Archive for the ‘U.S. Constitution’ category

Who Rules the United States?

February 17, 2017

Who Rules the United States? Washington Free Beacon, February 17, 2017

(Update re President Trump’s EPA nominee, Scott Pruitt: He was approved by the Senate 52-46. — DM)

President Donald Trump pauses while speaking during a news conference, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

President Donald Trump pauses while speaking during a news conference, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Donald Trump was elected president last November by winning 306 electoral votes. He pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., to overturn the system of politics that had left the nation’s capital and major financial and tech centers flourishing but large swaths of the country mired in stagnation and decay. “What truly matters,” he said in his Inaugural Address, “is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.”

Is it? By any historical and constitutional standard, “the people” elected Donald Trump and endorsed his program of nation-state populist reform. Yet over the last few weeks America has been in the throes of an unprecedented revolt. Not of the people against the government—that happened last year—but of the government against the people. What this says about the state of American democracy, and what it portends for the future, is incredibly disturbing.

There is, of course, the case of Michael Flynn. He made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career, suffice it to say. And when he exposed himself as vulnerable those enemies pounced. But consider the means: anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations. Yes, the conversation in question was with a foreign national. And no one doubts we spy on ambassadors. But we aren’t supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause. And we most certainly are not supposed to disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the Washington Post because it suits a partisan or personal agenda.

Here was a case of current and former national security officials using their position, their sources, and their methods to crush a political enemy. And no one but supporters of the president seems to be disturbed. Why? Because we are meant to believe that the mysterious, elusive, nefarious, and to date unproven connection between Donald Trump and the Kremlin is more important than the norms of intelligence and the decisions of the voters.

But why should we believe that? And who elected these officials to make this judgment for us?

Nor is Flynn the only example of nameless bureaucrats working to undermine and ultimately overturn the results of last year’s election. According to the New York Times, civil servants at the EPA are lobbying Congress to reject Donald Trump’s nominee to run the agency. Is it because Scott Pruitt lacks qualifications? No. Is it because he is ethically compromised? Sorry. The reason for the opposition is that Pruitt is a critic of the way the EPA was run during the presidency of Barack Obama. He has a policy difference with the men and women who are soon to be his employees. Up until, oh, this month, the normal course of action was for civil servants to follow the direction of the political appointees who serve as proxies for the elected president.

How quaint. These days an architect of the overreaching and antidemocratic Waters of the U.S. regulation worries that her work will be overturned so she undertakes extraordinary means to defeat her potential boss. But a change in policy is a risk of democratic politics. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the decisions of government employees are to be unquestioned and preserved forever. Yet that is precisely the implication of this unprecedented protest. “I can’t think of any other time when people in the bureaucracy have done this,” a professor of government tells the paper. That sentence does not leave me feeling reassured.

Opposition to this president takes many forms. Senate Democrats have slowed confirmations to the most sluggish pace since George Washington. Much of the New York and Beltway media does really function as a sort of opposition party, to the degree that reporters celebrated the sacking of Flynn as a partisan victory for journalism. Discontent manifests itself in direct actions such as the Women’s March.

But here’s the difference. Legislative roadblocks, adversarial journalists, and public marches are typical of a constitutional democracy. They are spelled out in our founding documents: the Senate and its rules, and the rights to speech, a free press, and assembly. Where in those documents is it written that regulators have the right not to be questioned, opposed, overturned, or indeed fired, that intelligence analysts can just call up David Ignatius and spill the beans whenever they feel like it?

The last few weeks have confirmed that there are two systems of government in the United States. The first is the system of government outlined in the U.S. Constitution—its checks, its balances, its dispersion of power, its protection of individual rights. Donald Trump was elected to serve four years as the chief executive of this system. Whether you like it or not.

The second system is comprised of those elements not expressly addressed by the Founders. This is the permanent government, the so-called administrative state of bureaucracies, agencies, quasi-public organizations, and regulatory bodies and commissions, of rule-writers and the byzantine network of administrative law courts. This is the government of unelected judges with lifetime appointments who, far from comprising the “least dangerous branch,” now presume to think they know more about America’s national security interests than the man elected as commander in chief.

For some time, especially during Democratic presidencies, the second system of government was able to live with the first one. But that time has ended. The two systems are now in competition. And the contest is all the more vicious and frightening because more than offices are at stake. This fight is not about policy. It is about wealth, status, the privileges of an exclusive class.

