The Executive Order

Every President since George Washington has issued what we have come to know as an "Executive Order". There is a loose basis for the legality of the Executive Order in the Constitution, giving the President the power to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed"; being used to guide the Executive branch of the Government in carrying out its duties...

According to USA.gov, the federal government’s official portal, “presidents use executive orders to direct and manage how the federal government operates.”

Until the 1900's most Executive Orders went unpublished and unseen by anyone other than the agency the Order was intended for. Some were used to acquire public land, some to regulate industry and trade. Others have had far greater impact.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order. So was the New Deal. President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War; President Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II; The Desegregation of the Armed Forces in 1948 are all examples of Executive Orders.

Then there's Woodrow Wilson and his fascination with the Panama Canal. Back when men were men, they would hunt, at night, by torch. This was so widespread in the Canal zone that Wilson E.O. 1884 made the use of hunting with a "lantern, torch, bonfire, or other artificial light" a misdemeanor.

Bill Clinton took the United States to Kosovo with an Executive Order. In fact, the issue of how much military power a President may exercise by EO remains unresolved.

But don't think a President may use the Executive Order freely. In 1952 Harry Truman issued Executive Order 10340, putting steel mills with striking workers under federal control. The Order was challenged, and the Supreme Court ruled it invalid in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co V Saywer because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution.

It was Roosevelt who issued the most executive orders, according to records at the National Archives. He issued 3,728 orders between 1933 and1945, as the country dealt with the Great Depression and World War II. President George W. Bush, issued 291 orders over eight years, while President Bill Clinton had 364 executive orders during his two terms in office.Barack Obama, as of Jan 14, 2014 has issued 167.

These have included everything from Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change and Establishment of the Presidential Commission of Election Administration to a much more controversial subject... an update to an Executive Order created in 1994, on “National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness”.

This order gives the president the power to take control of all domestic energy supplies for the purpose of protecting national security, as well as, delegating greater power to each cabinet member to achieve this.

Fox News points out:

The President granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.

Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific sections of the order make it clear that the President can take complete command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as well.

President Obama has promised to use more of these Orders in the final two years of his Presidency with advisers telling the press he's warmed up to the idea, but thus far this President seems to be on track to issue the least amount of orders of any two term President, though still landing in the Top 10.

Fear the Order

So now that we have a good handle on what the lay of the land is in the United States regarding Executive Orders, what exactly is everyone so afraid of? Why does a Presidents use of this tool provoke such fear?

The great experiment that is the United States of America functions because power has been restrained, broken apart, and then weaved back together with a system of carefully crafted checks and balance. This system was put in place to protect against the oppression of the "American society" by its ruling class.

The very definition of tyranny is the concentration of Executive, Legislative and Judicial power in one branch of the government or one individual. Rule by Executive Order, instead of by the Will of the People.

Executive actions on guns, switching off the internet at will, putting people in FEMA camps, Marshall Law... these are all fears stoked when the President uses an Executive Order to make law.

Nation rise and nations fall. People become free, and then fall into slavery again. Many of the worlds most significant civilizations have died not from outside assault, but rather from internal deterioration.

Can a President use Executive Order to manipulate society? Yes. And with no clear opposition it would be very hard for anyone to alter that decision. A bigger and more important question is, should he?

America CAN die and disappear from the Earth, and today we are in far greater danger of straying from our founding principles than ever before. Unless this course is corrected, unless our founding principles are honored, we may end up but a footnote in history...

IMMIGRATION REFORM WILL DESTROY THE GOP

I agree with most that our current Immigration system is inadequate, but I disagree adamantly with the current fix as proposed by the President, and now seemingly embraced by the GOP. There are many downsides to granting citizenship to 11 million people, after paying some taxes and a fine.

Immigration reform will fundamentally change the long term economic makeup of the the United States of America. Any allusions to 11 million new "tax-payers" post immigration reform is laughable. None of these new "citizens" will have enough income to actually be SUBJECTED to taxes in America.

