FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

There is no valid argument for the destruction of our planet and any form of life on it.As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves. Be the change that you want to see in the world.
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man

Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man
Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man; it belongs to him by force of his humanity, and is in dependence on the will and coaction of every other, in so far as this consists with every other person's freedom. - Immanuel Kant



Freedom Adds

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Is Impeachment the Final Card?

Is Impeachment the Final Card?

I now know at least a hint of the twisted stomach pains the Founders must have felt when they sought, fought, and many died for, the Revolution against England. They realized, through their words and actions, they would indeed risk their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”

As some NSA/IRS/FBI critter reads this, I appeal to my fellow American Congressmen and women, both Republican and Democrat:

Impeach President Obama.

Impeachment has created a firestorm in American history twice, with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and threatened Richard Nixon. Johnson and Clinton avoided the political guillotine, Nixon retreated.

According to a CNN/ORC International poll last fall, 33 percent of Americans believed it was time to try again – I would wager the number now is even higher.

The case to impeach Barack Obama is long, (some have written books on the subject) including: Unauthorized bombing of Libya, IRS targeting of political opponents (the mere thought of such an abuse of power by Nixon was enough to threaten the action in ‘74), the cover up of four American deaths in Benghazi, changing laws at a whim without Congressional input (Obamacare, dozens of times), and the changing of numerous immigration laws (deportations, for example, have all but ended) which has now lead to an invasion of our nation. We now face massive new spending, gang bangers, disease, and the threat of more terrorist infiltration – at a time the “junior varsity” ISIS team is decapitating hundreds and publishing hit lists of our American servicemen and women.

ISIS was created by the avoidable vacuum left in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to the current chaos – and now the Muslim Brotherhood has been invited to the White House, becoming the knife twisted inside the body politic.

And we “negotiate” with Iran, potentially throwing nuclear bombs on the fire of the Middle East.

Consider - a deserter was traded for five Taliban “generals.” Thankfully, the military justice system is trying to right the wrong, but I doubt if we will get the generals back.

Fidel is o.k. – more cigars, tourism, sugar…but no freedom, no stand for liberty or truth.

Our enemies no longer fear us – our allies (Israel in particular) do not trust us – and who can blame them when the State Department spends 350 thousand taxpayer dollars trying to oust Bibi Netanyahu through political operatives?

Add the abuses of EPA regulations, along with spending and borrowing that, unabated, will surely lead up to an economic Armageddon.

But most importantly - our foundation – the U.S. Constitution – has been broken.

Even leading liberal Georgetown university law professor Jonathan Turley has admitted “The danger is quite severe. (President Obama) is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid…the concentration of power.”

Who cares? Is not the 2016 Presidential election about to get underway?

Because, at this rate, a new President will not matter.

5 million new democratic “voters” will be on board (perhaps with mandatory voting, although this administration resists any security protecting the sanctity of the vote), our medical system will be beyond life support, the internet will no longer be free, businesses will continue to flee our nation, and we will be fully “transformed” into a leveling with the rest of the third-rate nations of the globe.

Perhaps Impeachment will not rid us of this President. Clinton survived, did he not?

But note Bill Clinton did not pass one more major initiative during his remaining time in office after his sordid story was told. Clinton left DNA – Obama has left a trail of verifiable un-American acts. And he still has more than a year to wreak havoc.

I am willing to bet my life, fortune, and scared honor that, should the full story of Barack Hussein Obama’s last six years in office come to full light during an Impeachment trial, new abuses could be stopped, or at least slowed, as well.

Expect no help from the media, - no surprise – but Impeachment would force coverage and the light of truth. The American people may be slow, but we are not stupid.

Republicans have refused to use the power of the purse in this poker game, betting all the chips the nation could ride this President out. Their avoidance has left no option but this final play.

And Democrats should note - the abuses this President has fostered can be used against you in the future as well. What “goes around, comes around.” Maybe a future republican President would ignore or change, say, capital gains laws, or abortion rights, ignoring the rule of law and the wish of Americans. Should that happen, I promise to stand with you (assuming we still can) in opposing such usurpations of power by the “pen and telephone.”

Nixon, reading the other players at the table, had the honor to leave the game before his final cards were drawn.

Would President Obama do likewise?

Make this final raise, Congress – if you truly take your oath of office to heart - and pray for the Republic.

By Mike Chambers

Mandatory Voting a Disastrous Proposal

Mandatory Voting a Disastrous Proposal

If you ever hear Obama talk about transforming America, you can bet your last red cent that he is proposing something that will undermine American liberty and the rule of law.