“In our time, as in [Andrew] Jackson’s, the ruling classes claim a monopoly not just on the economy and society but also on the legitimate authority to regulate and restrain it, and even on the language in which such matters are discussed,” writes Christopher Caldwell in a brilliant essay in the Winter 2016/17 Claremont Review of Books.

Elites have full-spectrum dominance of a whole semiotic system. What has just happened in American politics is outside the system of meanings elites usually rely upon. Mike Pence’s neighbors on Tennyson street not only cannot accept their election loss; they cannot fathom it. They are reaching for their old prerogatives in much the way that recent amputees are said to feel an urge to scratch itches on limbs that are no longer there. Their instincts tell them to disbelieve what they rationally know. Their arguments have focused not on the new administration’s policies or its competence but on its very legitimacy.

Donald Trump did not cause the divergence between government of, by, and for the people and government, of, by, and for the residents of Cleveland Park and Arlington and Montgomery and Fairfax counties. But he did exacerbate it. He forced the winners of the global economy and the members of the D.C. establishment to reckon with the fact that they are resented, envied, opposed, and despised by about half the country. But this recognition did not humble the entrenched incumbents of the administrative state. It radicalized them to the point where they are readily accepting, even cheering on, the existence of a “deep state” beyond the control of the people and elected officials.

Who rules the United States? The simple and terrible answer is we do not know. But we are about to find out.

A legal analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s dangerous usurpation of presidential power

February 10, 2017

A legal analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s dangerous usurpation of presidential power, American Thinker,Ed Straker, February 10, 2017

(I practiced and studied law for more than three decades and find apparently successful attempts to turn Lady Justice into a political whore disheartening.

More diligent study than I have attempted since my retirement in 1996 would be necessary completely to understand a decision like that of the Ninth Circus Circuit. The present article seems brash; perhaps a brash approach is needed, if only as a basis for discussion of the proper, but very different, roles of the three branches of our feral federal government.  Please see also, The Ninth Circuit’s stolen sovereignty should serve as final wakeup call.– DM)

Federal District Judge James Robart violated the Constitution in issuing a TRO (temporary restraining order) against President Trump’s temporary entry ban for citizens of seven countries. Now a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed that stay.

What we have here is a creeping constitutional coup. As long as President Obama was in charge and had a massive open door policy at our borders and at our airports, in violation of statutory law, the judiciary was content to be silent. But when Donald Trump became president and tried to use the powers of the Presidency to put some national security safeguards into place, the judiciary sprung into action. The judiciary has usurped the executive branch’s powers and has created a parallel constitution, one that bears no relation to the founding document of our nation. The courts have now cited this parallel constitution to justify taking away the ultimate decision making authority concerning national security from the Presidency, to rest in their hands. The constitutional crisis and injury to our national security caused by this illegitimate decision cannot be overstated.

What follows is an analysis of this travesty and the damage done to our system of jurisprudence and national security.

1) The legal concept of standing has been totally eviscerated. In order to sue one must have “standing,” essentially to show that one is an injured party. The state of Washington, among others, sued claiming that its state-owned universities were harmed because a few students from the affected seven countries could not come to their campuses. The Ninth Circuit (hereinafter “the Court”) found that these grounds gave Washington standing to sue.

As of now, the concept of standing is now meaningless. The idea behind standing was to limit frivolous lawsuits so only people directly injured could sue. The Court’s expansion of standing means that a state can now sue on behalf of anyone, for any reason. This is very important because if anyone can sue on behalf of anyone, the Courts become immensely more powerful. Remember that Courts cannot get involved until someone sues. With standing gone, anyone can sue and the Court can immediately then exercise its power, as was the courts intent in doing away with standing.

2) “Irreparable harm” has been turned upside down. One of the standards the Court used to adjudicate this case was to see if either party would suffer irreparable harm. The Court found the University of Washington would suffer irreparable harm if students from Somalia and Yemen were temporarily delayed from coming to the US. The UW system has tens of thousands of students. The number of students affected here would be a small handful. The Court considers an action that would affect a tiny handful of students in a huge student body as irreparable harm.

On the other hand, the Court does not think the dangers of admitting un-vetted foreign nationals who might be terrorists constitutes and irreparable harm. The Court demanded that the Trump administration prove that there was a terrorist danger from these countries. But the Trump administration is not obligated to prove the terror threat because the Court has no jurisdiction in this area. It would be as if the Court suddenly demanded that Trump get approval for his DHS cabinet pick from an appeals Court, and strike down Trump’s choice because he didn’t submit evidence showing his DHS pick was suitable. This is a mad, naked, power grab. The Court opined:

When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms.

