News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.
Obama told an audience in Greece today the world must guard against rise of “nationalism” (Trump).
Obama: We have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an us and a them. And I will never apologize for saying that the future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict.
However, his actions are different than his words:
Black Lives Matter is not a civil rights group. They are a black racist group that has undermined law and order in America and endangered the lives of policemen. President Obama has done more harm to race relations in America than any President in recent history. I seriously doubt that Donald Trump could be any worse for race relations in America than President Obama.
The contrast between President Obama and Donald Trump is the contrast between one-world government and American sovereignty. President Obama has shown during his eight years in office that he does not respect the U.S. Constitution and does not respect American sovereignty. The Iran Treaty is a perfect example of that. The treaty was never subjected to the Constitutional procedures for a treaty. Hopefully, Donald Trump will have a greater love for America and its Constitution.
“I am shocked that the President of the United States—who is the chief law enforcement officer for the nation and to whom all federal law enforcement officers report—failed to strongly and immediately object to a statement by an interviewer that unlawful immigrants can and should vote in U.S. elections. The interviewer proposed a radical and illegal action, which the President had a duty to condemn.
The President must immediately issue a statement to make crystal clear that only citizens of the United States have the right to vote, and that any noncitizen who votes, and anyone who assists noncitizens to vote, does so illegally and is subject to prosecution. The failure to clarify this statement will only add further credibility to the public’s concerns about the integrity of this election.”
For those of you who may argue that President Obama was not referring to illegal aliens, why then was he discussing the fear of being deported? American citizens do not have to fear deportation.
Wikileaks has released thousands of emails, many of which should have been made public as the result of various FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). Some of these emails have confirmed suspicions already held, and some have raised more questions. Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about one email concerning Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State.
The article quotes a released email:
From her own experience, and information obtained through [ ] and other agents, [ ] described a “stark difference” between [Condoleezza] RICE and CLINTON with regard to obedience to security and diplomatic protocols. RICE observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols while CLINTON frequently and “blatantly” disregarded them.
For example, it is standard security and diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to ride in the armored limousine with the local U.S. ambassador when traveling in countries abroad. It is seen as diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to arrive at foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador; however, CLINTON refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her Chief of Staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol. [ ] explained that CLINTON’s protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were “abundant.”
[ ] explained that ABEDIN possessed “much more power” over CLINTON’s staff and schedule than other former chiefs of staff. [ ] believed that ABEDIN herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of CLINTON.
If you follow the link above to the article, you can see a copy of the actual email. There are a few obvious things to learn from this email. For whatever reason, Hillary has very little knowledge or respect for diplomatic protocol. That seems rather odd for a Secretary of State. The other disturbing information here is the role of Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin would most likely play a major role in a Clinton Administration should Hillary Clinton be elected. The problem with that is that Ms. Abedin has a strong family connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. The problem with that is that the Muslim Brotherhood in their own words (according to government exhibit 003-0085 in the Holy Land Foundation Trial) has intentions of supplanting the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law. A vote for Hillary Clinton is vote for the end of American law as we know it. It is quite possible that Hillary Clinton would be the first woman to be President and the last President to serve under the U.S. Constitution.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Constitution gives the Senate a share in foreign policy by requiring Senate consent, by a two-thirds vote, to any treaty before it may go into effect. The president may enter into “executive agreements” with other nations without the Senate’s consent, but if these involve more than minor matters they may prove controversial.
The president must also submit judicial and major executive branch nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. The Constitution makes no provision for the removal of executive officers, which has remained largely at the discretion of the president.
Deliberately sidestepping Congress, President Obama formally entered the U.S. into an international climate-change agreement Saturday with China and dozens of other nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
“Some day we may see this as the moment when we decided to save our planet,” Mr. Obama said. “History will judge today’s efforts as pivotal.”
Separately, Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi agreed on a side deal aimed at curbing other pollutants in the U.S. and China. They committed to “freeze” the production of hydrofluorocarbons, the chemicals often used in air conditioning and refrigeration, and cut aviation emissions by an unspecified date, possibly as early as 2021.
The U.N. climate-change pact cannot take effect until 55 nations representing 55 percent of worldwide carbon emissions formally ratify the agreement. The U.S. and China, the world’s two largest emitters, represent about 38 percent of total global emissions.
Man-made climate change is a hoax. There is no agreement by scientists on this matter. The reason many scientists support the concept is that supporting the idea of man-made climate change results in grant money. If you claim a crisis, you get money. One of the best sites on the Internet for good climate change information is wattsupwiththat.com. I strongly recommend that anytime you read an article in the mainstream media about climate change you check that site.
Meanwhile, the President is openly violating the U.S. Constitution. Is the Senate going to push back? If the Senate Republicans do not protect the Constitution (as they have sworn to do so in their oath of office), they deserve to be voted out of office. The Democrats cannot be expected to protest because they put politics first. I would be totally surprised if more than five Senators protest. This lack of action on the part of the Senate is the reason for the success of Donald Trump as a candidate. Many (if not most) Americans are tired of politicians who do not uphold their oath of office.
It’s amazing to me how some politicians ignore the U.S. Constitution until they want to make some sort of attack on their opponents. Then they freely misquote it. We have seen a lot of recent examples of this, but there is one that really bothers me.
Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today illustrating how Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton either misunderstands or chooses to misuse the U.S. Constitution.
The article reports:
Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.
The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.