Most will pay no tax at all, and worse, a portion of these new citizens will immediately begin collecting Child Tax Credits, Earned Income Credits, and other refundable tax credits.

Who will pay for all of this additional spending post Immigration reform? You will. And we've already seen what happens when you offer Amnesty. Did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 actually SOLVE the problem of illegal immigration? Of course not. So why are we proposing this again? And more importantly do America's actually give a damn about this debate?

According to a new Quinnipiac poll released this weekend, 99 percent of Americans do not consider Immigration issues a priority. 17 percent of the US population is Hispanic or Latino and still only 1 percent would call this a priority. Even the community this legislation would benefit the most aren't interested in the fight... so why do we continue to have it?

Because American's aren't pushing this topic at all. At least not American's like you and I.

You see, we don't personally benefit from cheap labor, foreign visas, and loosened regulations which is after all, what this fight is about. Lobbyist in Washington for companies like Google and Microsoft want this deal done.

If you think Immigration is not big business to the Tech Industry you have obviously never met Christine Doyle. She was profiled recently in the New York Times, the 'Immigration Fixer' at Google. Her job is to deal with the United States byzantine immigration processes.

Google spend 4.5 million dollars a year on 'visa administration'. The tech industry as a whole spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get these workers into the country, and even more on foreign offices and infrastructure when they can't.

So what you have in reality are a group of lobbyists playing the system. The Democrats are being told you have to do Immigration reform, if you don't the GOP will on their terms, and will regain a foothold with Hispanic voters. Democrats also like this plan because it also assists them in the fight over income redistribution, plus added benefit of a win on this issue equating to the end of the GOP.

The GOP has fought to maintain ground on Immigration reform for years now, and unfortunately they seem to be losing the fight. The messaging from the Left controlled media has been consistent, pervasive, and devastating to the morale of anyone still trying to stem the tide on Immigration, and Lobbyist have nearly ensnared everyone else with big piles of money.

I warn the GOP if they push Immigration reform through this year as some have been signaling, the Grand Old Party will never recover. You are being fed the lie that bending on the issue will make you popular with Latinos. It won't. They could care less, and many are even against this plan. They had to wait in line... why should someone else just waltz in?

If you let Immigration reform happen you will lose the House, you won't gain back the Senate, and all those 'new Americans' will never vote for you, so you can kiss the White House goodbye as well.

Republicans. You cannot cave on this issue. This REALLY matters, and 99 percent of America is with you no matter what the media says. This is a last ditch effort by a failed President to grab a win on an issue no one cares about. Don't be intimidated. You have everything to lose.

The Pope Doubles Down on Liberation Theology

Pope Francis has signaled several times that he is a believer in Liberation Theology, and indicated he would like the Church to act as a spearhead for economic change in the world. People who think like the Pope believe that unfettered global capitalism is unjust, and leads to social, political, and economic oppression of the poor. And they want to punish the successful, which (by their logic) will create equalized opportunity for those less fortunate...think "Christianized Marxism"....

The Pope has said indirectly his desire is to 'hold capitalism accountable' for the problems of the world... to punish the 'haves' simply for having...which according to this line of thinking, is a sin. 

"While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by the happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies that defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation," Pope Francis says.

The Catholic Church all but eradicated this ideology nearly a quarter century ago (under Pope John Paul II), which originated mainly in Latin American countries in the 60's and 70's. But Pope Francis, originally from Argentina, never practiced Liberation Theology, though he was certainly shaped by it.

This weekend, the Pope named 19 new Cardinals, 16 of which are considered "Cardinal Electors" or under 80 years old, and therefore eligible to elect the next Pope after Francis either retires or expires. So why is this so significant to the resurgence of Liberation Theology in the Catholic Church?

These new Cardinals are from predominately poor countries, including Nicaragua, Ivory Coast, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Burkina Faso, the Philippines and Haiti...It signals yet ANOTHER move by this Pope to reduce the influence of wealth and money on the Church.

But there is another more long term impact of this move... the ability of these Cardinals to elect the NEXT Pope should serve to ensure the continuation of this Liberation Theology, which has nearly become official Church policy.