Can you believe this? To consider the inconveniencing of a handful of students as an irreparable harm and the national security of a nation as unimportant shows that this Court is fully in wanton disregard of the law, not to mention common sense.

3) National security policy has been wrested from the presidency and placed in the hands of the judiciary. National Security is traditionally left to the Presidency; indeed, the Court cited cases in support of this.

See, e.g. Cardenas v. United States , 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” see also Holder v.  Humanitarian Law Project , 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that Courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations).

But the Court says this deference is not absolute, and when they feel they want to overrule the Executive branch, they can. They even cited cases for that proposition as well:

see Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”);

Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41 (rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that Courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally  permissible means of implementing that power”)

See, e.g. Boumediene, 553 U.S. 723 (striking down a federal statute purporting to deprive federal Courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by non-citizens being held as “enemy combatants” after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere and accused of authorizing, planning, committing, or aiding the terrorist attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001)

These cases are not constitutionally correct. The Constitution does not apply to foreign nationals. The Constitution is an agreement among the American citizenry. No one else. It doesn’t apply to the people of Iraq, or Somali nationals who come here, or Yemenis with an American visa. By citing cases that were unconstitutionally decided, you can see how far back the judicial rot extends — the Courts have built precedent for a shadow constitution, which allows them to grab power from the Executive.

4) The Due Process clause has been expanded to add seven billion people.The Court cites the Due Process clause, which states in part ” No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. The problem is that foreign nationals are not legal “persons” under our Constitution. How could they be? How could we ever legally go to war or take action against a foreign country or a foreign group without letting them have their day in court? The implications are truly ridiculous.

The Court writes:

The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their  presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.

How could that be true? The Constitution applies to aliens? And the Court doesn’t even have the courage to state its ultimate conclusion: that Due Process doesn’t just extend to aliens in America, but even to aliens in other countries who want to come to America. Because that’s what they’ve extended it to.

5) The Court maliciously avoided a narrowly tailored legal remedy. Even if the Court honestly believes its own argument, its relief should be narrowly tailored to the handful of students affected at the University of Washington. Instead, it used this case as a wedge to assert its primacy over national security and to open the entire nation to unrestricted entry.

6) The Court disingenuously employed false religious protection claims. The Court said

The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.

Again, the Court has no jurisdiction here. The people affected are not Americans. The Trump Administration can exclude Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Women, red haired people, anyone it wants to.  Of course this is not a Muslim ban, but to even play into that argument presumes the Court has the power to rule over this. It doesn’t.

7) False consideration of “public interest.” The Court says that it has to consider “the public interest” in deciding. No it doesn’t. It only has to consider the Constitution.

Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay [of the TRO]

So the Court weighed free entry to America for foreigners, versus national security for Americans. How to decide? The Court said, for now that free travel for foreigners into America is definitely more in the public interest!

8) Conclusion: the false choices: where do we go from here? Some commentators will say to appeal this to the full Ninth Circuit (this was a three judge panel). Others will say to appeal this case to the Supreme Court. Still others will say to redraft the legislation to better meet the Court’s dictates and current mood swings.

These are all false choices. It is like people coming into your home and telling you that you cannot redecorate it without their permission; submit a proper plan, and perhaps they will approve it. The only way to win this game is not to play.

Yes, President Trump should appeal to the Supreme Court, but with a 4-4 split there (which will continue for months), his victory is far from assured.

More primarily, he should immediately disavow the Court’s authority in this matter and order his officials to reinstate the ban. Trump will be said to be provoking a constitutional crisis, but let us be clear, it is the courts that have provoked this constitutional crisis, and Trump’s entry ban is a relatively mild one. Remember, to secure the country, he is going go to have to do much more than this moderate executive order:

Let’s say that Trump actually wants to have a permanent ban on refugees from Syria or Iraq, for security reasons. A Court could overturn it on the same grounds. Suppose Trump wants to stop all refugees coming to America for a year. A Court could actually force Trump to let 100,000 or more refugees in, if Trump lets them. A Court could stop Trump from doing enhanced vetting, claiming it discriminated against Muslims from ISIS infested countries. A Court also stop Trump’s border wall, claiming it would have a negative effect on a snail or a worm.

