the GOP will fire Senator Harry Reid in 2014 as the Majority Leader of the Senate. Cruz proceeds to talk about the need for strong leadership among the potential GOP Presidential candidates in the 2016 election as opposed to  the namby-pamby contrast the Republicans have offered the last two Presidential election cycles. “Namby-pamby” is my word not Senator Cruz’s.

 

Cruz talks about the Paul Ryan-Tea Party semi-feud currently taking place saying roughly that no Conservative Republican should criticize another Conservative. By the way, Ryan and Hughes have exchanged barbs between each other. Hughes is not the only Tea Party person who feels Ryan abandoned the Tea Party Movement to join the GOP Establishment.

 

Cruz is upset about the Dem party with the aid of the Left-stream media portraying the GOP as at fault for shutting down the government. Cruz tells the truth that the no-compromise Dems were responsible for that shutdown.

 

Below is the Matthew Burke summary of the interview which is followed by the near seven minute interview between Senator Cruz and Scottie Nell Hughes.

 

JRH 9/1/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Just Made a Bold Prediction About Harry Reid that Will Make Conservatives Across America Stand up and Cheer

 

By Matthew Burke

August 30, 2014

Tea Party News Network

 

Ted Cruz sat down with TPNN News Director Scottie Nell Hughes, for an exclusive and wide-ranging interview at the 2014  Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit,  taking place in Dallas this weekend.

Scottie offered a tactical attempt to get Senator Cruz to budge on announcing whether he was going to make a run for the presidency in 2016, pressing Cruz, “Is there a timeline that you will be thinking of making an announcement? Let’s just say someone was thinking of running for 2016, when would be that time that you would think of that.”

“I am happy to make an announcement right now–which is 66 days from now, I am convinced we’re going to retake the U.S. Senate and we’re going to retire Harry Reid’s as majority leader,” Cruz confidently predicted about the upcoming 2014 midterm elections, a proclamation that will make principled conservatives give a standing ovation to hear.

“Next year, we’re going to see the presidential race get moving,” Cruz elaborated. “Let me tell you the test I intend to apply as a voter, it’s the test I intend to apply as a voter who will be voting in the Republican primary in 2016. Republicans should nominate whoever is standing up and leading,” Cruz advised.

Cruz referred to the upcoming election as “the most important election of our lifetime,” then expanded on the urgency of America’s dire direction under Democrat President Barack Obama:

 

“Our country is in crisis. It’s now or never. Whoever is standing up and leading, making the case that the Obama agenda isn’t working–economically it’s a disaster, our constitutional rights are under assault–abroad, America’s receded from leadership in the world.”

 

It would be easy to make the case that Cruz is slightly hinting at a 2016 presidential run, as Cruz has certainly provided bold leadership in fighting against Obamacare, amnesty, and various other acts of Obama’s lawlessness, and has been viciously attacked for it by the establishment leadership in both political parties.

Cruz’s message to other prospective GOP presidential candidates, which so far is looking like it may be another crowded field, is “stand up and lead.” Cruz encouraged voters to look at candidates who’ve “stood up and engaged” on the important issues facing the nation over the last two or three years.

“We’ve seen two elections in a row where Republicans didn’t take it to the Democrats, didn’t draw a clear contrast. If we hide in the corner, Hillary Clinton will run right over us,” Cruz predicted. “Margaret Thatcher famously said, ‘First you win the argument, then you win the vote,’” Cruz explained.

Cruz told Scottie that what the GOP needs for the next presidential candidate is someone who paints a positive, bold, optimistic vision, that we can get back to the principles that built this country.”

It sounds like Senator Ted Cruz may have just been describing President Ted Cruz.

PAGE DOWN TO WATCH FULL INTERVIEW

 

Scottie then asked the senator from Texas to weigh in on the somewhat of an ongoing feud between the establishment RINO wing of the GOP, versus the grassroots, pro-Constitution, pro-freedom Tea Party and libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Specifically, Scottie asked Cruz to comment on Paul Ryan’s new book in which he bashed the Tea Party and the Cruz push to stop the funding of Obamacare by using the threat of a government shutdown as leverage.