This time is no different. Last Wednesday, speaking to a civic group in Cleveland, Obama responded to a question about the negative impact on money in politics by going on a tangent about voting rights and about making it easier for people to vote. He declared “If everybody voted, it would completely change the political map in this country.”

Ummm, yes, that is correct, but is that “change” for better or for worse? Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” America if elected, and so he has…millions more Americans unemployed, median income down thousands, millions more on food stamps and welfare, and a complete disregard by Obama of limitations to his power. Not all change is good.

But what about this idea of mandatory voting, insuring that all Americans have a say in our political process? Is this a good idea?

For those of us with children, is it a good idea to let them have a vote on how household income is prioritized and distributed? Should we let first-year medical students have an equal say with senior physicians as to the best course of treatment for patients? Should the lowliest of privates have an equal say in war strategy as grizzled veteran generals? For those with an IQ above room temperature, the obvious answer is a resounding “NO!”

Despite Obama’s lament, I’d argue that we need to be more selective, not less, in who we allow to vote. That qualification should be a display of a minimum level of political and civic knowledge, proving they have enough competence to be engaged in the process.

My proposal? Before handing over a voter registration card, have each citizen take the same test as is required of immigrants pursuing U.S. citizenship. After all, why should we countenance less knowledge and awareness from natural-born citizens than we require of foreigners seeking to make American their home?

Not surprisingly, depending on their general ideological leanings, states are taking different approaches. Arizona, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1976 except one, this year passed a new law requiring high school students pass a civics exam before they can graduate, reflecting the state’s goal of creating more informed voters. Similar legislation is being considered in other solidly conservative states, such as Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.

By contrast, liberal Oregon just signed a law which automatically registers every eligible citizen to vote when they obtain or renew a driver’s license or state ID card, regardless of whether they have shown a desire to vote, or any competency on the issues or candidates for which they will vote. Additionally, liberal states like California have been pushing for more voting rights for non-citizens, including illegal aliens.

Evidence of the utter ignorance of the average American, when it comes to knowledge of American history and civics, is abundant. According to a study of the Annenberg Public Policy Center released late last year, “Americans show great uncertainty when it comes to answering basic questions about how their government works.”

The poll results, ironically released on September 17th (Constitution Day), show a disastrous level of ignorance regarding the American form of government. Of those polled, barely more than a third (36%) could name all three branches of government. Mind-bogglingly, 35% could not even name ONE of the branches. Only 13% knew that the Constitution was signed in 1787, and less than a fifth (15%) correctly identified John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Barely a quarter (27%) know that it takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to override a presidential veto. Astonishingly, more than half of Americans polled did not know which party controls the U.S. House and Senate.
It can be entertaining to watch people stumble and stutter and look like idiots when asked even the most rudimentary questions about American history and government (as seen here,
and here, but this level of ignorance should terrify every American.

I suppose this level of ignorance should not surprise us. After all, our public schools have largely abandoned the teaching of civics and American history, and what they do teach is often hopelessly distorted. The NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) test shows American students score lower on American history than any other subject. The College Board (which produces the SAT test, and some of the AP exams) has almost completely done away with any material covering the Founding Fathers (not a single mention of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, or Benjamin Franklin).

If we don’t teach our children what makes America great, about a form of government which minimizes government power (theoretically), about a free market economic system, and a nation where government is (theoretically) the servant of sovereign citizens, acting only through the consent of the governed, then it should be no surprise they would grow up to see America as a net evil in the world, or at best no better than any other nation or form of government.

Daniel Webster, among the most esteemed political minds and orators in American history, declared we must “[i]mpress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.”

Thomas Jefferson stated that “[i]f a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

So before we hand out a voter card to every American with a pulse, let’s make sure they know the basics. Should they have the right to vote if they can’t name the three branches of government and their functions, or identify the supreme law of the land, or have a basic understanding of federalism, or the separation of powers doctrine? If they don’t have a clue as to the major problems facing our nation, and what is required to solve them, should their vote be able to offset the vote of someone who spends hours becoming informed? Absolutely not!

Two final questions: Do you consider yourself an informed voter? If so, can you pass a test on basic American civics and history, or a test of current events that impact our nation? If so, congratulations! You are more informed than most Americans!

By Louis DeBroux

Top Russia Scholar Stephen Cohen: War between NATO and Russia a Real Possibility

Top Russia Scholar Stephen Cohen: War between NATO and Russia a Real Possibility

Noted Russian expert,  Stephen Cohen says that Russia and NATO are closer to war than at anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cohen feels that both sides are acting in a reckless manner. His speech on the subject lies below.

