President Obama Is Preparing To Impose Martial Law

Some of you are asking, “Carl, how could you make such an outrageous statement?”

Well, just as dark clouds indicate that it is about to rain, when all of the signs point at something, it’s not paranoia, simply an acceptance of the facts.

Barack Obama recently, without any publicity (that should set off alarm bells by itself) signed an Executive Order establishing a “Council Of Governors.”

If you want to read Obama’s latest assault on the United States Constitution, it can be found here.

OK, first off, I call it Obama’s latest violation of the Constitution for the following reasons:

If you read the Executive Order carefully, you will see that is an attempt to put the National Guard, units which are based in individual states, under the control of the federal government. This is in direct violation of the 10th Amendment, which reads as follows:

“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.”

In other words Mr. President, the Constitution doesn’t give you the right to do this!

As far as this un-Constitutional document being enforced in the case of a national emergency, it fails to spell out just what would prompt the enforcement of its provisions, which in my opinion, the way I’m reading it, a violation of the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The provisions in this Executive Order that outline the Synchronization and integration of state and Federal military activities in the United States is a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which begins with this provision:

“From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution…”

Now if all of this (should Obama ever try to enforce this thing) isn’t enough to cause a Constitutional crisis, how about how about Obama signing an Executive Order giving law enforcement personnel from foreign countries new police powers within the United States, as was first reported here by World Net Daily.

Maybe all of this is Obama’s way of trying to fufill one of his dumbest campaign proposals:

We here at The Freedom Medium have written a number of articles raising the question of why America would need a civilian defense force when we have the National Guard.

It seems that President Obama was hoping to raise his own private army here in America, directly under federal (his) control.

Well just like Nancy Pelosi saying that one way or another, health care reform would pass. it seems like the President is going to take whatever steps he need to to have an domestic armed force under his control.

We can only speculate as to why he feels the need.

Along with wondering why he continues to ignore the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

To read more on this topic, go to our home page, scroll down to the “Tags” section, and click on Obama’s Army.

Update: The Koran, Barack Obama, And Thomas Jefferson

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has frequently made references to the possibility of reaching out to “the moderate elements of the Taliban” as a way of resolving the war in Afghanistan.

However, such a policy does bring some questions to my mind.

One of which is:

Just how do you define a “moderate” Islamic jihadist?

Because make no mistake about it, that is exactly what members of the Taliban are.

Otherwise, they probably wouldn’t have become part of the Taliban in the first place.

Perhaps a “moderate” member of the Taliban is a suicide bomber who only targets grown men, but not women and children.

President Obama obviously is not a student of history.

And he surely has no concept of warfare, otherwise he would be following one of the first rules of any conflict, which is “Know Thy Enemy.”

So in the (forlorn) hope that President Obama won’t put even more U.S. troops at risk, or further endanger the safety of all of America, we are once again offering a history lesson for the President, which we originally presented back in June:

During his recent tour of the Mid-East, President Obama made many inaccurate references as to the place of Islam in the history of modern civilization.

The fact that the majority of them were incorrect seemed to be a moot point, as the apparent point of the trip appeared to be for the President to apologize for America being such an evil country, and that now that he is in charge, American and Islamic cultures can live in peace and harmony.

And among his many miscues made in the hope of getting radical Islamists to lay down their arms and give all of America a group hug, he did get one thing right.

The fact that Thomas Jefferson kept a copy of the Koran (Qur’an) in his Presidential library.

Allah only knows why Mr. Obama would cite Jefferson’s ownership of the Koran as an attempt to show solidarity between America and the Muslim world.

Well Mr. President, I’m not quite sure how to break this news to you, but Thomas Jefferson did not have a copy of the holy book of Islam in order to learn more of the various religions of the world.

He kept it for reference!

As in an effort to learn more about his, and America’s, foes.

President Obama, as do most American’s, believe that our battle against radical Islam began with the attacks of 9-11, or perhaps with the first World Trade Center bombing.

Mr President, as you do with so many other things, once again you have the wrong idea.
This country has been fighting the fanatics who have perverted the teachings of the holy book of Islam since the time Jefferson was President, hence his ownership of the book.

