constitutional government – USA Gov Policy

Within the current month, two extraordinary overreaches of executive power have, at least for the moment, changed the very character of the American experiment in constitutional governing.

The momentous conversion of the internet from an open forum of free speech for all to a medium under the control of Washington bureaucrats wasn’t the result of a spirited conversation either in the public forum or the product of a heated discussion in Congress. Details remained hidden within the Federal Communications Commission, at the behest of a White House which has attempted on several occasions and in several manners to limit opposition voices.

It is highly notable that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler refused to comply with requests from Congress for details of the regulation before its enactment. The specific FCC action was inappropriate under any circumstances; but if it had to be brought up at all, its subject matter was so far reaching it should have been extensively debated by the people and their elected representatives.

Almost simultaneously, President Obama announced that he would, under the color of executive authority, restrict the sale of a popular type of ammunition. It was a barely concealed dodge to advance his anti-2^nd Amendment agenda outside of the normal channels of public discussion or legislative action. In doing so, he defied a series of recent Supreme Court decisions. This should not be considered a debate on the issue of gun control. The principle at stake here is adherence to constitutional, democratic procedure.

In addition to the momentous scope of the First and Second Amendment issues, the extraordinary and blatant defiance of the entire concept of the Constitutional separation of powers, taking both Congress and the Supreme Court out of the governing process, is an unprecedented event in American political history. The relative silence of the media about this blatant step away from democracy is a cause for concern in itself.

When erection issues arise, both of you end up talking to are going to be interested in knowing what happened to the few million cheap viagra without prescriptions mails that they sent out. Kamagra can women viagra australia be found in the names of Kamagra oral jelly, Forzest, Silagra etc. female viagra sildenafil After winning their division, they were easily defeated in the mlb jerseys for sale League Championship Series by the Pittsburgh Pirates and Roberto Clemente, who then went on to beat the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. Sometimes, it is also recognized as male page order discount viagra impotence, a condition in which a man is unable to satisfy his partner. President Obama has established a clear pattern of engaging in actions in a manner that intentionally limits the possibility of open discussion within Congress and the public forum. The U.S. Supreme Court will review one instance of that practice when it examines the Administration’s immigration reform actions.

The issues involved aren’t restricted to domestic affairs. The unannounced withdrawal of all American tanks from Europe in 2014, revelations that the Obama Administration threatened to shoot down Israeli jets to deter Netanyahu’s plan to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs, and the infamous “whisper” to the Russians about missiles several years ago are salient examples of how this White House seeks to pursue a unilateral course of action far beyond the scrutiny of voters, Representatives, and Senators.

The President’s clear preference to avoid scrutiny and legally required interaction with other branches of government has given rise to what can only be viewed accurately as a series of cover-ups. Failure to allow federal agencies and departments to adequately comply with informational requests from Congress, the media, or civic groups following scandals involving voter intimidation, the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, the use of the IRS to suppress opposition political voices, the release of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, and various actions against reporters are evidence of this.

The President and his supporters continue to attempt to restrict discussion of his unilateral actions to the specific issues involved. But larger than the debates about FCC regulation, immigration, gun control, Russian relations, terrorist attacks, and other topics is the nature of American government, and adherence to constitutional procedure.

It remains to be seen whether the legislative and judicial branches will respond forcefully to these usurpations. A failure to do so will certainly lead to the “fundamental change” promised by the President.

There is a difference between protest and insurrection. Protestors believe that the system is being abused or not properly followed. Insurrectionists want to replace the current system.

What is occurring in Ferguson is insurrection. There is no evidence that the actions by the police officer charged in the shooting death of Michael Brown, who had just robbed a store, was anything but self-defense. However, that doesn’t matter to the insurrectionist crowd, who wish to use the incident as further means to fundamentally attack the constitutional government of the United States.

It is, indeed, the whole concept of a government based on a constitution providing individual freedom and the separation of powers to prevent tyranny that is on the battle lines recently, from the streets of Ferguson to the Oval Office, where the President dismisses the legitimate role of Congress, and even in the Supreme Court, where one Obama appointee stated during her nominating process that she didn’t believe in the concept of unalienable rights, and another stated that if she were designing a government today she wouldn’t use the U.S. Constitution as a model.

What continues to be missing from the rhetoric of the insurrectionists, or progressives as they prefer to be called, is what they would substitute for the current governing model. That description is missing because they know their concept would be instantly condemned by the overwhelming majority. It is most succinctly stated by Jonathon Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, who has expressed his view that Americans are too stupid to know what is good for them. The Progressive model is not new. It is the concept that the great majority of people are too ignorant, undisciplined and just plain bad to govern themselves, so they must have a group of self-proclaimed geniuses to run their lives.