 

RELATED:  Paul Ryan Pushes Back Against TPNN’s Scottie Hughes, Defends His Record as Conservative 

 

“I like Paul Ryan. He’s a good man,” Cruz responded. “I will say that I don’t think it’s beneficial when Republican leadership throws rocks at conservatives, at conservative activists across this country,” Cruz answered about Ryan’s attacks against the Tea Party.

Cruz then blasted the leftstream Democrat media complex, who he referred to as “useful idiots,”  for perpetuating the lie that Republicans shut down the government:

“One of the greatest lies that the mainstream media repeats ad nauseam, is the lie that Republicans shut down the government. It’s simply not true. The House of Representatives, House Republicans voted over-and-over-and-over again to fully fund the federal government, but to defund Obamacare. The reason the government shutdown is because President Obama and Harry Reid wanted to shut down the government, and they said very publicly that they thought it benefited them politically to shut down the government, in part, because they could count on the useful idiots in the media, and sadly on a fair number of Senate Republicans, to go on television and blame the shutdown on Republicans.”

Cruz told Scottie that when Republicans voted to fully fund the government except for Obamacare, and Democrats refused to negotiate, it was the Democrats who chose to close down the full government, not the Republicans.

Cruz said the fight to defund Obamacare, was a fight against “the most disastrous legislation in modern times.”

“How many Americans wished Republicans had stood together and Democrats hadn’t shut down the government, but had been willing to work to avoid the disaster, the train wreck that is Obamacare?” Cruz asked rhetorically. 

WATCH FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

 

VIDEO: Ted Cruz Just Made a Prediction About Harry Reid That Will Make Conservatives Stand up and Cheer

 

Posted by TPNNVideos

Published on Aug 30, 2014

 

In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview, Ted Cruz sat down with TPNN’s Scottie Nell Hughes at the “Defending the American Dream Summit” to discuss his presidential possibilities, the upcoming midterms, defunding Obamacare, the government shutdown, and more!

 

________________________________

About Matthew Burke

 

Matthew Burke is a former Financial Advisor/Planner for 24 years. He was a 2010 Constitutional Conservative candidate for U.S. Congress in Washington State.

 

Copyright © 2014 TPNN · TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

TPNN Mission

 

The goal of the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) is to provide a rapid, up-to-date political news service that is relevant to the Tea Party movement of Constitutional conservatives.  Our team of researchers and writers aim to cut through the smoke and spin of the “mainstream” media so as to provide an alternative hard hitting news product across a spectrum of current issues. TPNN is available 24 hours a day on desktop, tablet and mobile devices.

VIDEO: Dr. Ben Carson Just Made a HUGE Announcement


Ben Carson

Matthew Burke posting on Tea Party News Network (TPNN) found a video of Ben Carson talking about the virtues in educating yourself before you vote for something. Burke tantalizes the reader by insinuating Ben Carson is announcing his choice to run for President or not. He really doesn’t; nonetheless the message is more important than the Burke teaser.

 

JRH 7/13/14

Please Support NCCR

****************************

VIDEO: Dr. Ben Carson Just Made a HUGE Announcement

 

By Matthew Burke

July 12, 2014

TPNN

 

Many are wondering and hoping that Dr. Ben Carson will run for the presidency in 2016, and listening to him speak, it might be easy to assume that he would run as a Republican, should the respected pediatric neurosurgeon and bestselling author decide to throw his hat in the ring.

 

Not so fast.

In this new two minute video below, Dr. Carson talks about whether he’s a Republican or a Democrat. Or, as millions are frustrated with both parties, could Dr. Carson be hinting at a third party run? Watch and find out. The answer might surprise you.

 

WATCH VIDEO:

 

VIDEO: Are You A Republican? | Dr. Ben Carson

 

 

Published by Ben Carson

Published Jul 10, 2014

 

In this 2 minute video Dr. Carson talks about whether or not he’s a republican or democrat.

Subscribe here: http://ow.ly/uIfwg
Checkout my new book: http://ow.ly/uIfLd

Follow below for updates on videos, books, & speaking!