For over a thousand years, Muslim pirates traveled along the coastline of Africa seizing women and young boys to sell off to slave traders.

This became a concern for America shortly after our country came into being, as after the Revolutionary War, what were now American merchant ships no longer had the protection of the Royal Navy.

Muslim pirates, under the control of an Islamist warlord who ruled Algiers, began attacking American merchant ships and enslaving their Christian crews.

These actions were leading to the the destruction of American trade in the Mediterranean, so in 1784 the Continental Congress attempted to negotiate a treaty with the four Barbary Coast States, and formed a panel with Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin as members to carry out negotiations.

John Adams held the belief that paying tribute to the pirates was the simplest way to restore the safe passage of the merchant ships. (Obama also totally twisted Adam’s statements during his speech as a means to achieving his own ends. Hope and Change is one thing, the truth is for suckers in Obama’s world.)

Jefferson,  fearing that there would be no end to the demands for tribute, disagreed, and wanted matters settled by military force.

In a negotiating session, Jefferson and Adams questioned the Algerian ambassador as to the reasons behind such hostile actions towards the United States, when there had been no previous contact between America and the Muslim world.

They received the following reply:

“Islam was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in the Quran that all nations that did not acknowledge it’s authority were sinners,that it was the right and duty of all Muslims to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Where have we heard that before?

Jefferson’s recommendation of the use of force to end the piracy did not prevail, and for the next 15 years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars to ensure the safe passage of ships and as ransom for captured crews.

Jefferson was proven correct when he had said that the amount of money demanded would be ever-increasing, by the year 1800 the amount being paid out came to nearly 20 percent of the revenue the American government was taking in.

All of that was about to change.

Shortly after his inauguration as President, Jefferson declared that the United States would spend “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute”, and informed Congress that he was dispatching American warships, along with a force of U.S. Marines to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

Intense naval bombardment, as well as shore raids by the Marines began to take their toll on the pirate havens.

The end of Muslim piracy was sealed when the U.S. Marines marched across the Egyptian dessert into Tripolitania, leading to the surrender of Tripoli.

This military action was the origin of the immortal verse in the Marine Corps hymn “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli…”

Jefferson knew that the majority of the followers of the Muslim faith were a peaceful people.
He also had the foresight to know that appeasement was not the solution to a conflict with any group, regardless of their national origins or religious beliefs, that declared themselves to be sworn enemies of America.

President Obama, I respectfully suggest that before you use Thomas Jefferson, or any of the other great leaders this country, as an example of anything, that you study some American history first.

Try and learn just what it is you are talking about.

After all, you did say in response to a question at a White House press conference that you like to know what you are talking about before you comment on a matter.

So why not take a break from enjoying the sound of your own voice and inform yourself beforehand.

Then perhaps, at least on one issue,  you can try telling the truth in order to make your point.

Gun Ownership As A Cost Of Health Care Reform

The National Institute Of Health (NIH) recently began studying the relationship between gun ownership and health issues.

At one time, this sort of research was done by the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) until Congress cut funding for the program, after it was found that the flawed research done by the CDC was shown to be biased against gun ownership.

Since it has been ten years since the CDC lost it’s funding for this program, why is there suddenly renewed interest in this type of research?

Some of us, (myself included) see this as yet another backdoor ploy by the “gun grabbers” in Congress and the Obama administration for yet another attack on the Second Amendment.

They will tout the implementation of stricter gun control laws as a means of reducing health care costs, due to the reduction in violent crime that would be the result of additional restrictions on firearms ownership.

They will attempt to make their case by presenting statistics showing that gun violence causes health care resources to be spent in ways that could be better utilized in other areas.

Of course, many of the American public will fall for this gibberish, not realizing that it is simply another ploy by the Obama administration to drum up support for an increasingly unpopular health care reform bill, while having the added bonus of being an assault on Second Amendment rights as well.

However, anyone who, rather than simply believe what they are told, would take the time to study the relationship between gun ownership and it’s resulting effect on health care costs would find quite a different answer than what they would assume to be the case.
Anyone holding the opinion that less gun ownership would result in less violent crime and therefore less of a strain on health care resources would learn that just the opposite is the case.