Just a few personal observations…If your religion requires that your religious rules supersede the U.S. Constitution, maybe you should find another place to live. If your religion has its own set of strict rules that condone honor killing, female genital mutilation, stoning of rape victims, marriage of women under the age of thirteen, and killing of homosexuals (all against American laws), maybe you should not come to America and expect to follow your religious rules. The obvious question here is, “What is the difference between a religion and a political movement?” Which is Islam?
The article concludes:
Promotion of assimilation and fidelity to the Constitution have been historical bedrocks of immigration policy. Indeed, before immigrants are naturalized as citizens, they must swear what is pointedly called an “oath of allegiance.” It calls on them to renounce any foreign sovereigns by whom they have been ruled, and to honor our Constitution — principles that are inimical to sharia supremacism. We should resist a categorical ban on Muslim immigration; but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the commonsense vetting of immigrants for beliefs that are antithetical to our principles, regardless of whether the immigrant perceives such beliefs as religious or political in nature.
We should welcome immigrants who embrace our principles, seek to assimilate into our society, and are value-added for — rather than a strain on — our economy. But if, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional “no religious test” rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board.
The United States government’s first obligation is to shield the American people from foreign threats, not to shield foreign threats and render the American people defenseless.
We should welcome refugees who want to come here and become Americans. We should encourage those who want to bring their culture with them and not assimilate to immigrate to a country with a culture similar to the one they left.
Theoretically the Supreme Court is the third part of the checks and balances in our Representative Republic. They are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and make decisions according to that Constitution. Unfortunately there are Americans who either do not understand the Constitution or choose to ignore it. Right now the Supreme Court is balanced four to four in terms of conservative and liberal interpretations of the law. The next President will have the responsibility of choosing the Justice that will decide cases involving gun rights, voting rights, medical care, religious freedom, and other important issues. A recent case illustrates how important the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice will be.
The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece on Tuesday about a recent Supreme Court decision. The case illustrates the problems police face when trying to keep us safe when dealing with the drug problem in America.
The piece reports:
The Supreme Court term is ending on a whimper of narrow decisions without Justice Antonin Scalia. But you wouldn’t know it from the overwrought progressive outrage after a 5-3 majority issued a common-sense ruling Monday concerning the so-called exclusionary rule for admitting evidence in criminal cases.
In Utah v. Strieff, police stopped Edward Strieff on his way out of a building after a tip that it was a drug-dealing location. After discovering an outstanding arrest warrant against Mr. Strieff, a police officer searched him and found methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia. Mr. Strieff claims the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him under the Fourth Amendment, so the evidence of his law-breaking should be dismissed.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas and stated that the discovery of the outstanding arrest warrant required the police to arrest and thus search Mr. Strieff.
There was, however, a different opinion.
The article reports;
The outlier was Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went off the deep end with an extended polemic about police misconduct, events in Ferguson, Mo., and race in America. “Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. And although Mr. Strieff is white, “it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”
The Justice is getting huzzahs on the left, but her opinion is troubling for her insistence on dragging racial politics into a case that had nothing to do with race. This dissent continues her habit of wandering far from the law or precedent to decide cases based on her personal political and policy views. Her colleagues showed more judicial wisdom.
There are a few things to note here. Mr. Strieff was leaving a place where it was suspected drugs were being sold. Didn’t the police have a responsibility to investigate a tip about a location where drugs were being sold? Shouldn’t that investigation include stopping people leaving that location? If there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Strieff, didn’t the police have an obligation to arrest him? It is very possible that I am naive, but I believe that Mr. Strieff would have been treated the same way regardless of what color he is. Everything is not about race, and in the majority of cases, police are merely attempting to keep our communities safe and free from illegal drugs and the crime that goes with the drug trade. Bringing race into a situation where it is not relevant only divides Americans–it does not help us solve our problems.
The national debt has doubled since 2007. It is now approximately $19,000,000,000,000. Congress has not been successful at stopping spending, and the economy is struggling along with the burden of debt and over-regulation. One Congressman has a proposal that will deal with at least part of the problem.
Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) joined Lee to formally introduce the Article I Regulatory Budget Reform Act, which would require Congress to cast a vote on the “total regulatory burden” federal agencies are able to enforce on the private sector each fiscal year.
“Federal regulations come with a cost, albeit a hidden one. The American people can look up in the federal budget and see a monetary cost for the IRS and the EPA. They should also be able to look up what the regulatory cost for these agencies are as well. Beyond making the cost of federal regulation transparent, a regulatory budget will help restore accountability for the cost of regulation onto the people’s elected representatives,” Hensarling said at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington.
“With a regulatory budget, it would become so much more difficult for members of Congress to simply pass the buck and blame the faceless, nameless bureaucrats for the cost of regulations on the American people’s families and their businesses,” he added.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is charged with making laws. They are supposed to be held accountable for the laws they pass. Unfortunately, we have wandered into a system where unelected bureaucrats are making our laws, and we can’t vote them out of office.
The article adds:
Lee argued that most of the major bills Congress has passed only “establish aspirational guidelines,” which gives the executive branch the power to determine the specifics. He said Congress should establish “regulatory-cost limits” for federal agencies to follow.
“For the rule-writing bureaucrats, these open-ended laws are gifts that keep on giving. For instance, in the years since Congress first passed the Clean Air Act in 1977, federal bureaucrats have used the law to enact more than 13,500 pages of regulations – roughly 30 pages for every page of legislative text,” Lee said.