Now That the Government Controls the Internet, This is What You Can Expect

Now That the Government Controls the Internet, This is What You Can Expect

Digital Data on a Abstract Technology Background

 Digital Data on a Abstract Technology Background

For many, the concept of net neutrality is a complex and difficult one to grasp. What you need to know is that the new law makes the claim that it will preserve an open Internet where we maintain our right to free speech and ability to communicate freely online. Big players such as Bill Gates, Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon are a few of the advocates for net neutrality. In fact, Senator Al Franken once described net neutrality as being the “first amendment of our time,” by creating  an even playing field for competition and future innovation. Net neutrality is being hailed as a way to lower the barriers of entry for entrepreneurs, start-ups and small businesses. It also has stringent guidelines in place on ensuring cable companies cannot screen, interrupt, or filter Internet content without a court order.

All That Glitters is Not Gold

In February 2015, after a 3-2 vote, the government took over the internet when net neutrality was approved.

As logical as this elegant and principled outline was laid out, there are many who believe (as usual) the whole picture has yet to be revealed, and perhaps, the internet service providers (ISPs) may not have their users’ best interests in mind when making these active management decisions. The argument was made that preferential treatment from ISPs would be given to content companies who could pay for a faster Internet, thus relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. For example, certain important Internet services require heavy and uninterrupted bandwidth use, such as medical services or VOIP. These companies would have a much faster service compared to the average online business.

In fact, many argue that it is not about the user, but rather about the money potential involved. If it gives Internet service providers the ability to charge more for faster Internet service, it begs the question of “How much will we have to pay?” Perhaps the real problem is the monopoly that companies like AT&T and Comcast will hold over the US market. In an article from the NY Times, the writer states, “If we stay the present course, the commission’s new policy will build a better wireless network around a more entrenched monopoly system, lodging an insurmountable obstacle in the path toward bringing America’s broadband network up to speed with the rest of the world.”

Is This a Direct Violation of Our Rights?

To add insult to injury, many believe this is also a direct violation of our first amendment rights and gives the FCC the power to take control of the distribution channel to the consumer and collect “rents”.  In an article from Voices of Liberty, Alice Salles makes some excellent points about what how Net Neutrality will affect us.

Obama promises the new rules will “even out” the playing field. Opponents warn about new taxes. But who’s right and how do we get to the bottom of it? Maybe these 10 important facts about the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules may help you decide.

1- Obama’s Net Neutrality Means Fewer Choices, Less Freedom

To Obama, net neutrality means not allowing consumers to choose what they want to spend their money on. To the FCC and the President, web site operators should never have the option of spending more money to ensure that content gets delivered as promised. Obama’s net neutrality ensures certain services and applications are limited simply because start-ups and small business may hurt if they cannot compete “mano a mano” with the big dogs.

By ensuring the standards are low to everybody, the new net neutrality rules do not give you access to better services if you’re willing to pay for it.

2- New Rules Reclassify Broadband

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler had one goal in mind: reclassify the Internet by categorizing it as a telecom service instead of referring to it as an information service.

That is not just a sign of Wheeler’s unfamiliarity with what the Internet provides to consumers, it’s also a clear sign of what the new rules are all about: government control over the Internet. By reclassifying the Internet, the government is able to exert more control over it.

3- What We Have Now Is (Sorta) Net Neutrality

Exceptions exist, but as it stands, cable and wireless companies do not discriminate when it comes to similar types of web traffic. Broadband providers don’t use their technology to block or deliberately slow the exchange of data either. But to regulators, things are not right until government is involved. As a result, rules were put in place to restrain broadband providers even further. To gather support for the new rules, regulators claimed major companies were interested in manipulating the network. The fear mongering was so strong that support for the FCC rules became widespread.

4- Rules Will Thwart Innovation

Smaller Internet businesses and other start-ups have been fervent proponents of the new FCC rules, but not too long ago, the wireless industry was heavily against net neutrality regulations. In 2010, when the FCC passed several regulations covering the Internet, the industry argued the new rules would decelerate innovation. As a result, only a few transparency rules were enforced. But now, new rules impact everybody, especially if you’re a consumer.

From now on, anything you use to have access to the Internet, whether it’s a PC, a tablet, phone, Macbook, etc. will have to comply with the new rules. Internet providers will also have to abide by the same three rules: no blocking, no restraint toward competitors, and no paid prioritization. But if the rules are so black and white, why are so many people so angry about them?

5- FCC’s Rules Aren’t Predictable

New FCC regulations may not sound all that bad to you, but what if I told you that they are unpredictable? Would you still trust Obama and the bureaucrats?

According to cable and wireless companies and some Republicans who strongly opposed the new rules, uncertainty makes it hard for Internet providers to know what they are dealing with. Not knowing what the legal battles you will have to pick ahead before launching a program or a service can be damaging not only to the companies, but also to consumers.