There is a direct correlation between an increase in firearms ownership and a decrease in violent crime.

Several countries that have enacted some of the strictest gun control laws in the world have seen their rates of violent crime increase.

Great Britain, after enacting laws banning the private ownership of handguns, saw their rates of violent crimes more than double.

Australia, after banning the private ownership of nearly all types of firearms, has seen their rates of violent crimes increasing by an average of nearly thirty percent per year.

Turning closer to home, the story is much the same here in the United States.

A study done by the Institute For Legislative Action, a division of the National Rifle Association shows that a 2008 study, using statistics from research done by the BATFE, the FBI and other agencies shows that increases in gun ownership lead to reductions in violent crime.

For those of you who feel that a report from the NRA is bound to be biased towards gun ownership, take a look at this synopsis of a study done by Harvard University explaing how, when it comes to restrictions on firearms ownership leading to less violent crime, and therfore reduced health care costs, the Harvard study comes to the conclusion that Gun Control Is Counterproductive.

Along with a link to the original Harvard University study, this report also mentions the overturning of the ban on firearms ownership in our nation’s capitol, Washington D.C., an area that, in spite of some of the strictest gun control laws in America, also had one of the highest rates of violent crime.

Yet everyone promoting health care reform will claim the fewer firearms will result in less violent crime, and thus treatment funds will be saved.

When all of the evidence is to the contrary.

Oh well, when has lying ever bothered anyone in the Obama administration?

To them, it comes as naturally as breathing.

  

The United States Constitution Says That You HAVE To Buy Health Insurance!

Day by day, step by step, the Obama adminsitration and his cohorts in Congress are working towards fulfilling Obama’s campaign promise to “fundamentally change America.”
If we like the change or not doesn’t seem to matter.
And if these political prostitutes have to corrupt the writings of the United States Constitution to shove something down our throats, well, nothing is beyond them.
Now House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is making the claim that Congress has “broad authority” to force American’s to buy health insurance.
Hey Mr. Hoyer, sorry to tell you this, this is AMERICA, not Nazi Germany!
Where in the hell do you get off trying to tell me that you can force me to do anything?
Other than pay taxes, unlike your buddy Charlie Rangel.
Mark my words Mr. Hoyer.
You and your fellow Obamacare imbelices try and subvert the Constitution in order to take your first steps towards changing america from a democracy to a dictatorship, not only will you see Republicans in control of the House of Representatives after the 2010 elections, you’ll be lucky if you can even find a Democrat!

From CNS News:
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
 
The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
 
Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had “broad authority.”
 
“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health…Read the rest of this entry

Real Experts Speak Out Regarding Gun Control

For years, we have been subjected to numerous opinions on the issue of gun control.

On one side of the issue are those who believe that the “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” is an inherent American right granted to them by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

On the other side are those who feel that the Second Amendment only applies to an organized militia.

Which side is correct?

In the hope of bring some clarity to the issue of gun control, we decided to find out the feelings of some real experts:
(And pay particular attention to the thoughs of the final person we quote.)

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”  
Samuel Adams
                                                           

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton

“Arms in the hands of private citizens may be used at individual discrestuion in private self-defense.”
 John Adams

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”
Cesare Beccaria

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”
Mohandas Gandhi

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
 The Dalai Lama

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
George Orwell

“There’s no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”
Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Thomas Jefferson

Our final quote for today comes from the last person you might expect.
His brother spent decades as a legislator fighting for ever-harsher restrictions on the Second Amendment.

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

 

 

Yet Another Violation Of The Constitution By Barack Obama

He just keeps on doing it.

Day after day President Obama treats the Constitution of the United States like so much toilet paper.

And his accepting the Nobel Peace Prize (an award he has done absolutely nothing to deserve) he has just added another instance of his total disregard of the law of the land.

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there’s a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson’s work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel…Read the rest of this entry

Organizing For America Promotes Fascism

Members of Organizing for America, or as we call them, Obama’s Army, are dedicated to spreading the President’s message.

But only if it’s the President’s message.