Facebook: http://ow.ly/vBFol
Twitter: http://ow.ly/uIg4e
Website: http://ow.ly/uIg6f

_____________________________

About Matthew Burke

 

Matthew Burke is a former Financial Advisor/Planner for 24 years. He was a 2010 Constitutional Conservative candidate for U.S. Congress in Washington State.

 

Copyright © 2014 TPNN · TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt


BHO calls scandals - Americans Call Crimes

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

 

In a recent Conservative Campaign Committee (CCC) fundraising email I discovered even more SMOKING GUN evidence that the entirety of the Obama Administration conspired to lie about the Benghazi attack to American voters for political reasons. The CCC email doesn’t harp on the political reasons as I think it should. You have to realize the political reasons were to ensure the reelection of Comrade Obama as the President of the United States of America in November 2012. The Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack on the diplomatic annex was a planned attack on September 11, 2012. Obama tried to make that attack appear to voters that the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous motivated riot due to a sophomoric made Youtube video produced in America that was designed to be provocatively racist against Islam.

 

If you have ever gotten to see what is billed as a Youtube trailer before it was yanked you know the video is so poorly made that it is almost humorous. Unfortunately Free Speech in Islam’s Sharia Law is blasphemous so it is true Muslims were offended. SO WHAT! The Obama Administration has forced American Christians to participate in so many offensive measures from killing unborn lives (taxpayer supported abortions), forcing Christian Hospitals to perform abortions on demand, to force businesses owned by Christians to cater to the service needs of homosexuals even though that lifestyle is an oft repeated abomination to the Presence of God in the Holy Bible and more.

 

Christian Rights are vacated in the name multicultural acceptance. Christians are forced to absorb the mirth of atheistic Leftists and abortionists, Muslims spewing hate toward Christians (See Also HERE), homosexuals spewing hate toward Biblical Christians and more.

 

AND YET when a Christian or Counterjihad writer exposes what the actual Quran, Hadith and Sira of Islam do proclaim, it is called hate-speech or bigoted Islamophobia! (See Also HERE and HERE)

 

I have no doubts that the Obama Administration tried to both assuage Muslims and fool American voters that his Presidency is totally supportive of a Muslim’s right to go crazy due to multicultural deference.

 

Is lying to voters to gain an election victory a crime in the USA?

 

This is not just executive overreach. In many cases, Obama’s exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in Obamacare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

 

And yet nothing is done. (Prosecute the President; By Ben Shapiro; FrontPage Mag; 6/12/14)

 

That excerpt above lists only a fraction of the legal infractions committed either by President Obama’s direction and/or Obama’s Executive Branch. And there is no criminal investigations! Why?

 

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM JUDICIAL DIRECTION

 

By the decision of the Court in Mississippi v. Johnson,720 in 1867, the President was placed beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial.721 An application for an injunction to forbid President Johnson to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, was answered by Attorney General Stanberg, who argued, inter alia, the absolute immunity of the President from judicial process.722 The Court refused to permit the filing, using language construable as meaning that the President was not reachable by judicial process but which more fully paraded the horrible consequences were the Court to act. First noting the limited meaning of the term “ministerial,” the Court observed that “[v]ery different is the duty of the President in the exercise of the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and among these laws the acts named in the bill. . . . The duty thus imposed on the President is in no just sense ministerial. It is purely executive and political.

 

“An attempt on the part of the judicial department of the government to enforce the performance of such duties by the President might be justly characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, as ‘an absurd and excessive extravagance.’

 

 

Rare has been the opportunity for the Court to elucidate its opinion in Mississippi v. Johnson, and, in the Watergate tapes case,724 it held the President amenable to subpoena to produce evidence for use in a criminal case without dealing, except obliquely,[p.580]with its prior opinion. The President’s counsel had argued the President was immune to judicial process, claiming “that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere . . . insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.”725 However, the Court held, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high–level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”726 The primary constitutional duty of the courts “to do justice in criminal prosecutions” was a critical counterbalance to the claim of presidential immunity and to accept the President’s argument would disturb the separation–of–powers function of achieving “a workable government” as well as “gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.”727

 