6- You WILL Be Affected

In the short run, nobody will feel the changes.

Experts say that once the FCC puts the Internet in the same regulatory spectrum as the telephone, the next step is to handle it as a public utility. That may have a series of implications that would impact the most dynamic means of communication we know.

The results could change how the Internet works and you will soon long for the days Bill Clinton was president; not because of the sex scandals but because accessing the Internet through AOL was much faster.

7- (Some) Internet Activists Support FCC Because They Think Government Is Here To Save Us

Nevermind that Edward Snowden proved to us all that the government is not here to act with our best interest in mind, especially when it comes to the Internet. Some Internet activists, however, believe the FCC is doing what’s right because they put too much faith in bureaucracy.

Instead of using lobbyists, they used the Internet to obtain support from common Americans.

The fear mongering campaign involved flooding the FCC with record-breaking number of comments sent by the public. Even Obama admitted that, without Americans, the FCC decision “wouldn’t have happened”.

8- Congress Could Still Stop FCC

Next stop is Congress.

As the fight brews and broadband providers turn to their legal teams, Republican lawmakers want to push new legislation that would block FCC’s regulations. But how good are their ideas anyway? We are not quite sure.

But even if Congress does pass a piece of legislation that blocks FCC’s rules, Obama wouldn’t sign the bill into law without Democrats behind it. This could look like a legal dead end.

9- FCC’s New Rules Stifles Free Speech

By reclassifying the Internet and exerting control over it, the government will undoubtedly have more power over what you can use it for.

The Internet has always been a platform where consumers globally have the power to exchange ideas about everything. By restricting our freedom to choose and use the Internet as we please, the government also violates the 1st Amendment.

From the official statement from The Republican Liberty Caucus:

“The Republican Liberty Caucus has urged Congress to intervene to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from adopting President Obama’s so-called “Net Neutrality” rules, which would stifle free speech, technological innovation and competition in the marketplace”

10- There’s More To Come

According to the Washington Post, the FCC’s rules represent “government’s most forceful intervention ever into the affairs of Internet providers.”

What FCC wants to do with the Internet is to take control. The rules were just an excuse to open the doors, but what the government will do with that power once it’s settled in is still up in the air.


Now that the government controls the Internet, I ask you if you believe they will have our best intentions at heart and create an open and free Internet. Or, will they do what they have previously done and drown out our voices.

Tess Pennington

Students must fully understand the principles that make America great!

Teaching government and history involves more than just stringing together an agreed-upon chronology of significant dates and events and connecting them with names

Students must fully understand the principles that make America great!

ASHLAND, Ohio—If U.S. high-school graduates don’t understand the principles of freedom and equality essential to American government and the historical roots of these principles, how can we expect them to affirm and defend these principles as adults?

Many people are quick to blame teachers for the shortcomings of America’s schools.  And the shortcomings should be obvious.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has shown consistently that many students, in the fields of U.S. history and government, among others, are not even mastering the basics.

For example, the most recent NAEP U.S. history exam, in 2010, found just 12 percent of all U.S. high-school seniors scoring at or above the “proficient” level, which the Institute of Education Sciences describes as the level representing “solid academic performance to which all students … should aspire.”

In civics—the test covering the subject of U.S. government—the scores were somewhat better, but still, slightly less than one fourth of all 12th graders performed at or above the “proficient” level.

We often hear about the need to improve education in the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and math.  But American students perform worse on American history tests than in any other subject.

It’s unfair to blame America’s 125,000 social studies teachers, however.  In the 17 years I’ve been with the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, some 8,000 teachers from across the country have participated in our educational programs.  So I’ve had ample opportunity to interact with many teachers and know from first-hand experience they’re not the problem.

The problem is the way teachers are trained.  Teachers spend too much time learning how to teach—the mechanics of pedagogy—and not enough time learning what to teach.

Without a major change in how teachers are taught, America will continue down the same path, raising generation after generation of students who do not understand what it means to be an American, who equate freedom of speech with “selfies,” who believe freedom of religion requires purging religion from the public square, who think our Founding Fathers —denigrated in popular culture as Dead Old White Men—are irrelevant.

They also may end up thinking of Sam Adams solely as a beer company.  Or associate Washington and Lincoln as having something to do with President’s Day, a holiday when everybody goes shopping.  Or The Fourth of July merely as an occasion for fireworks and a cookout.

Teaching government and history involves more than just stringing together an agreed-upon chronology of significant dates and events and connecting them with names.  It involves more than cursory familiarity with a handful of historically significant documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Emancipation Proclamation.