That’s why Trump can’t give in on his relatively limited executive order. If he does, he will give the Courts a green light to keep America an open borders country.

If Trump does nothing, merely playing out the process, he may well lose his constitutional power to protect our borders. And while we wait and watch matters go through the courts, every day more and more terrorists could be coming into our country. There is no time to wait.

Russian Hacking Conspiracy Theory Implodes

December 16, 2016

Russian Hacking Conspiracy Theory Implodes, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, December 16, 2016

vlad1

The Left’s crusade against Republican presidential electors is kicking into high gear even as the CIA-attributed story that Russian hackers won the White House for Donald Trump is going up in flames.

There is still no evidence –at least none that has been made publicly available– that the Russian government or Russian-backed cyber militias hacked anything to help Trump win the election but that’s not halting the Left’s efforts to delegitimize his presidency before it even begins.

Against this backdrop, members of the Electoral College are preparing to gather this Monday in the 50 states and the District of Columbia to fulfill their constitutional duty. Adding to the drama, some electors are demanding intelligence briefings on the alleged hacking before they vote.

But sometimes not everyone on the Left gets the memo.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch yesterday undermined the Left’s post-election jihad against Trump by rejecting the proposition that the Russian government (or anyone) hacked into voting machines used in the recent election.

“We didn’t see any sort of technical interference that people had concerns about, in terms of voting machines and the like,” she said at an event hosted by Politico.

While community organizers across America whip their followers into a state of frenzy, stories are still being planted in the media by the Central Intelligence Agency or sources claiming to speak for the spy agency. Yet the CIA refuses to be held to account.

When federal lawmakers did their job this week and demanded proof of the Russian hacking allegations, intelligence agencies refused to show up to provide congressional testimony.

Most reasonable people would infer from this appallingly arrogant behavior by the CIA, which has long been home to left-wing Democrats and squishy moderate Republicans, that all this damning evidence we keep hearing about does not actually exist.

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) blasted “Intelligence Community directors” for their “intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress [which] can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.”

Intelligence overseer Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is hopping mad over the CIA’s obstructionism. It is “absolutely disgraceful,” he said, that the intelligence community is refusing to brief lawmakers about the alleged Russian hacking program while false information is being surreptitiously funneled to the media to discredit Donald Trump.

“There is no consensus opinion, and yet we find it in the New York Times and the Washington Post and yet the House Committee on Intelligence was told nothing about this,” King said.

“This violates all protocols and it’s almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States,” King said. He acknowledged it is possible that someone in Congress could also be leaking false information.

Obama White House press secretary Josh Earnest escalated the time-limited administration’s war of words against the incoming president.

Referring to Trump’s fabled July 27 press conference at which the media falsely reported the then-GOP candidate had invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton, Earnest said matter-of-factly Wednesday that Trump asked Russia to use cyberwarfare against Clinton.

“There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia — everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent,” Earnest said.

“It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign.”

“That’s why he was encouraging them to keep doing it,” Earnest said.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose site released thousands of purported emails from senior Democrats during the recent election campaign, threw cold water on the Russian hacking conspiracy theory.

Assange told Sean Hannity yesterday, “Our source is not the Russian government.” He also said the information WikiLeaks received “has not come from a state party.”

What Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 17 suggests Assange may be right.

“As far as the WikiLeaks connection [to Russian hackers is concerned] the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided,” Clapper said. “We don’t have as good insight into that.”

Assange told Hannity WikiLeaks received almost nothing on Republicans. “We received about three pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump but it was already public somewhere else.”

Interestingly, Assange, who has been built up in the media to be some kind of radical anarchist, stood by America’s constitutionally prescribed system for choosing a president.

He said:

There’s a deliberate attempt this week to conflate a whole lot of different issues together. It seems to be as a desire, an extremely dangerous and foolish desire, to flip members of the U.S. Electoral College around into getting up John Kasich or Hillary Clinton on the 19th. It’s foolish because it won’t happen. It’s dangerous because the argument that it should happen can be used in four years’ time or eight years’ time for a sitting government that doesn’t want to hand over power and that’s a very dangerous thing. There’s [Hillary] Clinton-aligned PACs putting out ads with lots of celebrities trying to push these electors to do it.

Who’s doing all this conflating? President Obama, Assange suggested.

