Monday, June 18, 2012

Null & Void: the Constitution!

U.S. Presidential flag, 1960-present (not usua...
U.S. Presidential flag, 1960-present (not usually called a "standard" in official U.S. government terminology). It is defined in Executive Order 10860. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
What is the role of the President of the United States?

According to the Constitution, a very select and limited role in authority. If we read under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution it is laid clear and concise so as to easily facilitate even the least of the laity. So put, the President is the civilian head of the military and militias of the several states when called to service of the nation; power of pardons and reprieves in crimes against the United States; to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; and appointments of officers of the government.

Easily understood, right? One would gather that the fulfillment of such would limit any over-reaching of the Executive Branch. Not so. As Barack Obama has so often done in his one term. He has overstepped his authority once again.

Before we go further, let me just say that he is not the first President to do so. He is however one of the few that have blatantly disregarded the powers of the Legislative Branch. Thus, he has abandoned his duty and obligation to fulfill his oath of office.

Clearly put, he has not defended and upheld the Constitution. He has shown himself unbecoming of the office of President of the United States.

In his latest disregard of his duties as such, he signed orders to allow for the amnesty of some 800,000 illegal immigrants. The establishment has stated that it is not amnesty, yet I see it as such. In doing so, he has usurped the constitutional duties of the Legislative Branch.

It matters not that such authority is granted to the Congress, by way of the Constitution. He has committed an act of treachery against these united States. Such actions are referenced in the likes of third-world dictators.

Barack Obama has even gone as far as saying that he had to do what was right, even it meant doing it without Congress. What is he thinking? Or is he even thinking at all?

Clearly, it is a blatant attempt to shore up his waning Hispanic vote. He is pandering to one group on the plight of the whole. Disregarding all responsibilities, he has arrogantly show disregard for "We the people".

In summary, let me just say That I invoke my FIRST AMENDMENT rights. These rights are the standard of freedom in this country. For in opinion, the voice of the people can be heard. The Constitution has cited the structure of a Republic, with sovereignty placed in the hands of "We the people". Thus being said, there is NO seat of power for a usurping dictator.


Monday, April 23, 2012

Unthinkable to that of opinion...

Today the White House released a statement as to the clearing of Secret Service advance team. It seems unlikely that this will amount to any concern of a security concern. The administration has obviously decided to dismiss any strafing of security, at least to the eye of public scrutiny.

As a Citizen, I find this appalling. There has been a lapse in judgement of the investigation of this matter of security. It is concerning that there is more to story than what has met the eye. Such a closure and clearing of these concerns, will upend years of supposed integrity of a long-respected agency.

Could there be a hint of cover-up, or even the 'unthinkable'. That would be conspiracy. The administration would hardily deny such allegations, yet I do wonder on the prospect. Could there be more to the matter.

I am not saying conspiracy on the part of any agents, but to that of the highest echelons of the Executive Branch. Yes, I said it. The President himself is quite capable of undertaking such steps as to breaking down and disenfranchising of an agency such as the Secret Service.

I don't have all the facts but here is a possible scenario. Let us go back to the beginning of the current administration. Is it not so that Obama had stated that an alternative force would be needed. Some might say that he was referring to the military. I doubt very seriously that even his arrogance would not strike at the military directly. So that would lead to a plausible probability of demeaning a ranking agency. Thus referring to the Secret Service.

Some might say that I was a mad man for saying such. Yet, I am fully conscious of what I am stating. The truth is there, and it will be found. A real investigation would assuredly show such.

As I have said in the previous paragraphs that I do not have all the facts, but I seek the truth. No matter the outcome, facts are facts.

Let's delve into what little we know on the matter. Depending on which media outlet is read, the number of agents involved would be to the count of eleven or twelve. The count matters not. That seems to be a very high number not to scrutinize. One agent is misconduct, while the number stated would be gross negligence as a whole.

So with this being stated, there are several probable outcomes. One, the agency has been grossly mismanaged. Two, the agents were following orders. Or the third and hopefully improbable, the agents were blatant in disregarding their duties. I find this last one very unlikely, as these were professionals in their field and were cognizant of their required duties and responsibilities.

If the security detail was actually negligent or found so, what would have happened? I would venture that the another agency would step up to the plate and take over the duties of security details and such. It could be any number of agencies (FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, DOD, etc.). Or perhaps even a new agency regulated in as a new protective detail.

So in a final opinion, I would find that the whole matter has more to the story. As to what that might be, who knows? Barack Obama? Leon Panetta? The list could go on and on. You will have decide on your own.

The supposed transparency of the Obama administration has a shroud of mystery clinging. Could this be where the 'hope and change' lies? Well that would be another story.

In closing, I would like to make a statement attributing to the right of opinion. We all have opinion, and we cannot all be correct. As for those of you who are cursing this banter, I say "it is my OPINION"!

I have envoked my First Amendment rights in the writing of this article. The right of opinion is inherent in this protected right of 'We the people". For the naysayers, " The First Amendment is written as such: 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 to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."