“But for the American people, this kind of government without consent is a violation of the social compact at the heart of our republic and exactly why they no longer trust the federal government,” he added.
The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document. The government it established works. Unfortunately we have altered that government to the point where it barely works and is not trusted by the American people. We need serious reform in Washington. Senator Lee’s proposal might be a good place to start.
Breitbart.com posted an article today illustrating the impact President Obama’s threats regarding the ‘bathroom’ (should be called ‘locker room’) bill. Even homeschoolers are worried.
The article reports:
Tina Hollenbeck, a homeschooling parent in Wisconsin, tells Breitbart News, “If homeschoolers take vouchers or any other form of government funding ‘help’ – even an ‘educational expenses credit’ on their taxes – they are enslaving themselves to government mandates.”
“And by choosing to entangle themselves, they jeopardize homeschooling freedom for all,” she adds. “That’s because of the very simple economic principle that ‘he who pays gets the say.’”
Hollenbeck – the developer of the Homeschool Resource Roadmap –explains that if homeschooling families accept any taxpayer funding from government entities at any level, the government then has the right to demand “accountability” from them.
“And it doesn’t matter if it’s merely a credit on their own taxes because the minute money makes its way into government coffers, the bureaucrats consider it to belong to the government and act accordingly with their rules and (unconstitutional) laws,” she asserts.
Karen Braun, an activist homeschooling parent who is the lead content writer for the Stop Common Core in Michigan website, observes the costs of accepting federal funding with an administration that “shreds local and state control.”
The U.S. established a Department of Education first in 1867. This original department, however, was not a cabinet level agency, and within a few years was replaced with a bureau and then an office.
On October 17, 1979 President James E. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88; 93 Stat. 668). It replaced the Office of Education with a department proper, and installed a secretary at its head.
The Department of Education was made a cabinet position as a reward for the teachers’ union’s support of Jimmy Carter during the 1976 presidential election.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We have come a long way from that concept, and our nation is failing because of that.
The article at Breitbart.com concludes:
Hollenbeck, however, asserts that parents’ right to provide that safe place to learn at home is compromised in our current political environment.
“Once bureaucrats get a foothold into controlling some homeschoolers, they’ll find ways to extend that to all,” she warns. “Thus, the only way to maintain all homeschoolers’ independence from government overreach into our homes is by everyone refusing any and all offers of government-sponsored financial ‘help.’ When we pay, we get the say – as it should be.”
“We expect that this will drive up the numbers in homeschooling the same way that Common Core did,” responded Michael Farris, Jr. of HSLDA Media Relations. “Parents want to have the final say in their children’s education, not have the federal government do it for them.”
Once the camel gets his nose inside the tent, there is no telling where he will end up.
Theoretically, the House of Representatives can limit executive power by using its control of the purse strings. According to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot spend money unless that spending is authorized by the House of Representatives. We haven’t seen the House of Representatives use that power as much as I would have liked under the Obama Administration, but the power is there. In fact, there was one recent incident where the House of Representatives successfully used that power.
In October I posted a story about the Obama Administration attempting to spend money that was not allocated by Congress. At issue were payments to insurance companies to alleviate their losses under Obama.
In January, Sessions’ committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee had identified that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacked an appropriation for bailing out insurance companies through the risk corridors. They asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the matter. That September, the GAO issued its legal opinion: the administration would need an appropriation from Congress to make outgoing payments.
A federal judge ruled for House Republicans on Thursday in their suit against President Obama and declared his administration is unconstitutionally spending money to reimburse health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.
The judge’s ruling, though a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.
The ruling upholds the Constitution, why would it be overturned on appeal?
The article at The Los Angeles Times reports:
The Constitution says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” said Judge Rosemary Collyer, yet the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing coverage for low-income Americans.
“Paying out Sec. 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” she wrote. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”
Stay tuned to see if the Constitution will be upheld.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing students and parents at North Carolina public schools and universities filed suit Tuesday against the U.S. departments of Justice and Education for making federal student aid and educational funding dependent on students sharing restrooms and locker rooms with the opposite sex. The suit is similar to one ADF filed against the two agencies on behalf of parents and students in Illinois last week.
The DOJ disregarded student privacy and safety when it issued letters threatening the suspension of federal funding for North Carolina’s schools and university system, as well as federal financial aid for North Carolina’s university students, unless the state government repudiated the law known as House Bill 2. That law ensures that government facilities and public schools protect personal privacy by maintaining sex-specific restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. The DOJ then filed suit against the state on Monday, the same day that the governor and the General Assembly each sued the agency over its illegitimate demands.
“The administration shouldn’t condition the ability of women to receive an education on their willingness to shower with members of the opposite sex,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “On behalf of North Carolina students and families—and by extension all students and families across the nation affected by the DOJ’s and DOE’s overreach—we have filed suit to stop both agencies from bullying schools and universities. The agencies must stop using falsehoods about what federal law requires to threaten student access to educational opportunities and financial assistance.”
Do you want boys allowed in your high school or college daughter’s locker room?
Before you sign on to support the idea of men in women’s locker rooms, please watch the following video posted on YouTube by the Alliance Defending Freedom:
If the ‘right of privacy‘ is somehow enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, why are we taking that right away from the women of America?
America is now more than two hundred years old. The U.S. Constitution that we began with is still in place. We are still a sovereign nation. Most of us take our freedom and national sovereignty for granted, but what are some of the forces working against our freedom and against our sovereignty and what are we doing to stop them?