As the redistribution of wealth crowd (like Occupy) has been mainly fractured and rudderless, this emergence of the Church as a leader of in kind of thinking is a new and dangerous trend... Papal sponsored Marxism. The economic struggle has mass appeal, and will soon be (if not already) co-opted by those who seek to destroy the world.

Transitional Living Fund

I find myself in a strange place this morning, philosophically speaking. I don't blame most people for struggling in this economy. Unemployment continues to fall, as people stop looking for work. 91.8 Million Americans have fallen OUT of the labor force, a new record. 

Those who find work are typically downgraded into a much lower standard of living, because most of the jobs created have been low wage positions.

Democrats would like to trade the term "Welfare" for "Transitional Living Fund" which signals to me that I am expected to, as a taxpayer, provide for more of the basics for longer, for a variety of reasons. When it's all said and done my effective tax rate is already something like 45 percent... and I am contributing member of society! I help others make money!

Sorry, I don't intend on supporting anything else that digs into my pocket.

Both sides want to blame the other for the problem. Labor says employers don't pay enough. Employers say the government is strangling them and they don't make enough. Who do I blame? Everyone but me, quite frankly.

The manufacturing base in the United States has all but dried up. Government initiatives intended to create jobs, like Cleantech and green energies, have fallen completely flat, and the rush of American jobs leaving the country hasn't abated much in the last decade.

We've seen workers at Fast Food restaurants strike for higher wages. Why, because they are greedy? Some maybe. Mostly it's because at 7 dollars an hour its hard to buy a tank of gas at $4 a gallon, and have money for food, rent, utilities, and any other basics.

But why should we pay them more? If your only marketable skill is flipping a burger, are you worth more than 7 dollars an hour? The truth is, I don't have that answer.

Here's what I do know...the guy who OWNS the McDonald's probably owns a BUNCH of them. And he doesn't worry too much about buying gas or food or anything else. Should I take from him to give to the burger flipper? After all, the owner creates jobs... shouldn't he keep his reward for all that effort? Anyone who owns or runs a business will be glad to tell you how much work is really involved...

Now you understand the basic question at hand: Do businesses have a duty to provide good paying jobs, or is the minimum enough...? Something else to be considered here? If you DON'T provide for the basics, as a business, do we as a society have the duty to fill the gap? Because we are. 

Do you have any idea how many Wal-Mart employees are also on some form of public assistance? Not all of them, but enough to notice and measure. Do you think Wal-Mart employees are the only ones? I don't.

I have always made an effort to better myself as a human, and with that, I have seen my ability to earn a living increase. I am not a big fan of "giving" people anything. I don't think it makes for better humans. As I have stated previously, the amazing thing about America is that you don't have to finish in the same place you start. YOU get to decide the path to individual success and achievement yourself. So yeah, it sucks, but if you want to make more than the minimum, you should probably do something to help yourself.

And fortunately for me, I don't have to decide what the minimum a business should provide an employee is. While I would love for everything to be fair and equal, it isn't, and will never be. The only reason I discuss it is so you understand I am not callous and blind to the situation. But unlike some, I reject the idea that Government can make it fair, and I know for certain that bad things happen when Government plays the equalizer.

So, while I don't think the Government should regulate what employers pay, I reject the idea that families like the Walton's should be permitted such enormous profits while a significant portion of their work force is on some form of public assistance.

The only legislation aimed at business I would be in favor of is something that would end that particular practice forever... as for the striking burger flipper? Sorry man, I can't force anyone to give you more. You have to go get it for yourself. Is it a lot of work to pull yourself up? Absolutely. But when is anything worth doing ever easy?

A bridge too far...

You've heard a lot about "Bridge Gate" today. Someone in New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's office shuts down a few highway lanes on the George Washington Bridge, and it becomes a "National Scandal". I would like to remind you of a few other scandals that have fallen off the front page, that we SHOULD be discussing instead:

Benghazi. Investigation of General Patreus. Fast and Furious. Seized phone records of the Associate Press. IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups. Obamacare Website Scandal. NSA Spying on Foreign Leaders. NSA Spying at Home.

