Constitution

Can a New Congress Reign in the Excesses of the Rogue Biden Presidency?

Interview with Dr. Ivan Eland

Dr. Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty. He is author of War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure.

The Office of the President of the U.S. isn’t what it used to be—it has morphed into an overgrown beast. So says presidential scholar Ivan Eland in his landmark new book War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure.

The presidency no longer simply enforces the laws passed by Congress but literally dominates American political life. Its vast bureaucracy is flush with cash and wields powers never authorized by the Framers. But who do we have to thank for this distortion of the Constitution? Congress.

The presidency, says Eland, isn’t inherently imperial. It’s contingently imperial. Particularly when wars loom and Congress refuses to forestall our engagement in them—with inevitable consequences. Armed conflict bloats armies and emboldens the commanders-in-chief who wield them. Presidents, for instance, now unilaterally start wars and kill Americans (and others) overseas without due process.

But wars also lead to massive domestic government interference. Income tax, estate tax, gas taxes, the IRS, public housing, rent control, inflationary money printing, financial bailouts—all have their origins in wartime

The solution is clear. Congress, says Eland, simply must refuse to fund the undeclared wars presidents seem bent on waging. Yet to do that Congress must first implement reforms detailed in this book: weaken the committee structure; eliminate the seniority system, outlaw covert destabilization of foreign governments, and back federal courts seeking to limit the national security state—and many more.

In sum, liberals, conservatives, independents—anybody concerned for personal liberties and good governance—should read this pathbreaking book and grapple with its implications. For they are wide-ranging and entail staggering consequences for a free people.

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty. He is author of War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure.

IMMIGRATION HISTORY

By dave

“We think it as competent and as necessary for a state to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound and infections articles.”

-New York v. Miln, Chief Justice Philip P. Barbour 1837

Throughout our history, the United States have always adapted our immigration policies to suit the times and the will of the citizenry.

Progressives have worked aggressively for decades to systematically rewrite history in support of their destructive ideologies. They must distort or ignore facts because facts lead to truth and common sense, and those are their greatest enemies. One such recent example is the claim that Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump is a xenophobe, a racist and an anti-immigrant bigot for proposing we change our immigration policies to meet today’s specific needs.

Much of the population associates him with these disparaging terms but cannot cite a single reason for holding this belief, except that they hear it over and over again from the liberal media and that is their intention.

In the wake of increasing Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist attacks within the United States and around the world, Donald Trump recently introduced a plan he refers to as “Extreme Vetting”. As Trump stated, “Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

Trump’s overall position on legal immigration would include temporarily suspending entry by individuals from countries with high numbers of potential terrorists. On illegal immigration, Trump has promised to adhere to the oath all Presidents must take by enforcing both the U.S. Constitution and existing laws. He claims he will stop the flow with a wall on our southern border, which he intends to “make Mexico pay for.”

President Obama, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Progressive Representatives and even the Pope, all of whom are regularly surrounded by walls and armed security guards, have decried Trumps’ proposals as unprecedented and contrary to American values. However, their mission to eradicate facts is incomplete. Our true history is still available, and on Mr. Trump’s side.

For the first 7 years of U.S. history, under our first constitution (The Articles of Confederation), immigration fell under State jurisdiction.

Requirements varied from State to State and included stipulations that immigrants take an oath disavowing loyalty to their country of origin; that they be of the Christian religion; of good character, etc. Almost immediately after the U.S. Constitution went into effect in 1789, the 1790 Alien Naturalization Act established national guidelines requiring all immigrants be ‘free white persons’ (which excluded slaves, indentured servants and most women, all of whom were considered as dependents), that they be of good moral character, and that they take an oath of allegiance supporting the U.S. Constitution.

Later laws changed the period of residence and required immigrants to disavow any title of nobility. However, citizenship itself was bestowed by any court with jurisdiction in the immigrant’s State of residence. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. Miln with Chief Justice Philip P. Barbour writing:

Free Speech is Gone unless your a Liberal

By dave

The headline above reflects the state of free speech and communication in the United States today. And if you are anti-gay marriage then you are homophobe. If you are in favor of supporting the police then you are a racist. And lastly if you’re anti-Hillary you’re sexist. I have written several pieces dealing with this issue of free speech and communications in the United States and the significant decline of open and free discussion of opposing views.