Well, one U.S. House of Representatives member has come up with a good place to start. Alabama’s Representative Mike Rogers on March 2, 2015, introduced H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015 into the House of Representatives. The bill has about a 1 percent of being passed, but at least it was introduced. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The bill would end the United States’ membership in the United Nations. Why would we want to do that? Because the United Nations as of late has become a sounding board for tin horn dictators who want to take money from free countries who have earned it and give the money to other tyrants who have not. Part of their objective is to undermine the sovereignty of free western countries and set up a worldwide government that will control everyone and be run be a few elites who will establish the rules but not have to live by them. I just happen to have a few examples of what the United Nations has done in recent years that should be cause for alarm.
Some comments from the Washington Times about the UN Arms Trade Treaty:
The criteria that arms should not be used to “prolong” or “aggravate” instability is troubling. China could use such a provision to label U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as a violation of international law. In 1941, such a treaty would have made illegal the U.S. lend-lease program to aid Britain before Pearl Harbor.
The implication is absurd: If giving arms to an ally fighting a tyrant prolongs the conflict, the only “legal” option for the ally is to surrender.
Another problem is the draft’s invocation of “international human rights law.” Unfortunately, liberal activists often claim that strict gun control is a “human right.” This reference, then, could be interpreted in ways that infringe on Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.
Why should we care what some U.N. treaty says? Just ignore it, you say, because our Constitution trumps everything. Well, not if the U.S. signs and the Senate ratifies it. At that point, the treaty carries the weight of U.S. domestic law.
Then there’s the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.
The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.
Both of the above articles are from 2012. This is not a new thing.
…“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore … But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Last night I went to see the movie “Climate Hustle.” There was a lot in the movie that I was already aware of, but it was nice to see it organized and in one place. I don’t know if and when the movie will be shown again, but it is worth seeing.
Representative Rogers H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015 may never get out of committee. That in itself illustrates the need for change in Washington. If we don’t change our representatives in Washington, we may lose our sovereignty as a country and our lifestyle.
President Obama has played fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution since he took office. All of the executive orders issued altering ObamaCare after it was passed were not constitutional, and many of his other actions were not. The lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution runs rampant through the Obama Administration. The latest example can be found in the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA submitted a proposal to the White House for green energy subsidies for states that meet the federally mandated carbon dioxide reduction goals early. The Clean Energy Incentive Program would give “credit for power generated by new wind and solar projects in 2020 and 2021” and a “double credit for energy efficiency measures in low-income communities,” according to Politico’s Morning Energy.
Generally speaking, ‘clean energy’ is more expensive than traditional electricity-generating sources. Companies involved in green energy are generally heavily subsidized by the government and could not exist without those subsidies. If green energy is ever going to be a reality, we have to let the free market come in and play a role in the industry. That way, inexpensive technology may develop that will give us reasonable green energy.
The article further reports:
EPA has been moving forward with aspects of the CPP despite the Supreme Court’s decision. After the court’s February decision, EPA began signalling it would continue to work with states that want to “voluntarily” move forward.
“Are we going to respect the decision of the Supreme Court? You bet, of course we are,” McCarthy told utility executives in February. “But it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing we’re working on and it doesn’t mean we won’t continue to support any state that voluntarily wants to move forward.”
Likewise, the head of EPA’s air and radiation office, Janet McCabe, has also suggested the rule will eventually be upheld.
“EPA utility rules have been stayed twice before, and ultimately upheld,” McCabe said while participating in a panel discussion in Bloomington, Ind., last week. “It’s only smart for states to keep working on this.”
“We stand ready at EPA to help any state that wants to move forward with their planning activities,” McCabe said, noting that some states pledged to cut CO2 after the Supreme Court stayed CPP.
Whether or not the EPA’s plan is valid is not the point–the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional. Does anyone in the Obama Administration listen to the Supreme Court?
The Daily Signal posted an article today about the efforts of Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah to unravel the government’s Operation Choke Point.
The article reports:
“Under President Obama’s reign, the DOJ has abandoned its longstanding tradition of staying out of politics and has instead become a partisan arm of the White House,” Cruz said. “The Obama administration initiated Operation Choke Point to punish law-abiding small businesses that don’t align with the president’s political leanings. The DOJ should not be abusing its power by trying to bankrupt American citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.”
The bill, called the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, bans federal agencies that oversee banks from requesting or ordering banks to terminate customer accounts “unless the regulator has material reason.”
The measure also requires banking regulators to put in writing any “formal or informal” requests for account termination, and requires those regulators to file an annual report to Congress regarding those requests. To scale back Operation Choke Point or any similar initiatives, the bill also amends the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
I have written articles about the impact of Operation Choke Point before. You can use the search engine at the top of the page to find them. Operation Choke Point is an obvious example of government overreach. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and the government has no right to interfere with that right. Operation Choke Point is one of several back door methods the Obama Administration used to attempt to take guns away from lawful gun owners. Had they come up with a plan to take guns away from unlawful gun owners, I might have been willing to listen.
According to government documents, Operation Choke Point was designed by the Justice Department in 2012 to “attack Internet, telemarketing, mail, and other mass market fraud against consumers, by choking fraudsters’ access to the banking system.”
The Justice Department carried out the program by using its investigative powers and partnering with federal regulating agencies such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that provide formal guidance to banks.