Hannity asked Assange if the president knows Russia isn’t behind the Democrat electronic document dump and is “purposefully” pushing a false narrative to delegitimize Trump. Assange replied, “yes … there is a deliberate effort to conflate” underway.

Hannity piled on the CIA, noting that “for over 10 years WikiLeaks has never been proven wrong, not one single time.”

The radio talk show host said the CIA pushed the lie that the coordinated military-style attack on U.S. assets in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 arose out of a mere protest.

“The CIA advanced that false story that it was a spontaneous demonstration when we now know it was a terrorist attack. And they advanced it through the CIA in Langley,” Hannity said. “There were some people there that were playing politics at the CIA, advancing a false narrative, a story that we know is false.”

But facts are malleable things and reality is never an obstacle to the plans of the Left.

The fact that Trump never asked Russia to hack Hillary and the CIA apparently has nothing to back up its wild allegations is no reason for those who wish to overturn the recent verdict of the American people to back off.

Something called Electors Trust is claiming that somewhere between 20 and 30 Republican electors are considering not voting for Trump on Monday, the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress Action Fund’s propaganda site ThinkProgress reports. Co-founded by radical Harvard law professor Larry Lessig, Electors Trust claims to provide “free and strictly confidential legal support to any elector who wishes to vote their conscience.”

In a dramatic come-from-behind victory, Trump won 306 of the 538 available elector slots on Nov. 8. Left-wingers want to peel off enough GOP electors to deprive Trump of the magic number 270 he needs to formally secure the presidency in the official Electoral College vote this Monday.

There is almost no chance this coup will succeed but even if the Electoral College were to reach a stalemate Trump would still be on track to become president. With each state’s delegation casting a single vote, the current Republican-dominated House of Representatives would elect a president. The current GOP-dominated Senate would elect a vice president with each senator casting a single vote.

Trump-haters could still try and throw a wrench in the works when the new Congress convenes in January. When Congress begins to officially count the electoral votes, they could apply pressure to lawmakers to contest those votes. But it’s a very hard slog. A written objection has to be made to the president of the Senate, that is, Vice President Joe Biden, and it has to be signed by at least one senator and one House member.

Both chambers then debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. Afterwards, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the electoral votes for them not to count.

Making matters more difficult for the Trump-blockers, Lessig’s estimate of having as many as 30 sympathetic Republican electors in his pocket is almost certainly a hallucination on his part that helps to create the false impression that his anti-democratic campaign is succeeding.

More responsible whip counts place the number of likely faithless electors in the single digits – enough for an interesting historical footnote but not enough to keep Trump out of the Oval Office.

In an email Lessig cited “three groups that I know of working with/supporting electors,” and said that his faithless electors’ estimate is “based on my confidence in the reports from these three groups.”

Lessig told Chuck Todd on MSNBC Tuesday that he shares the goal of groups like Hamilton Electors to convince at least 40 Republican electors to say they’re contemplating dumping Trump.

Lessig is just one of many mass hysteria-afflicted leftists trying to stop Trump from becoming president.

Some officeholders are demanding a congressional investigation of the supposed hacking saga. Others liken the cyber-conspiracy they fantasize to 9/11 and are demanding an independent blue-ribbon commission be created. Maybe Jesse Jackson Sr. will invite the United Nations to participate.

Up to 55 electors –54 of whom are Democrats– have reportedly called upon Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to authorize intelligence briefings on the alleged Russian cyberattacks before the Electoral College votes. California elector Christine Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is spearheading the effort.

Democrat activist Daniel Brezenoff is paying for full-page ads in newspapers across the country such as the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal-Constitution asking electors to “vote their conscience” and reject Trump, Politico reports.

Then there are the left-wingers who have been doxxing Republican electors.

“Liberal groups, including a new one called Make Democracy Matter, have disseminated the names and contact information of the electors and encouraged people to contact Republican electors and ask them to change their vote,” hippy rag Mother Jones reports. “And those messages are arriving to electors’ inboxes, voicemails, and homes by the thousands.”

So now at least we know where all the death threats Republican electors are receiving are coming from.

Left-wing activists call this kind of in-your-face harassment “accountability,” an Orwellian euphemism to be sure. Accountability actions focus on harassing and intimidating political enemies, disrupting their activities, and forcing them to waste resources dealing with activists’ provocations. It is a tactic of radical community organizers, open borders fanatics, and union goons. Taking a cue from Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, they want to shut down, humiliate, and silence those who fail to genuflect before their policy agenda, or in this case, ignore the votes of the 63 million Americans in 3,084 of the nation’s 3,141 counties or county equivalents who chose Donald Trump for president.