Present throughout the Watergate crisis, and unresolved by it, was the question of the amenability of the President to criminal prosecution prior to conviction upon impeachment.728 It was argued that the impeachment clause necessarily required indictment and trial in a criminal proceeding to follow a successful impeachment and that a President in any event was uniquely immune from indictment, and these arguments were advanced as one ground to deny enforcement of the subpoenas running to the President.729 Assertion of the same argument by Vice President Agnew was controverted by the Government, through the Solicitor General, but, as to the President, it was argued that for a number of constitutional [p.581]and practical reasons he was not subject to ordinary criminal process.730

 

Finally, most recently, the Court has definitively resolved one of the intertwined issues of presidential accountability. The President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties.731 The Court’s close decision was premised on the President’s “unique position in the constitutional scheme,” that is, it was derived from the Court’s inquiry of a “kind of ‘public policy’ analysis” of the “policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President’s office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers.”732 … Although the Court relied in part upon its previous practice of finding immunity for officers, such as judges, as to whom the Constitution is silent, although a long common–law history exists, and in part upon historical evidence, which it admitted was fragmentary and ambiguous,734 the Court’s principal focus was upon the fact that the President was distinguishable from all other executive officials. He is charged with a long list of “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,”735 and diversion of his energies by concerns with private lawsuits would “raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”736

 

Supplement: [P. 582, add to text following n.738:]

 

Unofficial Conduct.—In Clinton v. Jones,9 the Court, in a case of first impression, held that the President did not have qualified immunity from suit for conduct alleged to have taken place prior to his election to the Presidency, which would entitle him to delay of both the trial and discovery. The Court held that its precedents affording the President immunity from suit for his official conduct—primarily on the basis that he should be enabled to perform his duties effectively without fear that a particular decision might give rise to personal liability— were inapplicable in this kind of case. Moreover, the separation–of–powers doctrine did not require a stay of all private actions against the President. Separation of powers is preserved by guarding against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one of the coequal branches of the Government at the expense of another. However, a federal trial court tending to a civil suit in which the President is a party performs only its judicial function, not a function of another branch. No decision by a trial court could curtail the scope of the President’s powers. The trial court, the Supreme Court observed, had sufficient powers to accommodate the President’s schedule and his workload, so as not to impede the President’s performance of his duties. Finally, the Court stated its belief that allowing such suits to proceed would not generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation. Congress has the power, the Court advised, if it should think necessary to legislate, to afford the President protection.10 (CRS ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION: Article II — Table of Contents; From Cornel University Law School, Legal information Institute)

 

Sifting through the legalese I am assuming that means the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for a crime but can be subject to a civil suit as long as it does not interfere with his Executive Branch duties. After his term of Office has expired then he may be subject to criminal proceedings. This is the unofficial reason President Gerald Ford gave President Richard Milhous Nixon a full pardon from any crimes committed while in Office. A sitting President that breaks the law can receive the equivalent of a political indictment called impeachment in the House of Representatives. The Senate acts as the equivalent of a political jury with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acting as Judge. A Senate conviction ONLY means a removal from Office. Then criminal proceedings can be executed judicially.

 

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:

 

1.      The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.

 

2.      If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.

 

3.      If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.

 

4.      For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

 

 

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

 

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

 

The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives an official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.

 

 

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

 

The Origins of the Phrase

 

 

But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.

 

Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

 

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. …

 

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

 

… (High Crimes and Misdemeanors; From Constitutional Rights Foundation; © 2014 CRF-USA)

 

Finding a crime directly linked to a sitting POTUS is difficult for justice to be maintained. President Barack Hussein Obama has pushed the criminal envelope to the limits and appears near untouchable because of the blathering love of most of America’s media and the love of political power by the most Left Wing Democratic Party in American history. I am surprised the numerous “phony scandals” has not produced links to actual murder in the name of political power. Thank God so far, that extant of nefarious scandalous illegalities has not come up pertaining to President BHO.  

 

The CCC email I referenced at the beginning of these thoughts exposes the fact that the Islamic terrorists that attacked Libyan Embassy annex in Benghazi had acquired stolen “State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility”. The Islamic terrorists utilized these phones to coordinate their attack on the annex mission that resulted in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The implication of the CCC email is that America’s Intelligence Community was listening to the Islamic attack coordination! This is another nail in the coffin of lies that exposes Obama and his Administration KNOWINGLY LYING to the American public just prior to the November 2012 election!