Since the program’s inception, many gun sellers, pawn shops, and short-term lenders reported their bank accounts being shut down.
…If the bill passes the Senate, it will then head to Obama’s desk for approval.
Hopefully one of the first things the next President will do (regardless of who is elected) will be to cut back on some of the abuses of power that have gone on during the Obama Administration.
It’s bad enough that GMU’s Mercatus Center is a Koch-sucking far-right-wing organization (e.g., see this New Yorker article, which discusses how “the Koch family foundations have contributed more than thirty million dollars to George Mason, much of which has gone to the Mercatus Center”). But now….this??? Let me remind everyone that Antonin Scalia was a corrupt, bigoted extremist. Why would anyone in their (far) right mind want to name anything after that guy, let alone a law school? Has GMU gone completely off its rocker or what? Or, as ThinkProgress Justice Editor Ian Millhiser puts it, GMU can now “stop pretending to be anything other than a conservative policy shop with students.” Ugh. I mean, what’s GMU going to do next, the Trump School for Ethics and Tolerance?
I seem to remember that many of our university students were asking for ‘safe spaces’ where their ideas would not be questioned or challenged. How horrible that our students at higher learning institutes might be forced to think through or defend their ideas. At any rate, this reaction does not seem to be very tolerant. Does the student understand that the money donated by the Koch family is partially responsible for making his/her education possible? Has it occurred to the student who wrote the above to consider the political leanings of The New Yorker when reading their comments about the Koch family? How does this student feel about the money George Soros pours into American politics?
It is a shame that this particular student does not respect the role Antonin Scalia played in defending the U.S. Constitution at the Supreme Court. It seems that a major part of the student’s civic education is missing.
Jay Sekulow has published a book entitled, Undemocratic: Rogue, Reckless and Renegade: How the Government is Stealing Democracy One Agency at a Time. The book deals with the fact that unelected federal agencies have formed the fourth branch of our government. These agencies are passing laws that are not going through Congress and are not subject to voter approval.
CBN News posted an article about Jay Sekulow’s new book. The article reports:
Sekulow says that the federal bureaucracy has become the fourth and largest branch of the government, and it’s the only branch not in the U.S. Constitution.
Our federal bureaucracy violates the rights of Americans without accountability. It harasses adoptive parents, denies veterans quality healthcare, discriminates against conservatives and Christians for partisan purposes, and damages our economy with job-killing rules, according to Sekulow.
Sekulow claims our nation’s bureaucrats are on an undemocratic power trip. But he and the ACLJ have a plan to fight back.
Electing a new President is not going to stop this unless the new President decides to begin to limit the size and power of the bureaucracy. We are not currently operating as the Founding Fathers intended. Congress was supposed to make the laws and be held accountable for those laws by the voters. It is time to get back to that model. Voters need to again be able to hold their representatives accountable for the laws we all have to live under. It is time for a change.
“It’s easy to withdraw from politics when the positions and priorities of the candidates do not precisely mirror our own,” Amash wrote in an op-ed published by the Independent Journal.
“But we owe it to our beliefs to find constitutional conservative political allies who not only respect our philosophy but also fight for our views to be heard,” he added.
“Ted is not a libertarian and doesn’t claim to be. But he is a principled defender of the Constitution, a brilliant strategist and debater who can defeat the Democraticnominee in the general election, and the only remaining candidate I trust to take on what he correctly calls the Washington Cartel.”
America needs to get back to the Constitution. Ted Cruz is the candidate who can take us there. If we do not return to the structure of the Constitution, our government will disintegrate into a group of crony capitalist elitists who have total disregard for the wishes and general welfare of the American people. We may already be there, but Ted Cruz would be the President with the best chance of leading us out.
My San Antonio posted an article today reporting that Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, age 79, was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas.
The article reported the statement by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott:
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement Saturday afternoon, calling Scalia a man of God, a patriot and an “unwavering defender of the written Constitution.”
“He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution,” Abbott said. “We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, and we will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.”
“He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.”
“Laura and I mourn the death of a brilliant jurist and important American, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a towering figure and important judge on our Nation’s highest court. He brought intellect, good judgment, and wit to the bench, and he will be missed by his colleagues and our country.”
It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in an election year to a vacancy that arose that year, and there has never been an election-year confirmation that would so dramatically alter the ideological composition of the Court.
[Update: I’ve encountered some mistaken quibbling on Twitter with the first half of the sentence above. Yes, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988, but to a vacancy that arose in June 1987. He was nominated in November 1987 — after the Democrats’ defeat of the Bork nomination. The last justice to be confirmed in an election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo — confirmed in March 1932 to a vacancy that arose in January 1932.]
Justice Scalia was an important figure on the Court. He believed in the U.S. Constitution and took his oath to uphold it seriously. He will be missed. It is also easy to predict a contentious battle over whether or not President Obama should be able to appoint a new Justice before leaving office. Letting the next President fill the vacancy would be the gentlemanly, appropriate thing to do, but I am not expecting miracles.
According to the U.S. Constitution, all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, constitutionally the House of Representatives controls government spending. In recent years, voters concerned about the amount of government spending and the rapidly increasing federal deficit have sent people to Congress that promised to shrink government and cut spending. Evidently there is something in the water in Washington, D.C., because as soon as those elected representatives get to Washington, they forget why there were elected. There are a few exceptions, but they are few. One Representative may have the answer to this problem.