To successfully teach U.S. history and government, so students understand and appreciate the principles that define our American character, teachers need to rely less on textbooks and more on the writings and thinking of those who shaped our country.

Consider civil rights.  The changes in America’s mind, heart and laws over time on the subject of racial equality didn’t happen by accident.  That’s why we urge—and in our Master’s Degree program require—teachers to immerse themselves in the writings of those who shaped America’s thinking.

This would include, for example, Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?,” Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address,and “Resolution Submitting the Thirteenth Amendment [outlawing slavery] to the States,” the texts of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), and Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech.

Teachers who understand the importance of such documents and use them in the classroom will be better teachers.  Their students will learn more.  And they’ll be better prepared for the responsibilities of citizenship as adults.

By Guest Column Roger L. Beckett

Roger L. Beckett is executive director of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio.  Readers may write him at Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, 401 College Avenue, Ashland, Ohio 44805

YOU decide…

What’s happening today in the French Alps is indicative of how air flight has taken on new dangers

YOU decide…

By Sarge

I no longer fly. In light of events occurring at this time I feel vindicated in my belief the personnel associated with maintenance and the actual operation during flight can cause any plane to fall from the sky. I’ll explain.

Years ago, (pre-9/11) I flew to and from Rhode Island for the purposes of attending a religious rite. It wasn’t a pleasant trip. During the flight to Rhode Island we encountered turbulence causing the plane to drop over five hundred feet in an instant. The resultant impact when the plane dropped onto a more stable wind current was reminiscent of falling off of a ladder and landing on your tailbone. It wasn’t pleasant or pretty. Books, coffee cups and other materials went flying and some people who didn’t do as the pilot told us and buckle –up, were airborne at the point of regaining control. I sat at the window and watched as the wing literally flapped like a goose in flight and prayed it stayed within its stress limits.

But, we survived with an understanding flight is still something carrying inherent dangers the NTSB can’t poo-pooh with statistics saying air travel is safer than driving on America’s highways or getting hit by lightning. When you’re involved in an incident you’re not a statistic. A statistic involves some specific fragment of possibility denoting the position held saying how many times it could happen. When the incident commences, you’re 100% involved and the outcome could swing from possibility to probability to actuality.

It’s that actuality put the fear of God in me.

Secondarily (and far less dangerous), an incident happened on the flight home. A large and corpulent lady was assigned to sit next to me. I was trapped at the window again and couldn’t escape should any kind of incontinence struck me as it nearly did in the earlier incident. She had more junk than could be placed in the overhead bay and the rest didn’t fit under the seat. I was stabbed several times as her knitting needles perforated her carry-on. Then I learned she was hideously drenched in cologne; possibly to cover the stench of severe body odor – it didn’t work.

But the worst was yet to come. She was hyper-flatulent and every other emanation was oral indicating halitosis (bad breath) or that a squirrel took residence in her throat and was decaying after death. It was a miserable flight. But I digress.

My Dad was a Naval Air Crewman. He was a Flight Engineer and a valued member of a team served this nation during the decades of his career. My pride knows no bounds.

But, he and his men flew the craft they serviced and maintained daily. They understood their fate was controlled by how well they performed their jobs. That type of dedication doesn’t always happen now. We have people controlled by unions saying the union posture on any self-serving program can cause a labor walk-out and inconvenience to the public flying at any given time. Grievance procedures and union interference in airline operations can keep incompetent personnel on the flight-line for years. I know of few airplane maintenance personnel actually fly on the craft to assure all goes well. Assuredly, there’s no way to pull over to the next cloud and change the engine, but there’s also no personal stake in making sure that bird stays in flight.

But, lest you feel this will be about unions and my distaste for how it can become extortionist in its actions; I promise you, it isn’t.

This is about how one person can take an airplane and affect its performance and change or take the lives of hundreds of people. One person fails to do his maintenance work properly can cause the bird to fail in flight. Now, one nutcase with an agenda can take that plane and pilot it into a mountain at speed, and obliterate all aboard to the point of making them unrecognizable from the surroundings they become a part of on impact.

What’s happening today in the French Alps is indicative of how air flight has taken on new dangers. One man or woman can cause a plane to crash. 9/11 proved this. But, nobody is checking the air crews. They grope you and your grandmother and your babies but it’s regularly shown shady characters are ripping off the cargo set to fly. What’s stopping insurgents from sabotaging the plane? I have no faith in the NTSB or Homeland Security’s “safety” procedures.

So I’d suggest you be very, very careful when flying. It involves more than knowing when they changed the oil and washed the windshield. It involves telling people what safety measures have been taken to ensure your safety from nut bags and fundamentalist religious crazies seeking to assure a healthy sex-life after the ascension.