 

This is a ton of political evidence to bring Obama to an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. BUT just like the Democrats in the Senate protected President Slick Willie Clinton from a Senate conviction, the same scenario would undoubtedly take place today in the Senate. EVEN if the GOP retakes the majority in the Senate there will be enough Democrats to ensure that a TWO-THIRDS majority would not be achieved to convict Obama and remove the most corrupt President from Office.

 

That leaves the only way for Obama to receive some justice for his criminal management of this Administration will be via the Civil Suit and/or criminal charges AFTER his term of Office ends in January 2017. AND there is a good chance Obama would escape that post-Presidential justice if a Democrat actually wins the 2016 election for President. Do you think someone like Hillary Clinton will allow civil or criminal discovery of Obama Administration law breaking to go on the public record? NO! A President Hillary would take a page out of the Republican playbook and give Obama a blanket full pardon preventing any kind of investigation from proceeding with the power of the independent Judicial Branch.

 

KNOWING these potential unjustified outcomes I say proceed with House impeachment proceedings at least after the 2014 election cycle to get something on the public record. Public revelations will make it more difficult for Hillary to become President and at the very least allow public opinion to force the Judicial Branch into action civilly or criminally.

 

JRH 6/15/14

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

From: Office of CCC PAC

Sent: 6/14/2014 3:35 PM

 

Fox News has a stunning new report that shows that the Benghazi terrorists stole the State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility that they had attacked – and they used the phones to coordinate their attack with fellow terrorists.

But the most shocking aspect of the new report is that American intelligence agencies were listening in to the calls – and KNEW instantly that the attack on our compound in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

 

US Spy Agencies Here Benghazi Plans - Obama Lied

 

These stunning new reports are further proof that the Obama administration lied to us about the Benghazi attacks, and then tried to cover up the fact that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and not a political rally in response to a YouTube video.

Please, do not let those four Americans who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 be forgotten, swept under the rug by Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who don’t want the American people to know about the lies and cover ups surrounding that horrific terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Please review our TV ad below demanding that Barack Obama be held accountable for the Benghazi cover up, and if you want us to keep the pressure on the Obama administration for this scandal, make a contribution to our TV ad campaign – HERE.

 

VIDEO: TV Ad: Hold Obama Accountable for Benghazi Scandal

 

You can help us keep these ads running on the airwaves by making a contribution of any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed contribution of $5,000. 

To make a contribution online – JUST CLICK HERE.

Ever since the Benghazi terrorist attack the Obama administration, with significant backing from the liberal media, have attempted to hide the truth about what happened.  To cover their failures in combating terrorism, they told lies saying it was not a preplanned terrorist attack, even when they knew that to be an absolute falsehood.

 

Susan Rice- Benghazi Not Preplanned Attack

 

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and countless members of the Obama administration have lied, concealed and attempted to cover up not only the truth but their failures.  As has been his pattern of appeasement in the face of Islamic terrorism, Obama himself would not even call this an act of terrorism.

 

USA Today- BHO says Benghazi Not Terrorism

 

Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said it didn’t matter whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack or whether she and the Obama administration had lied about it.

 

Hillary- What Diff Does It Make

 

The Obama administration has dishonored those who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 and now they say it doesn’t matter because it happened “a long time ago.”

 

Jay Carney- Benghazi Happened Long ago

 

It’s time to hold the Obama administration accountable for their misdeeds.

 

We know the media will try to whitewash the seriousness of this issue.  We need to get the truth out as soon as possible, so please make a contribution to our TV ad campaign that holds Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton accountable – CONTRIBUTE HERE.

 

Again, you can contribute any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed amount of $5,000.

 

You can also make a contribution online here:

 

Conservative Campaign Committee
ATTN:  Benghazi Ad Campaign

P.O. Box 1585

Sacramento, CA 95812

_______________________________

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

_____________________________

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

Paid for and authorized by the Conservative Campaign Committee.  Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.