On Friday, the Daily Caller posted an article about legislation introduced on Friday by Iowa Republican Rep. Rod Blum.
The article states:
Iowa Republican Rep. Rod Blum introduced legislation Friday that would decrease congressional members’ salaries annually until the national budget is balanced.
Lawmakers’ pay would be docked 5 percent the first year and an additional 10 percent each year after, according to the legislation. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2016 would restore compensation levels upon the closure of the deficit.
Representative Blum explained that there need to be consequences when Congress mismanages resources. In the private sector, there are consequences. Thus far, in Congress there are not consequences. That needs to change.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our Founding Fathers understood that at some point the American people might need to be armed to protect them from a government determined to take away their freedom. Unfortunately, some of our cities are moving to take away the freedom of their residents.
The Lowell Sun in Massachusetts posted an article last Tuesday about some changes that are being made in the city of Lowell regarding gun possession.
The article reports:
A new firearms policy will go into place despite a final plea from gun-rights advocates Tuesday for looser restrictions.
The policy requires anyone seeking a license-to-carry to take a gun-safety course. Anyone applying for an unrestricted gun license must state in writing why they should receive such a license, and to provide additional documentation, such as prior military or law-enforcement service, a prior license-to-carry permit, or signed letters of recommendation.
…Taylor (Police Superintendent William Taylor) did agree to work with one resident, a trained firearms-safety instructor, to help shape a training course applicants will be required to take. The trainer, Randy Breton, strongly criticized Taylor moments earlier for what he said was intentionally expensive training to dissuade anyone from applying for a gun permit.
“It’s beyond ridiculous,” Breton said of courses he looked into. One costs $1,100 over five days, and another doesn’t offer any sessions through the rest of the year in Massachusetts.
Does the Police Superintendent really believe that having to write an essay will prevent criminals in Lowell from getting their hands on guns? I can’t believe this will have any positive effect on the crime rate in Lowell. All that the Police Superintendent will succeed in doing is disarming the citizens so that they cannot defend themselves against criminals with illegal weapons. I also believe that this policy is unconstitutional, so we should look for a lawsuit to be filed quickly.
“The dead white guys did not create this country,” Koerber says. “They [presumably conservatives] want to talk about those dead white guys.”
Koerber continues that Common Core is necessary because “it needs to be come cohesion between the states.” She expresses frustration, however, that “Texas keeps screwing it up over and over again.”
“People who say they want to teach the Constitution, only want to teach the part of the Constitution that they like,” she tells the journalist, who then asks her about the Second Amendment.
“But yet they don’t want to teach all of it,” she replies. “Damn the Second Amendment.
…Kim Koerber (KK): People that are not educated, Fox TV viewers think that Common Core comes from the educated liberal groups and that’s why they are against it. They don’t know anything about it. They think it’s liberal so they’re against it. That’s what I think it is. It’s a knee jerk reaction. My mother, oh my God, she’s a Fox person. If I could remove Fox from my television set, I would…
I did a big presentation yesterday for AP US History and the AP US History agenda was set, until Texas got upset about it and they wanted to have their founders – they wanted founders in it. And it’s like – come on. The dead white guys did not create this country. It was a whole bunch of different kinds of people. And yes there were women, and yes there were people of color, and yes…you need to talk about them too. But they want to talk about those dead white guys.
Note the tolerance for opposing ideas–“If I could remove Fox from my television set, I would…”
Note the hostility to ‘dead white guys’ who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Republicans want to get in there and talk about stuff and change things about school stuff because they want to, they want to influence what is being taught. Common core doesn’t put up with that.
Common Core is copyrighted–there is no room for local school boards to make changes.
PV: I am really glad I’m here in California, whatever religious affiliation you want to take is fine, but in Texas they want to push the Christianity.
KK: Because they think it’s the only one.
PV: They do, and I see that.
KK: That’s why it’s so offensive to have these prayers in the school board.
PV: Christianity is totally out of the common core?
KK: Yes it is. Totally. It’s not a core concept at all.
PV: But then there is a mention of other religions like Islam.
Christianity played a part in the founding of this nation–the churches of America played a role both in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. The settlers at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock both declared America to be a Christian nation–even before it was America. Christianity is an important part of our history. To say that Christianity is not an important part of the America’s history is to leave out a good portion of the story.
The article at Breitbart.com concludes:
“It doesn’t matter if it’s corporate cronyism or liberal ideology, if you are slipping your agenda into our education system, we are going to expose you, one by one, until the whole rotten system is revealed,” O’Keefe tells Breitbart News about his project on Common Core and education. “Corporate cronyism and underhanded political deals have contributed to Common Core’s massive disruption and the unraveling of America’s educational fabric.”
If You Give A Mouse A Cookie is a children’s book published in 2013. The basic story is that if you give a mouse a cookie he will expect milk and other things to go with it. Well, a company in Wisconsin recently saw this scenario acted out in real life.
Dozens of Muslim employees at a Wisconsin manufacturing company claim that they were forced to quit this week, after the company changed its prayer-on-the-job policy to one that prevents them from participating in their daily prayers to Mecca.
WBAY-TVreported that before Thursday, Somali Muslims employed by Ariens Manufacturing were allowed to leave the producing line twice a shift in order to participate in two of the five daily prayers required by the Islamic faith.
The company offered the employees the opportunity to pray during their break time in designated prayer rooms. Note that they were willing to establish designated prayer rooms. The employees stated that praying only during their breaks goes against their religion.