As Icarus flew too close to the sun as a personal choice, your fate is being decided by people who may or may not take their jobs as seriously as they should.

It’s sort of like America; one person can make a difference in how long the world’s greatest democracy stands as it was meant to stand. That person can be you by participating in your own governance: or it can be the effect of one man fundamentally changing your country to something unrecognizable as a democracy.

YOU decide which one person will control your life.

Thanks for listening

A Lone Wolf President

A Lone Wolf President

Can the president rewrite federal laws? Can he alter their meaning? Can he change their effect? These are legitimate questions in an era in which we have an unpopular progressive Democratic president who has boasted that he can govern without Congress by using his phone and his pen, and a mostly newly elected largely conservative Republican Congress with its own ideas about big government.

These are not hypothetical questions. In 2012, President Obama signed executive orders that essentially said to about 1.7 million unlawfully present immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthdays and who are not yet 31 years of age that if they complied with certain conditions that he made up out of thin air they will not be deported.

In 2014, the president signed additional executive orders that essentially made the same offer to about 4.7 million unlawfully present immigrants, without the age limits that he had made up out of thin air. A federal court enjoined enforcement of the 2014 orders last month.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission — the bureaucrats appointed by the president who regulate broadcast radio and television — decreed that it has the authority to regulate the Internet, even though federal courts have twice ruled that it does not.

Also last week, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, whose director is appointed by the president, proposed regulations that would outlaw the only mass-produced bullets that can be fired from an AR-15 rifle. This rifle has been the target of the left for many years because it looks like a military weapon; yet it is a lawful and safe civilian rifle commonly owned by many Americans.

This week, the president’s press secretary told reporters that the president is seriously thinking of signing executive orders intended to raise taxes on corporations by directing the IRS to redefine tax terminology so as to increase corporate tax burdens. He must have forgotten that those additional taxes would be paid by either the shareholders or the customers of those corporations, and those shareholders and customers elected a Congress they had every right to expect would be writing the tax laws. He has eviscerated that right.

Whats going on here?

What’s going on is the exercise of authoritarian impulses by a desperate president terrified of powerlessness and irrelevance, the Constitution be damned. I say “damned” because when the president writes laws, whether under the guise of administrative regulations or executive orders, he is effectively damning the Constitution by usurping the powers of Congress.
The Constitution could not be clearer. Article I, section 1 begins, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Obama actually asked Congress to write the laws he is now purporting to write, and Congress declined, and so he does so at his peril.

In 1952, President Truman seized America’s closed steel mills because steel workers went on strike and the military needed hardware to fight the Korean War. He initially asked Congress for authorization to do this, and Congress declined to give it to him; so he seized the mills anyway. His seizure was challenged by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., then a huge operator of steel mills. In a famous Supreme Court decision, the court enjoined the president from operating the mills.

Youngstown is not a novel or arcane case. The concurring opinion by Justice Robert Jackson articulating the truism that when the president acts in defiance of Congress he operates at his lowest ebb of constitutional power and can be enjoined by the courts unless he is in an area uniquely immune from congressional authority is among the most highly regarded and frequently cited concurring opinions in modern court history. It reminds the president and the lawyers who advise him that the Constitution imposes limits on executive power.

The president’s oath of office underscores those limits. It requires that he enforce the laws faithfully. The reason James Madison insisted on using the word “faithfully” in the presidential oath and putting the oath itself into the Constitution was to instill in presidents the realization that they may need to enforce laws with which they disagree — even laws they hate.

But Obama rejects the Youngstown decision and the Madisonian logic. Here is a president who claims he can kill Americans without due process, spy on Americans without individualized probable cause, start wars on his own, borrow money on his own, regulate the Internet, ban lawful guns, tell illegal immigrants how to avoid the consequences of federal law, and now raise taxes on his own.

One of the safeguards built into the Constitution is the separation of powers: Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws, and the courts interpret them. The purpose of this separation is to prevent the accumulation of too much power in the hands of too few — a valid fear when the Constitution was written and a valid fear today.

When the president effectively writes the laws, Congress is effectively neutered. Yet, the reason we have the separation of powers is not to protect Congress, but to protect all individuals from the loss of personal liberty. Under Obama, that loss has been vast. Will Congress and the courts do anything about it?

By Andrew P. Napolitano

The Enemy Combatant Fraud

The Enemy Combatant Fraud

Shooting Itself in the Foot

Ali Saleh al-Marri is a convicted conspirator who entered the United States before 9/11 in order to create a dreaded sleeper cell here that might someday launch an attack on Americans similar to what we witnessed earlier this month in Paris. When the feds woke from their slumber on 9/11, they wisely began to search immigration records for persons who came here with no discernible purpose from places known to spawn terrorist groups and who had overstayed their visas. Al-Marri was one such person.