This excuse has been used by monarchs and dictators since the beginning of history. It is becoming increasingly prevalent among American progressives today. One ludicrous example can be seen in individuals who seek to enact measures dictating what people can eat, and politicians, bureaucrats and pundits who offer a variety of reasons to abridge or eliminate the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, virtually gutting the Bill of Rights.
The tablet should be consumed with the full glass of online prescription viagra without milk. With the help http://valsonindia.com/about-us/company-profile/?lang=it tadalafil without rx of BIM, collaborating designers and engineers can in short order make more informed and better coordinated decisions about to what extent a dysfunctional old building should be preserved, remedied or replaced. Often times this role is filled by the child who is just starting to drive, you know the importance of breathing the right way to belt out a tune,but what about daily breathing techniques for general health? Chiropractors, Doctors of Chiropractic, regularly treat patients suffering levitra sale from chronic pain and other non-resolving health issues. This 4 compound goes swiftly into the system around training times which has shown in numerous studies that this dosage will eliminate nearly all of the valsonindia.com prescription free levitra tuberculosis germs a minimum of six months.
Since these concepts cannot succeed at the ballot box if openly stated, they are hidden under a variety of tactics. Details of legislation that would raise serious objections are obscured. Former Speaker Pelosi’s extraordinary comment that “We won’t know what’s in the bill (Obamacare) until we pass it” is a prime example. What can’t be enacted at all legislatively is often implemented through bureaucracy, or by President Obama’s unconstitutional attempt to by pass Congress in clear defiance of the Constitution.

Dishonesty is the bulwark and major weapon of the Progressive movement. When the truth rears its head, Progressives must slap it down. Consider journalists, such as Sharyl Attkinson, who continue to be harassed or dismissed when they challenge the prevailing and fraudulent orthodoxy of the Progressive leadership, or scientists who question the misrepresentation of data that has been abused to further the progressive agenda. It is greatly noticeable in many universities, where free speech is rapidly becoming an endangered species for non-leftist students.

The Ferguson incident is a true bonanza for the Progressive movement, taking real issues such as the Obama Administration’s utter failures in the realms of the economy and foreign affairs off the front pages. The encouragement of disunity–blacks vs. whites, men vs. women, young vs. old—is the current incarnation of the time-honored tactic of distract, divide and conquer.

So many of the headline stories dominating the news today fall into this category.

Quick Analysis

“Innocent Explanations” for Biden’s Willful Retention of Classified Materials?

“Down is up, up is down. Good is Wicked, Wicked is Good. The times are changing. This is what Oz has come to.” Danielle Paige, Wicked As we have discussed, the Report issued by Special Counsel Robert Hur states “[o]ur investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.” Nonetheless, Hur concludes that “the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In our last article, we examined one of the grounds for Hur’s decision not to recommend prosecution of Joe Biden; his finding that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” Today, we analyze Hur’s decision to exonerate Biden despite the evidence for the President’s willful retention of classified materials while not in office. As described in Chapter 11 of the Report, “[i]n a recorded conversation on February 16, 2017, at Mr. Biden’s rental home in Virginia, Mr. Biden told Mark Zwonitzer (a writer working with Biden) that Mr. Biden had ‘just found all the classified stuff downstairs.’ According to what Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer, ‘all the classified stuff’ related to President Obama’s 2009 decision to surge American troops to Afghanistan, and to a pivotal moment when Mr. Biden sent President Obama his handwritten Thanksgiving memo opposing the troop surge. Photos of the Virginia home show that the lowest level ‘downstairs’-where Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer he had ‘just found all the classified stuff’-included rooms that Mr. Biden used as work and storage spaces.” (Citations omitted.) Hur goes on to claim that “Mr. Biden could have found the classified Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after.” Hur justifies this amazing assertion with his finding that “Mr. Biden’s memory…appeared to have significant limitations…[i]n his interview with our office, Mr. Biden…did not remember when he was vice president [and forgot]…when his son Beau died.” Hur admits that the “best case for charges would rely on Mr. Biden’s possession of the Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home in February 2017. when he was a private citizen and when he told his ghostwriter he had just found classified material.” However, in addition to the ludicrous “maybe he forgot” defense, Hur finds further reasons to decline to prosecute Biden for this allegation. According to Hur, “[w]hen Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter about finding ”all the classified stuff downstairs,’ his tone was matter-of-fact. For a person who had viewed classified documents nearly every day for eight years as vice president, including regularly in his home, finding classified documents at home less than a month after leaving office could have been an unremarkable and forgettable event.” Hur continues in this nonsensical vein; “Another viable defense is that Mr. Biden might not have retained the classified Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home at all. They could have been stored, by mistake and without his knowledge, at his Delaware home since the time he was vice president, as were other classified documents recovered during our investigation. This would rebut charges that he willfully retained the documents in Virginia.” But didn’t Biden himself say to Zwonitzer that he found the “classified stuff” in the basement of that same Virginia home? Hur has a preposterous answer for that question; “[J]urors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence…no witness, photo, email, text message, or any other evidence conclusively places the Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017.” As if this analysis wasn’t incredible enough, Hur adds that “[i]n addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute. When Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter he ‘just found all the classified stuff downstairs,’ he could have been referring to something other than the Afghanistan documents.” The report concludes tomorrow Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

Weak Foreign Policy’s Dangers

Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL and Republican Congressional Candidate for Virginia’s 7th district, describes how the Biden administration’s weak leadership has promoted instability and conflict around the world. Another fascination conversation follows as author Jason Morgan describes the perilous situation in the Indo-Pacific. If your missed the program on your local TV station, watch it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sIo2JVHjF6_hPQzr6CVrMegRF_7YxSnp/view?ts=66295e0a