The accommodation these employees were asking for would not have been granted to any other religious group–they were not singled out.
The article concludes:
Per law established by the the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission on religious tolerance in the workplace, “an employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.”
The Council for Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) is also calling on Ariens to reverse its policy, per a Tweet sent on Saturday.
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Islamic people who decide to come to America need to understand that the U.S. Constitution is the basis for American law. It is not subject to Sharia Law, which would demand that the company accommodate people leaving the manufacturing assembly line several times a day. Unfortunately, those who truly practice Islam believe that Sharia Law supersedes all other law. A Democracy or Representative Republic is not a valid form of government in Islam. CAIR has gotten involved to see if they can for Americans to accept Sharia Law in this instance rather than uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Lady Liberty 1885 posted a story today about Tanner Glenn, who is running Richard Nixon’s campaign for the NC General Assembly in Johnston county. Richard Nixon is a history teacher at Corinth High School. Lady Liberty notes that one can view Nixon’s “Planet History” page at Corinth High School here, but Nixon has conveniently moved his lectures linked on that page to a “Google classroom” that only students can access. Tanner Glenn is one of his former students.
The problem here is something called APUSH (Advanced Placement U. S. History), a revised American history course that paints Americans as oppressors, racists, and all sorts of other negative things. Mr. Nixon is a member of the NEA, the NCAE and OAH — one of the groups who heavily influenced the controversial re-write of APUSH.
The Washington Post did a piece on Richard Nixon’s political campaign and his campaign manager on January 11 and stated the following:
Glenn grew up in a Republican family and considered himself a Republican for most of his life; he interned for the North Carolina GOP when he was 16.
Then he took Nixon’s class, he said, and though Glenn never knew his teacher’s political leanings, the experience pushed him to think more deeply about his own political beliefs.
…And in that way, the teacher turned history into a series of stories about real people to whom Glenn could relate. He particularly admired Theodore Roosevelt for his efforts to establish national parks and bust monopolies to force fair competition among businesses.
The summer after taking Nixon’s class, Glenn volunteered for the state Democratic Party, and he found he agreed with the view that government can and should play a significant role in addressing social problems.
He went on to found a Teen Democrats chapter in Johnston County, where he impressed local party leaders, and he has remained involved in party politics as a college student.
It is interesting to note that Glenn learned that “the government can and should play a significant role in addressing social problems.” Did he learn about enumerated powers in his history class? Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of Congress. Amendment 10 states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This is a very sad example of a student being brainwashed by a charismatic teacher. It is a shame that the teacher did not bother to include the concept of limited government in his lesson plans.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It might be a good idea to remember that the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are referred to as “The Bill of Rights.” They were included in the U.S. Constitution to allay the fears many of the signers of the U.S. Constitution had of a growing, intrusive government. These amendments were added to protect the rights of individuals against a powerful central government.
The U.S. Constitution also delineates a government that includes checks and balances. There are three separate branches of government and a separation of powers between those three branches. The U.S. Constitution lays out the responsibilities of each branch in order of the importance the Founding Fathers ascribed to them–the Legislative Branch is first, the Executive Branch is second, and the Judicial Branch (intended to be the weakest of the three) is third. The Legislative Branch is expected to create and pass laws, the President is expected to enforce existing laws, and the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court) was set up to have original Jurisdiction in all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party. In all the other Cases the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.
The President does not have the ability to write or rewrite law. His job is to enforce the law. Congress gets to write the law.
Putting the problems with the U.S. Constitution aside, there are a few other problems with this executive order. First of all, doctors are expected to contact the FBI about patients they identify as mentally ill. That sounds harmless enough, but what standards will be used to determine mental illness? Remember that ObamaCare has a provision allowing doctors to question patients about gun ownership. Are doctors going to be asked to report anyone who owns a gun as mentally ill? What about people who don’t believe that man-made global warming is a reality? Are doctors going to be asked to consider those people to be mentally ill?
Larry Pittman, a North Carolina State Legislator, posted a statement on Facebook today about President Obama’s executive action.
His statement included the following:
There are many reasons to be upset about Obama’s executive order today. One of the things that particularly struck me was the part about doctors contacting the FBI about patients they would identify as mentally ill. This is a follow-up to Obamacare’s provision for doctors to question patients about gun ownership.
This is pretty scary because, as Rush Limbaugh was saying today, this is the way taken by the Chinese Communist government to eliminate opposition to the government by having people who disagree with them declared mentally ill so they could be put away somewhere. It is also akin to Hitler’s ploy of having children inform against their parents. When a President who hates the Second Amendment, who has been trying to weaken and eliminate it all along, finally comes right out and employs the tactics of past tyrants, I find it hard to believe he does not have in mind the same purpose as they did. Disarm the people, and you no longer have to serve the people. You can control the people. People who don’t think that is what he intends need to get their heads out of the sand.
I shudder to think how this will be used against our patriotic veterans. Will they be targeted by this mental illness ploy because they might have PTSD?
All we need is for anti-gun doctors to start telling the FBI to come get anyone who owns a gun because we are mentally ill.
…I know there will be lawsuits to try to counteract what Obama has just done; but I’m pretty shaky about how that might go, despite past court victories for the Second Amendment. Too bad our Governor will not call an emergency session of our General Assembly to have us vote to declare this latest unconstitutional act of Obama null and void in North Carolina. I would vote to do so in a heart beat.