What the hell happened to my country? Do you realize we impeached an entire Presidency because Richard Nixon bugged two buildings? This President has bugged THE WORLD, and he gets a Nobel Peace Prize... and on top of it all, we IGNORE the Presidents scandals in favor of a story about a BRIDGE?

Why is "Bridge Gate" a scandal and the others are not? Do you understand yet how the media REALLY works? Christie may run for the Presidency in 2016, so the liberal controlled media will use ANY excuse to tear him down.

Hillary Clinton and Oprah WInfrey popped the bubbly this morning, giggling like school girls, as Christie twisted in the wind today. And what an ego on this guy... an hour long press conference, as if we have NOTHING else to talk about but him??

If he had come out, made his statement, took a question or two, and then beat feet, I would have been impressed. But it seemed that every minute he stayed in front of the cameras, he looked weaker and weaker... guiltier and guiltier...

I've already explained that Christie's moderate approach will ultimately doom him, and so maybe this scandal is a good thing in a way. The GOP will have to see Christie as tainted goods, and run an ACTUAL conservative. Or not... and it will be the end of the GOP and the Country.


So the only question I have left, is Chris Christie our type of guy?

LBJ, Obama, and 50 years of Progressive White Guilt

50 years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson gave a State of the Union Speech in which he and the Democrats, who had until that point done everything humanly possible to oppose any manner of civil rights for blacks, including the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act by noted KKK member (a Grand Wizard) and long time Democrat Robert Byrd...  decided that it was time to stop oppressing blacks, and start "helping them"....

It was the birth of the Modern Progressive Movement, known as "The Great Society"... The speech, by Johnson, was lauded by so called 'liberal do-gooders' and marked the beginning of White Guilt...  the individual or collective guilt often said to be felt by some white people for the racist treatment of people of color by whites both historically and presently. On this day, Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty in America. 

Sounds good right? Some white people did own slaves, and helping the poorest among us is never a bad thing, is it? Let me explain to you why this is so wrong. 

Sure SOME white folks owned slaves and stood on the backs of the poor to earn their fortunes. Did we all? No we didn't. Should we all be made to pay for those crimes? Should I feel guilty of my success because of the "sins of my Fathers"? Of course not...

Just like you, I am forced to compete in the world the way it is now. I treat people fairly and am responsible for my own actions. I cannot and will not be responsible for the lot of others in life, in the same way they are not responsible for mine.

More importantly, I am an American, just like you. Being an American means I can transcend my starting point and arrive at whatever height of success I choose and strive for. No one gets to DECIDE for me what I will be in life. And they can't decide for you either, unless you allow it... 

Until 1965, 82% of black households had both a mother and a father in the home -- a statistic on par with or even slightly higher than white families. 

After 1965 the presence of black fathers in the home began a precipitous decline; today, the American black out-of-wedlock birthrate is at 69%.

The policies instituted 50 years ago today have done incalculable damage to black families...

How about that whole "helping the poor" angle? Has to be some good there right? 

President Obama, who has continued the Liberal Progressive policies of LBJ, basically giving people free stuff, extending unemployment again and again for people who don't even look for work anymore. Has that lifted people out of poverty? No way. 

In fact, the poverty level under Obama has broken a 50 year record. 50 years of Progressive Social Policies and we have MORE poor, not less. 

Johnson promised that his Progressive Administration would be efficient, honest, and frugal... Has that happened? 

Efficient, Honest, and Frugal. Do I even need to discuss this? To call the Obama Administration ANY of these things is to insult the English language. Words would have no meaning anymore.... 

Iif this sounds to you like a racist rant, you're dead wrong. You're also a progressive, you can't be helped, and you should move along. Liberalism, after all, is a mental disorder... 

But if this topic is something you think we should have an debate on, then you are not Republican or a Democrat, you're not a liberal or a progressive, you're an independent thinker... And I have one simple question: Is social programming ruining America?