US: Russia 'created the conditions' for shoot-down

Obama’s Secret Congress


Suzanne Hamner August 19, 2014

205 Comments








Share714 Tweet140 Share1.3K 35 Email50

With Congress in a proverbial "stand still," Obama has, basically, created a "legislative branch" of his own behind closed doors, out of the public view, in order to enact government policies through executive order to "fix" problems ranging from immigration to tax laws. According to The New York Times, "Mr. Obama's increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy, and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists." This pseudo-legislative branch has included an array of lawmakers, experts and business leaders "for a wide range of perspectives to inform his plans for executive action." So far, there have been more than 20 meetings this summer of what administration officials call "listening sessions" outside of the public view, with officials refusing to "discuss the sessions in detail because the conversations were private."




Obama has convened a "private, confidential, pseudo-legislative branch" to draft laws, through executive fiat, affecting the entire country, and no US citizen has the right to know what is going on, since the conversations are private.

For all of those who support the unconstitutional lawsuit, how do you like this maneuver? You can't complain about the unconstitutionality of these actions - or any action, for that matter - by Obama, when you support an unconstitutional action by Congress in the form of a lawsuit. Hypocrisy has not only been a virtue of the left, but has proven to be a virtue of pseudo-conservatives as well.

According to White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman, "The president has been clear that he will use all of the tools at his disposal, working with Congress where they are willing, but also taking action on his own when they aren't. As part of this process, the administration has engaged a wide range of stakeholders, and has solicited input from groups and individuals representing a diverse set of views."

Did Obama include any average Joe Blow, man from the street, stakeholder in any of his "listening sessions?" Probably not, which basically negates a representative government. If any of this involves more government dipping into the taxpayer wallet, there was no representation of the people since one can hardly call lobbyists, experts and business leaders as "representatives." Lawmakers are not necessarily the same as duly elected representatives of the people. Besides, any member of Congress who participates is not necessarily representative of the entire citizenry, if attending as a "lawmaker."

Andrew Rudalevige, a government professor at Bowdoin College, has studied the consequences of executive action. Rudalevige told The New York Times, "The executive branch is not set up to be a deliberative body like the Congress is. The process is certainly stacked toward the policy preferences of the administration, and they're going to listen to the people they think are right, which usually means the ones who agree with them."

Rudalevige added that those who have an "in" will collaborate with the White House and agencies to get their priorities met, while those who are on the "out" will have to resort to the legal process to challenge Obama's executive action after it has been taken.

A case in point stems from an executive order issued by Obama last month that "would block companies with a history of workplace violations from receiving federal contracts." Geoff Burr, vice president of federal affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors, stated this action has prompted his group to consider litigation proceedings against the administration. Associated Builders and Contractors consists of a group of companies whose members do 60 percent of federal construction work.

Those on the "out" that would have to resort to litigation means groups like Associated Builders and Contractors. It does not mean Republicans, Conservatives or any group in Congress.

Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions has spoken out against Obama's "listening sessions," telling the New York Times, "It is chilling to consider now that these groups, frustrated in their aims by our constitutional system of government, are plotting with the Obama administration to collect their spoils by executive fiat."

Plotting behind closed doors to enact law without the representation of the people via Congress has trumpeted the claim of dictatorship, echoing the sound of tyranny.




What has become just as frightening as dictatorial action by Obama are the individuals, like Scott Corley, who actually look for "legal ways" for the president to enact law via executive order. Corley is a lobbyist for a coalition of Silicon Valley companies called Complete America. The coalition has sought relief for foreign-born technology workers; these could be legal or illegal.

"We've been talking to them about what we believe they can do while we wait for Congress to act," Corley told a reporter with the New York Times. "We've looked where the legal authority exists, and we've found lots of ways in which the administration can move forward."

Many groups have turned to "policy experts," urging them to compose essays that provide Obama with the legal justification for law enacted via executive fiat. One such expert, former Obama Treasury official turned Harvard Law School professor Stephen Shay, wrote an article that made the case for removing tax incentives "now benefiting companies that move overseas." Professor Shay wrote an article that appeared in the July edition of the trade journal, Tax Notes, asserting the president's team had broad authority to act without congressional approval. Even if you agree with the tax incentive removal for companies overseas, the removal of that incentive, according to the Constitution, rests with the legislative branch, not the executive.

And, it has not been only lobby and special interest groups or businesses either that have bombarded the Obama administration with their "wish lists." Democratic members of Congress have submitted their "wish list requests" to Obama, as well. In fact, you can bet Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA) has requested some action in relation to gun control similar to her March request for an executive order to ban "the import of assault and military style weapons."

Once support for a violation of the Constitution occurs in one area, it opens the door for violations to occur regarding any part of the Constitution, including an amendment that specifically states "shall not be infringed." Remember the statement made by Obama after winning the 2012 election – "this is what the people want." The Democratic Congress railroaded Obamacare down the throat of Americans without one single Republican vote in violation of the Constitution. How many Americans cheered exuberantly? The point has been made sufficiently; however, some Americans are so dense, they miss the point in seeing that support for the unconstitutional health care law is the same as the support for the unconstitutional lawsuit being brought forth by Boehner. Support for unconstitutionality is support for unconstitutionality…period. Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution to support and which parts to ignore is "being Obama."

As previously stated in other articles, the Constitution has been trashed, with regard to the function of the branches of government, and Obama has placed it on the White House bathroom tissue roll. By allowing Obama to usurp the powers of legislation, Congress has paved the way for increasing unlawful action by the out of control president.