The feds arrested him, originally on the visa violation, and then, after connecting the dots, on a series of conspiracies to aid terrorist organizations here and elsewhere.

After he was arrested by the FBI in Peoria, Ill., and while he was being held in federal custody, he was kidnapped by U.S. military officials who arrived at the lock-up purporting to possess the lawful authority to seize him, authorized by President George W. Bush himself.

Bush had signed an order declaring al-Marri an enemy combatant and directing the military to seize him from the custody of federal prosecutors and bring him to a Navy brig. In several of the numerous cases it lost, the Bush administration argued to federal courts that once it declared a person an enemy combatant, the person was stripped of all rights.

There was and is no such category in American law as enemy combatant. The Bush administration made it up from historical terminology. But the post-9/11 era was a fearful time, and most folks accepted Bush’s unconstitutional stripping of rights from detained persons as a route to safety. Al-Marri would soon be stripped of more than his rights, and that would lead to less safety for the rest of us.

Al-Marri is in the news this week because he was recently released from a federal prison and returned to his native Qatar. He was involved in a prisoner swap for an innocent American couple wrongfully imprisoned there. The release of al-Marri has the neocons accusing President Obama of “letting free a known terrorist.”

In our system, the president wears many hats. One is the chief federal law enforcement officer and another is the chief diplomat. In the former, he is subject to the laws Congress has written; in the latter, he is subject only to the Constitution. In the execution of foreign policy, he cannot commit a crime, of course, but if he did, he probably would not be prosecuted.

He recently secured the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by swapping him for five known al-Qaida leaders who had been held for 11 years without charges at the prison camp at Gitmo. Obama arguably provided aid to a terrorist organization by sending al-Qaida leaders back to their organization — a felony for which his Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted Americans whose behavior was far more benign than his own.

Yet, the courts have been loath to interfere with any president’s execution of foreign policy, no matter its apparent lawlessness. The courts permitted Abraham Lincoln to use troops to rob American banks, rape American women, and burn state and federal courthouses; they permitted Woodrow Wilson to prosecute those who sang German beer hall songs in public during World War I; and they permitted FDR to execute unsuccessful German saboteurs in the U.S. without any meaningful trial.

Because al-Marri was tortured by the U.S. Navy for two years, he pleaded guilty to one low-level crime, instead of to the true conspiracies with which he was involved — and he received a reduction in his sentence commensurate with the number of days he endured the torture. The feds agreed to this because they were fearful of revealing what the Navy had done to him. He had served 87 percent of his federal sentence by the time of his release last month. The standard period of sentence service in the federal system before release is 85 percent.

The feds shot themselves in the foot on this al-Marri case. They had much evidence against him. They needn’t have kept him naked, blindfolded, shackled and wearing earplugs for months. He should have been prosecuted aggressively and humanely in a federal court in Chicago or New York City, where the feds have yet to lose terror prosecutions and the trials are basically fair. Instead, after he was arrested by the FBI, kidnapped by the military and brought to a Navy brig in South Carolina, he endured a systematic, fruitless, detrimental-to-justice, rarely-heard-of-in-modern-American-history authorized prisoner abuse.

The troops who tortured al-Marri are lucky; they could have and should have been court-martialed. The authorities who ordered it should have been prosecuted. If this had been the other way round — if the FBI had kidnapped him from military custody and tortured him (this is unthinkable today) — the FBI agents would have been fired and prosecuted.

Under federal law, all convicted federal prisoners are in the custody of the president. He can pardon, release, trade or commute a sentence for any prisoner as he sees fit. But he cannot undo the demonstrable legal mess a predecessor created by his fixation on torture.

By Andrew P. Napolitano

There Are No Limits on Government

There Are No Limits on Government

Lamenting Liberty Lost

A British author, residing in the United States for the past 30 years, created a small firestorm earlier this week with his candid observations that modern-day Americans have been duped by the government into accepting a European-style march toward socialism because we fail to appreciate the rich legacy of personal liberty that is everyone’s birthright and is expressly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Os Guinness, the author of more than a dozen books defending traditional Judeo-Christian values and Jeffersonian personal liberty, argued that we should embrace individual liberty and personal dignity and reject the “no givens, no rules, no limits” government we now have. He went on to opine that the government today is not the constitutionally restrained protector of personal freedoms the Framers left us, but rather has become the wealth-distributing protector of collective interests the Founding Fathers never could have imagined.