There is also this business about not being able to sell a gun without having a federal license to sell guns. What if you want to sell a gun to your grown son or daughter? It is a draconian requirement that you could not do so without government interference. Folks, I try not to be alarmist; but I think we really have reason to worry about what is going to come of this latest “Obamination.”
There are some serious problems with President Obama’s executive action on guns. There is a logical reason he was not able to get Congress to pass a law doing what his executive action did–it would have been a bad law.
ABC News posted an article yesterday about Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s remarks in response to the killings in San Bernardino this week. The Attorney General is prepared to take decisive action.
“Obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” Lynch told the audience at the Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, VA. “But when that edges towards violence…we will take action.”
Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group, asked Lynch to address concerns about an uptick in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate crimes.
Since 9/11, Lynch says that the Department of Justice has investigated more than 11,000 acts of anti-Muslim rhetoric, which have led to 45 prosecutions. “I think sadly, that number is going to rise,” said Lynch.
I truly believe that these people have their priorities backwards. She is prosecuting Americans for speech. Is she prosecuting those Muslims who are terrorists for their terrorism?
As I have written before, one of the interim goals of that part of the Muslim population that espouses the idea of a world-side caliphate is to bring non-Muslims under Sharia Law. Under Islam “Defamation of Islam” is a crime which can be punished by death. Defamation is defined as any statement the hearer regards as negative. Truth has no role in this decision. Under Sharia Law even the definition of slander is not concerned with truth–it is concerned with how the statement makes the hearer feel. Sharia Law and free speech are incompatible, and any attempt to limit free speech by anyone should be looked on very suspiciously.
“The demagoguery has to stop,” Muslim American Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN), who introduced Lynch, told ABC News. Carson said that public figures make these remarks because they “get affirmation from being provocative.”
The fist statement is an outright lie, aimed at the low-information voter (see transcript of conversation that charge is taken from), the second statement has been documented to be true by Washington Post stories and videos taken from news reports at the time.
The bottom line here is that you can defame anything you want under the First Amendment. If you slander an individual, you may wind up in court; and if you slander a race, someone may decide you are an idiot, but you do have the First Amendment right to be an idiot if you choose to do so.
The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the U.S. Constitution–not undermine it. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the country–it is his (or her) job to uphold the law and the U.S. Constitution–not make up her own law.
The War on Terror has reached the stage where Americans are asked not to travel abroad. Brussels has recently been in lockdown. France is nervous. Americans are wondering who is walking among them. The world has become a truly dangerous place. Well, there is a ray of sunshine in the works for Americans who live in New York City. Obviously, New York City was a target more than once in the past, and the fear is that it will be a target in the future. Fear not, Giovanni Gambino, a member of the Gambino crime family has offered to protect the city.
The American Thinker posted an article today about the offer. I am reminded of something I heard Joan Rivers say in an interview a long time ago.. She commented that when the Mob ran Las Vegas a handshake on a deal to appear there was all you needed. I am not praising the Mob, I am just noting that they take business seriously. There was also an incident of a New England blogger who hosted a weekly radio show. Da Tech Guy Blog is written by a friend in Massachusetts who hosted a radio show. At times conservative bloggers have been under attack physically (that is the reason my name does not appear on this blog). Someone called in and asked if Pete was worried about being physically attacked. His reply was very simple–“For some reason people seem reluctant to get into a grudge match with a Sicilian.” True.
Back to the article.
The American Thinker reports:
So word to the wise: if ISIS warriors would rather not wake up with a pig’s head in their bed, have hellfire visited upon them, be dismembered in a pork sausage factory, or prematurely meet 72 virgins after being dipped in a vat of boiling bacon grease, maybe the bloodthirsty should pick another neighborhood to carry out the commands of the Quran.
And in case ISIS is willing to gamble, there’s a track record both here and abroad to prove that unlike Barack Obama, if ISIS dares crosses the “red line,” the family will not hesitate to follow through on their word.
Taking that into consideration, in a city that overlooks the capital of Sicily, ISIS’s made men have decided that because of the threat of Mafia retaliation, the mountainous region of Palermo may not the best place to wage terrorist attacks or establish underground cells.
An Italian security official disclosed that out of fear of being eradicated by mob bosses, ISIS cells are afraid to enter certain areas such as “Sicily, Calabria, Puglia and Campania – including the city of Naples.”
I am not fond of this solution, but it is a reflection on the ineffectiveness of both local and national governments in dealing with ISIS. Admittedly, part of that failure is due to the limitations of the U.S. Constitution (which I have no desire to change), but part of that failure is due to people in power who refuse to admit that Islamic radicals are responsible for the current wave of terrorism.
The article further states:
A little closer to home, Gambino reminded the wary that “[t]he world is dangerous today” and reassured “people living in New York neighborhoods with Sicilian connections [that they] should feel safe.” Rest assured Giovanni means it when he says, “We make sure our friends and families are protected from extremists and terrorists, especially the brutal, psychopathic organization that calls itself the Islamic State.”
Speaking of “brutal, psychopathic organizations,” in truth, the Mafia is just a more effective facsimile of the U.S. federal government. Both entities extort money with the promise of protection. The difference is that the Mafia is an organization that actually delivers on the promise.
Black Lives Matter is not a civil rights group. They are a black racist group that has undermined law and order in America and endangered the lives of policemen. President Obama has done more harm to race relations in America than any President in recent history. I seriously doubt that Donald Trump could be any worse for race relations in America than President Obama.