Along with his "federal police force," Obama has now created his own "private legislative body" to do the job of Congress. Just like unconstitutional alphabet agencies that enact pseudo-law through regulation, this body will be drafting potential law for executive fiat. Since the Constitution has been trashed and is now being used as toilet paper, what law does this violate? Unfortunately, there is no supreme law as far as Washington and this administration are concerned. To them, no law is being violated, and "experts" have provided the administration with "legal justification" for these actions.

This is the new "transformed" America full of "hope and change" – an Obama America, brought to you by a complicit Congress and a portion of America that supports unconstitutionality. What is the remedy for Obama creating a private legislative body and enacting a law unilaterally? All ideas are welcome, as it's obvious the Supreme Law of the Land means little to some, which is why there is now government by dictatorial action.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/obamas-secret-congress/#FuYTclYA3zlVDcB3.99

 

850. Plot to frame Russia in shooting down of MH17 failed (8/19/2014)

There is a silence in Western media about the crash of MH17, compare to the noise they made at original hours when MH17 was shot down when the evidence shows there were 30mm bullet holes on fuselage of MH17. The bullet couldn’t reach altitude of 32,000 feet from ground that’s common sense.

Be noticed it’s from a Germany pilot. German is one who suffered from Ukraine conflict.
Analysis from Malaysia newspaper.

 

Who cares? What does have to do with you? It's up to them to decide how they want to live.Anyway you'd better listen to this man carefully. If anyone knows what is going on in this world, it's him. And it's scary.

Interview with Sergei Glaziev - Advisor to President Putin

http://youtu.be/cikvqdMRTTA

 

Very interesting. Thank you for directing us there. A lot of food for thought.

 

US created condition to the incidents on two Malaysia airplanes.

848. The crashes of MH17 and MH370 serve for one purpose (8/8/2014)

US has locked two strategy enemies – Russia and China. Both are the threats to the dollar.

The tactic to deal with these two enemies is to weaken them by war.

China has conflicts with its neighbor countries. It has territory problem with Japan in East China Sea and with Vietnam and Philippine in South China Sea. China blames US standing at the side of these three countries. Malaysia has territory problem with China in South China Sea too but it keeps friendship with China. To push Malaysia to join the anti-China front in Asia, MH370 case was created. The mysterious disappearance of the passengers would create a long lasting demanding for the victims from China side because most victims were Chinese citizens. (That is why MH370 case was produced as a mysterious disappearance not an evident crash) Anyhow, China and Malaysia might have realized the plot and haven’t made it a crisis.

The Ukraine crisis started in February when a civil turmoil happened which caused the stepping down of pro-Russia President Yanukovych. The result is there is an upheaval in East Ukraine. Since Russia and Europe both have interest in Ukraine, a war between the two is easy to be ignited. The shooting down of MH17 was created as an ignition. MH17 was well selected – like MH370 – for its passengers. Most of victims in MH17 were Dutch. Holland is a major country of EU and NATO. If Holland is infuriated, the possibility of a covert war between EU and Russia in Ukraine is greatly increased.

I think US is the mastermind of the incidents of MH17 and MH370. The purpose is to push Russia and China into wars with their neighbor countries to weaken them.
See my analysis on MH370: from #822 to #835.
See my analysis on MH17: from #844 to #847.

 

I missed one important difference. Obama is a mediocre leader and president. Putin is outstanding leader and president. Besieds, Russian experience in democracy is very short by comparison with USA. Our democracy is getting old and rotten. Russian democracy is developing, because it is still young. Do not forget that we have the best government money can buy.

 

If Obama led the US like Putin does Russia, you'd be calling him a fascist imperialist.

 

Instead of asking how Americans would feel, wouldn't it be better to ask how Russians would feel if they had eight years of Obama, then four years of Biden and then again eight more years of Obama as president? Or better yet, ask them how they would feel having even four years of a Western president or prime minister. I think they would kill themselves.

The Russians are very fortunate, I don't know though how they will fare if something happened to Vladimir Putin. It will be very hard to replace him, and the country might fall into chaos. ..which of course would be exactly what the Empire of Chaos would like.

 

President G. W. Bush was fighting "for freedom" in Iraq. It was OK with many and NATO loved it. Putin is saving his people in Ukraine, not oversees.

 

Nonsense. He was fighting to secure his second term after failing to find Bin Laden in Afghanistan it had nothing to do with 'freedom'

Most didn't actually. It certainly cost Tony Blair his premiership

The problem he's having though is that these people are Ukrainians not Russians.

 

No they didn't. NATO was very split over the Iraq war.

The people in Ukraine aren't "his" people. If you're implying they are just because they're ethnically Russian or Russian speaking, that's just bloody racist.

The only ones who are his people are the operatives his government planted there and the ones who got "lost" or were "on vacation" after the war started.

 

Russian and Ukrainian - is one people, as the western and eastern Germans. This nation has been artificially divided by the Communists. The Communists made ​​artificial state "Ukraine". Previously, this state has never been, it's been the Russian Empire. These were regions of Little Russia, Belarus, and the New Russia. Interpretation Lvov was a part of Poland and Uzhgorod as part of Hungarian

 

Yes, that usually happens in dictatorship countries.

 

Here, in USA, we were repeatedly told by the media that we were fighting for American freedom in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Do you remember "freedom fries" period? We also constantly reminded to honor our soldiers who died or got injured, "fighting for our freedom" oversees. This is about propaganda. Bush and his party had a different agenda. They knew their freedom was not in any danger. Propaganda machine was working to convince us that our freedom was in jeopardy.

With Putin, situation is very different. Putin wants Ukrainian people to be free from EU and NATO. Poroshenko killed many people in Ukraine and he made life of those still live miserable. Putin is concerned about Russians, his own people. Not about "spreading of democracy" in a far away country.