Make Democracy Matter, by the way, shrieks on its homepage that “We can stop Trump from imposing his racist agenda on America … we can build systems and structures that protect people from harm and dismantle white supremacy.”

MoveOn plans to run a 30-second ad on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today featuring faithless Republican elector Christopher Suprun from the 30th congressional district in Texas.

“The CIA report is frightening,” Suprun says in the video even though as far as anyone knows he’s never seen the elusive report.

No doubt the Van Jones-founded Megaphone Strategies, a self-described “social justice media strategy firm” hired by parties unknown to turn Suprun into 2016’s Cindy Sheehan has helped put him in the media spotlight.

In a sanctimonious New York Times op-ed earlier this month, Suprun denounced Trump, saying, “He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage. This is unacceptable.”

After writing that “Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief,” he repeats the proven lie that during the campaign Trump said “Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.” He adds, “This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.”

Suprun, by the way, is quite a piece of work. GotNews discovered he “joined and paid for cheating website Ashley Madison in 2012, using the same address registered to his 9/11 charity, while bankrupt, likely unemployed, and married with three young kids, after he and his working wife owed over $200,000 to multiple creditors.”

More than 35,000 people have signed a Change.org petition demanding Suprun “be removed” as an elector.

And then there are the famous college dropouts from Hollywood.

Something called Americans Take Action, apparently doing business as Unite for America, put together a celebrity-larded public service announcement to urge Republican electors to vote for somebody, anybody, other than Donald Trump on Dec. 19.

In the video we learn that idiot actors Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, Bob Odenkirk, James Cromwell, Noah Wyle, and singer Moby have suddenly become champions of the government-limiting U.S. Constitution.

“Our Founding Fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is, ‘to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications,’ ” Sheen solemnly intones in the video.

A somber Messing repeats Sheen’s words, “to an eminent degree.”

You get the picture.

It’s also been fascinating watching left-wingers embrace Founding Father Alexander Hamilton solely because he wrote Federalist No. 68 which explains the Electoral College and the qualifications of a president.

Because the Left’s narrative paints Trump as a rabid Russophile, these people who otherwise would use the Constitution as toilet paper are heeding Hamilton’s warning that foreign powers might seek to raise “a creature of their own” to the presidency.

And they scream bloody murder about Holy Mother Russia, a country they were only too happy to serve in the days of the Soviet Union when Russian President Vladimir Putin was a colonel in the KGB.

KGB collaborator Ted Kennedy must be rolling in his grave.

Clinton Operatives Brag They “Scared off” Chief Justice

October 15, 2016

Clinton Operatives Brag They “Scared off” Chief Justice, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, October 15, 2016

(The strategy seems to have worked. The Supreme Court’s 2012 Obamacare decision — written by Chief Justice Roberts — was worse than a farce, as I wrote here shortly after the decision was rendered. — DM)

In one of the more remarkable Wikileaks exchanges, Clinton operatives Neera Tanden and Jennifer Palmieri took credit for “scaring off” Chief Justice John Roberts by threatening to make the Supreme Court’s decision in the first Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, a campaign issue. These are the players on the email thread:

Center for American Progress (CAP): a left-wing activist organization that was an arm of the Obama administration and now is an arm of the Clinton campaign.

Neera Tanden: President of CAP.

John Podesta: Former President of CAP, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Jennifer Palmieri: Former White House Communications Director for Barack Obama, now communications director for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Jake Sullivan: Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff when she was Secretary of State, now foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign.

In the main email in the thread, Neera Tanden harkens back to the first Obamacare case, decided on a 5-4 vote in 2012, and says that she believes the White House “scared off” Chief Justice John Roberts by politicizing the case. She suggests that the Clinton campaign should do the same with regard to the then-pending second Obamacare case, King v. Burwell. She identifies Justices Roberts and Anthony Kennedy as most vulnerable to political pressure:

I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it’s a bit more current now.

It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it’s possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off.

In this case, I’m not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against the government. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It’s not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision…the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue.

At CAP Action, we can get that story started. But kinda rests on you guys to make it stick.

What do you think? If you want to proceed, we should move soon.

Tanden then added this in a separate email:

And to clarify, the candidate wouldn’t have to do anything. I think we could move the story with just a nod from the campaign on the strategy.