Yet the problem is a deep one. The Framers believed in the presumption of liberty, which declares that we are free to make personal choices, and the government cannot interfere with our liberties unless we violate the rights of others. Stated differently, the federal government cannot interfere with our personal choices by writing any law it wants; it can only regulate behavior or spend money when the Constitution authorizes it to do so.

But for the past 100 years, the federal government has rejected the Madisonian concept that it is limited to the 16 discrete powers the Constitution delegates to it, and has claimed its powers are unlimited, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution. Even those prohibitions can be gotten around since government lawyers have persuaded federal courts to rule that Congress can spend tax dollars or borrowed money on any projects it wishes, whether authorized by the Constitution or not. The courts even have authorized Congress to use federal tax dollars to bribe the states into enacting laws that Congress is powerless to enact, and Congress has done so.

The Declaration of Independence defines our personal liberties as inalienable aspects of our humanity, and the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with those liberties — like thought, speech, press, association, worship, self-defense, travel, privacy, due process, use of money and private property, to name a few.

The teaching of these founding documents is that our liberties are natural — their source is not the government — and they are personal, not collective. We don’t need a government permission slip to exercise them; we don’t need to belong to a group to enjoy them; they cannot be taken away by a congressional vote or a presidential signature.

Even though everyone who works for the government takes an oath to uphold the Declaration and the Constitution, very few are consistent with what they have sworn to do. We know that because on the transcendental issues of our day — life, liberty, war and debt — the leadership of both political parties and the behavior of all modern presidents have revealed a steadfast willingness to write any law and regulate any behavior or permit any evil, whether authorized by the Constitution or not.

Take life. Abortion is the most deadly force in America today. Abortions lawfully kill a baby a minute — that’s 1.1 million babies a year and 45,000,000 killed since the Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. A simple one-line statute — “The fetus in the womb is a legal person” — could have been enacted by a simple majority vote in Congress and signed into law by any of our so-called pro-life presidents, thus stopping the slaughter. It never happened.

Take liberty. Both parties support the Patriot Act and the secret FISA apparatus, which together invade privacy, infringe upon free speech, permit federal agents to write their own search warrants and allow domestic spying on all of us all the time. This demonstrates that our political leaders do not believe that our rights are inalienable, but can be interfered with and regulated by them. They have written laws that literally permit federal agents to do the very acts the Constitution was written to prohibit.

Take the lethal combination of war and debt. Both parties support perpetual war and perpetual debt. The leadership of both parties has permitted every modern president to kill whomever he pleases in foreign countries without lawful declarations of war and to do so by going into a $17 trillion hole of debt, with no end in sight. Today, 20 cents of every tax dollar collected goes to interest on pre-existing government debt. Today’s taxpayers are still paying interest on the $30 billion Woodrow Wilson borrowed to finance World War I in 1917.

The British author is correct. Unless we have a radical change in the direction of government — its size, cost, focus, intrusiveness and rejection of first principles — and unless we elect people to the government who truly believe the Declaration and the Constitution mean what they say, we will continue our march toward the federal destruction of the presumption of liberty.

It is a slow march, but a steady one.

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Eloquent 4th Grader Brings Crowd To Its Feet After She Rebukes Govt School Testing

Eloquent 4th Grader Brings Crowd To Its Feet After She Rebukes Govt School Testing

Standardized testing today is nothing like it was in the 90s, and certainly like nothing before that. Today it is nonsensical and insurmountable enough to make students, teachers and parents cry. One Florida fourth grader, who could barely see over the podium as she gave a rousing speech to Hernando County School Board - just couldn't take being a mere statistic any more.

On Mar 17, tiny nine-year-old Sydney Smoot rocked the Brooksville Elementary Schoolhouse when she boldly ripped into the new Florida Standards Assessment. She brought the Board to its feet with a standing ovation after a two-minute lambasting, complete with fitting gesticulation. Take special note about orders that the students cannot disclose what they see on the test to their parents.


Read more about her here and here.

Coincidentally, a parallel battle wages against PARCC* testing which is a somewhat privatized form of standardized testing that unfairly gauges knowledge of newly installed Common Core curriculum. It's an additional burden that takes 10 hours to complete. These tests are moreso hushed. So much so, that publishing company Pearson was recently caught spying on students' social media accounts to make sure none of the Common-Core-crazy slipped out. All under the guise of "security," of course. In actuality, these bullies really, really don't want parents to know what's happening.

With such an aggressive push for these tests, shrouded in secrecy from parents, and despite such an impressive backlash, it is becoming more apparent that a synthesis is about to take place where everyone loses. Everyone but the State and Common Core pushers who are poised to pull back just a little and by doing so, get what they really wanted all along.

*PARCC = Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, a coalition of states

Heather Callaghan