If you don’t agree with that message, they don’t want to hear from you.

And they are willing to violate your Constitutional rights if that is what it takes to keep you quiet:

“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.”

What are the members of Obama’s Army so afraid of?

Are they worried about people discovering that they don’t have the slightest idea of the details of the President’s health care reform bill?

We have pointed that out in previous articles.

Are they afraid that someone may ask them specifics as to how the President is going to pay for this?

Perhaps that is why, at an Organizing For America rally supporting health care, they pulled off the following underhanded maneuver:

I would like one of you members of the Kool-Aid Brigade to explain to me how you can justify banning American citizens from a public park?

Not a private, closed door meeting, but a taxpayer-supported public area that, by law, should be accessible to any law-abiding individual.

Of course, some of the Organizing For America zealots interviewed in the video provided their own answers to that question.

And the truly frightening thing is that one of these members of OFA spelled it out, but was either too stupid or was too blinded by ideology to realize it.

As is the case with select members of Congress, who would no doubt support your efforts.

The ones who label Tea Party protestors as Nazis, racists, and whatever other vile term they can come up with

So for all of you members of Obama’s Army who are completely clueless, (99.9% of you), as well as such legislators as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, etc., allow us to spell it out for you.

There is a word for when you try to control the media.

A word that applies when you try to restrict the free-flow of speech, and public access to public areas.

A word for when the only message you want people to hear is your message.

That word is Fascism.

Mark Lloyd, Racism, Localism And The Fairness Doctrine

Yesterday we did a report on the apparently racist remarks of President Obama’s latest Czar appointment, FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd.

Among the chilling remarks made by Mr. Lloyd (along with those showing his respect and admiration for Hugo Chavez) is the following:

“We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so that someone else can have power.”

Lloyd is referring to the fact that in his (and probably Obama’s) opinion, the administration is in a position to dictate more minority ownership/control over media outlets.

Which of course is un-Constitutional.

And before all of you members of the Kool-Aid Brigade scream that it is within Lloyd and Obama’s power to do this, because the FCC is a government agency, let me explain something to you.

The FCC grants a license to a media outlet, be it a television or radio station, based upon certain criteria and legalities.

As long as the brodcaster stays within those guidlines, the federal government cannot even impose a fine upon the station, let alone remove it’s ownership.

Liberals as a whole froth at the mouth like a pack of rabid dogs whenever it is pointed out that talk radio is dominated by conservative points of view.

Being socialists, they have no respect for the fact that a free-market economy is the reason behind the popularity of shows hosted by such conservative icons as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

The cannot face the simple fact that there are not as many liberal points of view on the airwaves is because, when it comes to liberal talk radio, no one listens!

The multiple bankruptcy filings of Air America are proof of that, despite backing by George Soros and MoveOn.

And liberal Democrat’s hopes of re-instating the so-called Fairness Doctrine have met with such opposition that they haven’t mentioned it in quite some time.

Although there is no vetting process for Obama’s Czars, you can bet that there would be a vetting process for any minority who would be given an FCC license.
And having a politically left-leaning point of view would be the top priority.

Taking yet another page straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook, the one that tells his followers to “strike hard from an unexpected direction”, the Obama administration will use this ploy to begin it’s war against conservative talk radio.

There is no doubt in my mind that the administration will use the precepts of “Localism” as an excuse to force radio station owners to step down, and to replace them with people more sympathetic to liberal viewpoints.

By this method, the FCC can decide what you need to hear, based on your interests in your town on your local talk radio station.

Therfore, if a radio station in a market with an overwhelming number of registered Democrats (liberals) is airing a conservative talk show, the FCC can revoke or fail to renew that station’s license.
Naturally they then grant that license to new ownership.

Out with Rush Limbaugh.
In with Randi Rhodes.

This free speech stifling government scheme would not totally silence conservative talk radio.

However, it would greatly reduce their listenership, which is what Mark Lloyd and his fellow liberal socialists really want.

As usual. the FCC, Barack Obama, Mark Lloyd and liberals in general are trying not to be troubled by such concepts as free speech, the First Amendment, or other bothersome concepts.
Not to mention the blatant racism they will use as a tactic to try and pull off  their scheme.