Note how CAP seamlessly coordinates with the Clinton campaign, taking directions on whether to “move the story” from campaign officials. Tanden makes no pretense of independence.

Jake Sullivan responded that he is “into it,” but would “defer to Jen on this one.” Palmieri gave the green light:

She has already been making this an issue. Not sure how in depth you are suggesting but seems like this should be manageable.

Of course, the liberals’ belief that Justices Roberts and Kennedy can be influenced by political pressure, and that such pressure was “pretty critical” to the decision upholding Obamacare’s constitutionality, could be wrong. Their conversation is, in any event, chilling.

Via InstaPundit and the Wall Street Journal.

DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be Banned from Public Office: President Obama Stays Silent

October 5, 2016

DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be Banned from Public Office: President Obama Stays Silent, Watts up with that, October 4, 2016

(Please see also, Reviving Religious Tests for Public Office. — DM)

obama_dicaprioScreenshot of President Obama Listening while DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be banned from public office.

It is one thing for a hypocritical jetset climate clown like DiCaprio to say something outrageous and anti-democratic. But it is an entirely different issue, when the serving President of the United States, who took an oath to defend the US constitution, fails to discharge his duty by speaking up against a high profile verbal attack against the liberty of the people he swore to protect.

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

Climate advocate Leonardo DiCaprio has called for climate “deniers” to be banned from public office. President Obama, sharing a stage with DiCaprio, did not object – Obama’s words in my opinion appear to actually lend some support to DiCaprio’s outrageous demand, for limiting the US people’s freedom to choose leaders who represent their views.

DiCaprio: Climate change doubters shouldn’t hold public office

Politicians who don’t believe in climate change should not hold public office, said actor Leonardo DiCaprio Monday at the White House before the screening of his new climate documentary.

“The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said at the White House’s South By South Lawn event.

If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.

“Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you,” Obama said.

“The political system in every country is not well-designed to do something tough now to solve a problem that people will really feel the impact of in the future.”

Read more (includes a video): http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/leonardo-dicaprio-barack-obama-sxsl-climate-change

How many tyrants and dictators through history have used the pretext of an imminent disaster to seize control, to deprive people of their freedom?

It is one thing for a hypocritical jetset climate clown like DiCaprio to say something outrageous and anti-democratic. But it is an entirely different issue, when the serving President of the United States, who took an oath to defend the US constitution, fails to discharge his duty by speaking up against a high profile verbal attack against the liberty of the people he swore to protect.

Satire?| Obama Ratifies Treaty on Sharia Law

September 4, 2016

Satire?| Obama Ratifies Treaty on Sharia Law, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 4, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Having personally ratified the Iran Scam Treaty and the Climate Change Treaty with China, President Obama today met with Turkish, Saudi and Iranian heads of state to ratify a new treaty making Sharia Law binding in the United States. Please see also, The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric. Obama, a renowned constitutional scholar, quickly rejected objections by Senate leaders that “He shouldn’t oughta do that because it’s our job” by reminding them that He is the President and is therefore empowered by the Constitution to do whatever pleases Him.

TOTUS Seal

Here is the text of President Obama’s statement on ratification of the Sharia Law Treaty, provided by The Incomparably Honorable I. M. Totus, Teleprompter of the United States:

My beloved Islamist colleagues, men, women and whatever: today, with great pleasure and a heart-felt desire for a better future for all, I today ratified a treaty with The Republic of Turkey, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran making Sharia Law officially binding in America just as it is in those great progressive, humanitarian nations.

As United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently stated, the debate about the horrors of man-made climate change is over and the issue is settled. So be it with any debate over My success in preventng Iran from using nuclear weapons and, indeed, over My constitutional powers as your humble President. I have settled those matters as well, as all loyal Americans must agree.

Sharia Law will make America a far happier and better place for all including, most importantly, refugees coming to our shores in increasing numbers from other Islamist nations. I can think of no better way to welcome them than by guaranteeing them the dignity, honor and freedoms under Sharia Law they so richly and justly deserve.

For too long has America based its laws on flawed Judeo-Christian principles. But that’s not who we are; we have a long, honorable and mutually beneficial history with Islam and many if not most of our best citizens are Muslims. The treaty I ratified today will finally put us on the right side of history. It will also facilitate My brilliant countering violent extremism initiative by encouraging an honest discussion of Sharia law, long rejected by “America First” nationalists and other Islamophobes who despise Allah and His one true Religion of Peace.