You may recall the incident last spring, when Brendan Eich the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign, because he made a contribution to a ballot initiative in California, that was banning gay marriage. The gay community sent out e-mails, instant messages, and tweets encouraging their followers not to use the Mozilla search engine. The company board met and decided that the Eich had to resign in order to protect their company. In essence the gay community use blackmail to get their way. The gay community did not want anybody saying anything against gay marriage, any thoughts their opponents had were not of value, and so they should just shut up.

Eich of Mozilla never had a chance to discuss openly and freely why he was against gay marriage, his opinion didn’t matter. He was opposed to what they believed and therefore he had to be destroyed. My guess is that he will never be able to work in this industry again for he will always be tainted as a homophobe. I believe that in the 6+ years that Obama has been president that this idea of anti-free speech has accelerated. Any time somebody challenges a policy or decision of the president he or she is called a racist. Even Hillary, when she was running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008 said that it was appropriate that people should have right to criticize President Bush. But when it came to Obama, we do not have the right to criticize him for his policies or his bad judgment because if we do we are called racist.

Now the president finds himself at odds with many of his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate over issues that are important to them. The Senate recently voted 98 to 1 in favor of requiring President Obama to bring the Iran treaty to be reviewed before it is effective. Now the junior senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren (D) is challenging the president on his foreign trade bill. The president when asked about Warren’s objection said, “She is just wrong.” There was no discussion where she was wrong: she was just wrong.

One last example of the problems with communication is what happened in Baltimore. In almost any other City in America if the events would’ve happened that took place in Baltimore the race mongers would’ve been out in force. Baltimore has a black mayor; a black chief of police, black states attorney and a police force that was at least 50 percent black and the mayor suggests racial prejudice was still an issue. The mayor raised the question of racism and bias in the police force, she requested an investigation of her own police force, by the Treasury Department. If anybody raised the question about what happened to the 1.8 billion dollars given to the City of Baltimore from the president’s stimulus package, they were called racist.

We have a new word when we talk about freedom of speech, that word is but. The people in Texas had the right to hold their meeting in private. When people were asked should they have held a meeting? Do they have the right to hold the meeting is it free speech? A growing swell of people responded to the question. “Yes they do, but.” I have studied the Constitution for a long time and as I read the section concerning free speech I can’t seem to find the word, yes we have free speech but, is not in there. Whenever we put a qualifier on speech that is not free. You might disagree with gay marriage but that doesn’t automatically make you a homophobe. You may believe that the police charged in the incident in Baltimore are innocent until proven guilty under the law but you’re not a racist. You should be able to question the qualification of a person running for president without being called a sexist. If a society cannot have an open and free exchange of ideas without labels then a society is not truly free. What we as a nation must decide is how free do we want to be, or do we want a small minority of people thinking for us because we are to bigoted?

Dan Perkins is an author of a trilogy on nuclear terrorism against United States. He is a registered investment advisor with over 40 years of investment experience. He has appeared on over 500 radio and TV shows in the last 12 months speaking about current events.

Great State of Jefferson

By dave

THE CONSTITUTION HAS THE ANSWER,
IT’S NOT SECESSION,
IT’S AN ARTICLE 4, SECTION 3 PROCESS

“Lassen County voters will decide whether the rural county should support the State of Jefferson, a movement aimed at creating a 51st state to bring greater government representation to California’s northern region.

The Lassen County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday on a resolution that recognizes a lack of representation in state government but postpones the county’s position until June 2016.

Supervisor Jim Chapman, who opposes the State of Jefferson, led the dissent with an outspoken critique of the movement’s “misrepresentation of the facts.” And he scoffed at its call to “‘Let our people go’ – like Moses going across the desert.”

“Most of us don’t like the way government works … but history is not on the side of this issue,” said Chapman, the board’s vice chairman.

Earlier this month, Lake County supervisors voted 3-2 to place support for the State of Jefferson on a countywide ballot scheduled for November 2016. Their resolution did not endorse any part of the standard breakaway state declaration.”