They have also closed their minds to one other factor.
The basic tenets of a free-market economy.

Radio talk shows like Limbaugh’s are popular because millions of people listen.
Consequently, dozens of advertisers spend millions of dollars to promote their products on these shows.

Liberal talk radio however, doesn’t attract much of an audience, even in markets where there is no conservative alternative.
Liberal talk radio doesn’t generate advertising revenue because not many people tune in.
No listeners, no advertisers.
No advertisers, no money to pay the staff.

If you doubt this scenario, study the history of Air America, as I mentioned earlier.

It’s almost tragic that Lloyd, Obama, and all of their liberal friends can’t face the reality of one simple fact.

You and the FCC can force broadcasters to air liberal talk radio.

But you can’t force the citizens of America to listen.

Is Obama’s Diversity Czar A Racist?

Today we will showcase someone who adds a new chapter to all of the stories of racism in America.
Bear with us as we do a slight introduction.

Members of Congress, the mainstream media, and even former Presidents have been making the (unfounded) claim that people attending Tea Party protests, town hall meetings, etc., are nothing more than racists.

The fact is that this claim is made towards anyone who oposses the President’s policies, even though any rational person can see that it has no basis whatsoever in reality.

Anyone, of any skin color or ethnic background who doesn’t agree with the policies of President Obama is no more a racist that anyone who disagreed with the polices of George Bush.

Now, however, the racism follies have taken a dire turn.

Recently, President Obama appointed Mark Lloyd to be the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer.
In other words, Obama’s “Diversity Czar.”

The following is a quote from Mark Lloyd regarding his feelings about conservative dominance of the public airwaves:

“There’s nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions,” he said.
“And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.He added: “There are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am.”

Can someone please explain to me just what the hell is going on in this country?

Am I the only one who sees that Mark Lloyd has insulted the intelligence and integrity of every non-caucasian person in America?

What he is saying, in effect, is that there are a lot of good white people who own/run communications outlets, but because they are white it isn’t fair.

That’s like a white guy saying that the NBA is biased because the majority of the players are black.

You think Glenn Beck raised a ruckus when he exposed Van Jones, let him make a statement like that and watch the fireworks start!

Or to make the claim that white media executives should step down in favor of minorities.

“We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so that someone else can have power.”

Mr. Lloyd, do yourself and the rest of America a favor.

Resign now.

Because if you and the other socialists in the Obama administration think that the Tea Party protests opposing health care reform were something, watch what happens when you try and overturn the Constitution Of The United States!

A little something known as the First Amendment may not mean anything to you and your brethren, but you will find that you will not be able to silence the voices of the American people.

Especially conservative American people.

For those of you who are wondering what Mark Lloyd’s apparently racist remarks have to do with silencing free speech, check back with us tommorow.

When Is An Oath Of Office Not An Oath?

One of our subscribers has some serious (and well founded) concerns with the lack of a vetting process regarding President Obama’s “Czar” appointments.
She has written a sample letter to send to members of Congress in the hope of seeing some accountability.
After the recent Van Jones debacle, we urge all of our leaders to contact their Senators and ask them the following:

Dear…

When you were sworn into office you took an oath to”protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

 

My question to you is;  did you believe it when you said it or was it just more of the pomp and ceremony that accompanies
such an event?

 

 Our Constitution is being assaulted daily with the intent to systematically destroy it and make it non-relevant.

 

Those calling themselves “progressives”, as if that covers up their statist intent, are using numerous strategies to attain their end.

 

The most dangerous of those strategies is the proliferation of special advisors appointed by the president.

 

These czars undergo no scrutiny by the senate and their true powers are undefined.

 

I am not writing to make accusations about the political and social beliefs of these people.

 

This strategy allows the president to gain significant power.

 

The balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches is critical to maintaining our republic as the founding fathers  had intended.

 

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states in part:

 

The President shall have power and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.

 

WHERE IS OUR SENATE?

 

WHY ARE YOU ALLOWING THIS TRAVESTY TO CONTINUE?

Next Page »