I am confident that all loyal Americans will be happy to abide by our Sharia Laws; common sense steps will be taken to encourage all to do so. Observers from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran will soon come to America to assist us in implementing whatever encouragements may be needed.

We should all thank the three other splendid freedom loving nations which also ratified the new treaty and encourage all other nations of the world to join us as soon as possible.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.

Hated by many Americans until now, The Islamic Republic of Iran has shown that it is a truly glorious example of Islamist democracy in action, where Sharia Law is enforced, followed and enjoyed by all.

hangings_in_iran

With Obama leading the way as always, we are joining them. Just look at the Iranians depicted in the following Iranian propaganda video! They are proud, happy, peaceful, patriotic and loving despite the shameful efforts of America in the past and, indeed, of some war-mongering Americans today, to humble and destroy them and their beloved nation.

No longer will that happen. The President has spoken! This will be the most beneficial and longest lasting of all of His many great leaps forward to make America a country of which He, His beautiful wife Michelle and all other good people can and will be truly proud.

It is anticipated that President Obama will soon issue an executive order changing the name of the country from The United States of America to The Islamist Republic of Obama. The flag of the new Islamist Republic of Obama will combine the best elements of the flags of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A photo of Obama as the bringer of true Islamic peace and understanding will be superimposed over the other flag elements.

Obama:

Obama death to America

Iran:
Iranian flag

Turkey:
Flag_of_Turkey.svg

Saudi Arabia:
saudi flag

Oh well.

what me worry

A Lawless President Made More Secret Deals

September 1, 2016

A Lawless President Made More Secret Deals, Counter Jihad, September 1, 2016

A new report revealed by Reuters shows that there were more secret deals made with Iran, and not reported to Congress, in violation of US law.  The President of the United States has knowingly and repeatedly violated a law he himself signed, for the express purpose of avoiding Congressional oversight of his actions mandated both by the law and the Constitution.

During the so-called “Iran Deal” negotiations, it became known that the State Department had agreed to allow Iran to make a “secret side deal” with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to which the United States would not be a party.  The intent was to dodge a provision of the law governing the “Iran Deal”‘s negotiation, a law that President Barack Obama had himself signed into law.  He signed this into law in the hope of avoiding the Constitutional requirement that the Senate should advise and assent to treaties by a two-thirds majority.  The law he negotiated as an alternative to obeying the Constitution required that the entire deal, including any side arrangements, be made available to Congress for consideration before approval.

Congress objected to this first ‘secret deal,’ especially Representatives Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo.  Pompeo said at the time of this revelation, “Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.”  In a letter to Secretary of State John F. Kerry, he reminded the Secretary that “pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress.”

Now we learn that there were many more such deals, none of which was reported to Congress.  In a way, this has been obvious for some time.  The IranTruth site reported in July that there were more secret deals, and asked,“Does the President Know?”  Jeff Dunetz, writing at the same site, identified two more secret deals specifically by August of last year.   French and Iranian officials agreed last summer that the presentation of the deal being made by Secretary Kerry to the US Congress was a distortion of what was being actually negotiated, with the French expressing a concern that the deal was always being weakened in Iran’s favor.

According to Reuters today:

The report is to be published on Thursday by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said the think tank’s president David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and co-author of the report. It is based on information provided by several officials of governments involved in the negotiations, who Albright declined to identify.

Reuters could not independently verify the report’s assertions.

“The exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran,” Albright said.

Among the exemptions were two that allowed Iran to exceed the deal’s limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU) it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said. LEU can be purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium.

Will Congress continue to accept this lawless erosion of its Constitutional role?  Will they, at any point, stand up and assert that the President must at least obey the laws he himself signs?  If not, what role does Congress intend to serve?  What future is there for the system of checks and balances that once restrained the executive branch from imperial ambitions?

The matter is even more important than that.  The so-called “Iran Deal” has been a manifest disaster for the interests of the United States abroad.  Tearing it up is one of the five most crucial steps that the United States can take right now. (The pertinent segment of the video provided below begins at 1:14 — DM)

Congress must reassert its role in balancing what has become a lawless executive branch.  It must do so because the Constitution requires it, because the stability of the Republic requires it, but also because this particular deal has badly damaged American interests.  A great deal rides on whether the legislative branch has the political will to reaffirm its Constitutional role in the United States.