A Diminishing Republic Ruled by Obama, or by Law?


If you were an American law enforcement officer, say a city police officer, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and your State Constitution and to enforce your State’s penal code, and you knew of a conspiracy being hatched to rob a bank in your city, would you prepare to arrest the perpetrators before they robbed the bank and brought serious harm to innocent people? Moreover, if you knew that the perpetrators were known criminals with long rap-sheets filled with crimes and misdemeanors, would you try to act speedily to keep the crime from occurring? Yet, what if your watch commander and, even, your police chief, told you to stand-down when you reported to them the incontrovertible facts about the impending crime, when it was going to occur, how it would occur, and the specific day and time? What if they, however, told you that it didn’t matter and to forget about it?

To answer these poignant questions, I will specifically point to an article that appeared on the front-page of the August 2, 2014 edition of the “Washington Post” entitled, “Obama readies executive action on immigration.” This article, coming from about the most Marxist propagandizing newspaper in the country, flippantly published this excuse for journalism with the same contempt for the U.S. Constitution as they did when they announced that the great (illegal) bill, Obamacare, was on the President’s desk for signature. The article should have, instead, be properly entitled, “Obama plans high-crime to issue the illegal and unconstitutional executive order granting amnesty to further denigrate the U.S. Constitution. Why is this so?

Well, the most compelling reason is that executive orders are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. They are an abstruse creation of the U.S. Supreme Court. Article 2 does not, in any way, give the President authority to hold the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in one hand, and a bull-whip in the other. The President, as chief executive, has only the specific power to issue directives, not laws, that affect only the working status of the employees of the executive branch. He has no power to unilaterally create a law (tantamount to a U.S. statute or code), to define and interpret its legal status, and to enforce it. That is the precise definition of pure tyranny.

Remember the infamous executive order issued by the first real American fuhrer, Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he ordered, in late 1941, that all of the innocent Japanese-Americans be rounded-up and imprisoned in internment camps? That order was later ruled as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it should have been before it was issued. That order was responsible for over 100 deaths in those internment camps, and ruined quite a few human lives. Something very awful, after 1929, happened to the majority of the American people when they were exposed to the severe adversity of a Depression deliberately engineered by the Federal Reserve, in 1927, when it secretly ordered that 1/3 of the paper and coin money in circulation be taken out of circulation incrementally (Economist Milton Friedman establish this fact). By 1929, the runs on the banks and savings and loans in the nation were imminent. Then, when it happened, the People of the United States buckled to socialism, government regulation, and the philosophies of John Maynard Keynes, which were implemented by FDR in his unconstitutional New Deal. The People surrendered their precious liberty and freedom to the federal government for some temporary physical security, thinking that FDR was a savior instead of the demon he was. There were at that time a few American constitutional patriots who fought Roosevelt, but through FDR’s deceitful conspiracy and collusion, proven through detailed historical research, they lost the fight.

The first executive order was, surprisingly, rendered by good old President George Washington when he took it upon himself to do the job of Congress by ordering the building of the first federal mint. Congress should have tongue-lashed Washington and told him never to assume a legislative power that rightfully belongs to the Congress. Nonetheless, Washington was not reprimanded (he was, for some reason, extolled) for his usurpation of the U.S. Constitution, and a precedent was unconstitutionally set that a President has the power to issue “executive orders.” Yet, the old, but true, aphorism, “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile” was exemplified by that happening, and has been evermore true in the passage of history since that first illegal order was given.

Now, getting back to illegal immigration, there are laws, U.S. Codes, that have been passed by plural (Democratic and Republican) Congresses, and signed by standing U.S. Presidents, going back to Harry Truman, which make illegal immigration into the United States, across U.S. borders, a crime, and actionable by federal law enforcement. According to standing law, any federal law enforcement officer can intervene in the commission of a federal crime, such as bank robbery, kidnapping, shoplifting, and illegal immigration. If they deliberately don’t intervene during robberies or kidnappings, they can’t use, as an excuse for not intervening, that it was not his, or her, jurisdiction. This applies to all federal law enforcement officers, the FBI, the U.S. Marshall’s Service, the DEA, the ATF, etc. For example, if an armed, or unarmed, U.S. Border Patrol officer or INS (ICE) agent witnesses a bank robbery, a kidnapping, an act of shoplifting in DC, or an act of illegal immigration, he, or she, has the authority to intervene, to stop the crime, and to arrest the perpetrators. If an FBI agent, perchance, witnesses a van-load of illegal aliens, from Tijuana, Mexico, unloading in Chula Vista, California, he has the jurisdiction to intervene and arrest the aliens and turn them over to the U.S. Border Patrol. This is only as reasonable as the duty of a deputy sheriff to have the jurisdiction to enforce any, and all, state laws in any city in that county where the local police are not witnesses to crimes that are committed. The object of law enforcement, federal, state, and local, is to maintain the public peace and security for the residents of the States who are American citizens, through the proper enforcement of all laws, federal, state, and local, legislated and enacted for the public good. When these laws are deliberately not enforced, the peace and security of the People, for which these laws were intended, diminishes in proportion to the diminution of law. I believe that this is what the Honorable John Adams meant when he solemnly said, “We are a nation of laws, and not of men.”

So, in the beginning of this essay I asked what you, an American peace officer, would do if you knew that a sordid federal crime, a felony, had been planned, and when it was going to be perpetrated. If you also knew that the federal law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to enforce all standing federal laws, were going to standby and allow the crime to be committed, what would you do? I have some associates who are federal law enforcement officers, FBI and U.S. Border Patrol, and some associates who are Department of Justice lawyers. And you know what? They don’t give a diddly-squat about whether high-crimes are being committed by the U.S. President; and what a shame it is! These federal fat-cats are much more interested in maintaining an unlawful status quo, in order to continue getting their paychecks and retirements, than in the rule of law. All of them are bowing to their boss, Eric Holder, and saying to him, “You’re command, which is your fuhrer’s command, is my desire to enforce.” Would you, a sworn peace officer, throw-up your hands and say, “There’s nothing I can do?” Or would you do something, perhaps something a bit drastic?

Of course, what you would have to do is to first come to a conclusion as to whether the issuance of an unconstitutional executive order is essentially tantamount to the commission of a bank robbery, murder, or kidnapping? Let’s, for a moment, go back to FDR and consider a blatant correlation that cries-out for recognition. When that fascist President illegally ordered the internment of over a million Japanese-Americans, U.S. citizens, and some of those people died during their internment, was that order tantamount to a felony? Were those deaths the result of the commission of involuntary manslaughter, or murder by Roosevelt’s henchmen? When American citizens directly suffer, to the point of death, through the issuance of unconstitutional executive orders, shouldn’t something drastic be done? Will Obama’s order to give amnesty to illegal aliens, in direct violation of federal law, cause the People of the United States (the residents of your State) to suffer from crime, lack of jobs, and deliberately engineered social disorder (70 percent of the violent crimes in San Diego are committed by Hispanic illegal aliens)? My opinion is, and will forever be, that when the standing federal, state, or local laws are discounted, negated, ignored and unenforced by the chief law enforcement officers and their direct enforcers, anarchy will preside, which calls for that system, allowing such absence of law, to be abolished and a new system instituted which will ensure the blessings of liberty and freedom for the People. This is only the recourse stated in that blessed document that was the foundation of American republican government, the Declaration of Independence.

Leave a Reply