Connect with us


President Trump Should Declare National Emergency to Defeat Communists Infiltrating U.S. Government



The Constitution does not expressly grant the president additional powers in times of national emergency. However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act much faster than the Legislative Branch.

Unfortunately, the international banker controlled, Neo-Conservative/Neo-Liberal, Leftist, Communist infiltration of the United States Legislature (Congress/Senate) and the Federal/State Judiciary is complete, rendering the ability of President Donald Trump to lead and carry out the will of the American people impossible as head of the third Executive Branch.

This was precisely the fear of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director and Founder J. Edgar Hoover, but it unfortunately came true after his death in 1972.

After the former communist Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, the international bankers controlling communism instead focused on controlling and infiltrating the United States of America and its government.

This was made a whole lot easier after the U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v FEC allowed them to purchase each and every elected American government official with ease, even if entire communities of U.S. Citizens opposed them.

Currently in the U.S., gridlock remains the rule of the land, and even time-sensitive and desperate issues like lowering the astronomical cost of Obama-care from its enormous unaffordable premiums for the American people can not get rectified.

National Emergency Declaration

A claim of emergency powers was at the center of President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861.

Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ.

With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. (Greenberg, David, “Lincoln’s Crackdown,” Slate).

Herein lies the case and historical precedent for President Donald Trump to save the American Republic from the civil war existing by and between the “America Firsters” and the foreign globalist communist elements trying to derail the United States and force it to be subjugated into the international community without the rights and privileges accompanying U.S. Citizenship.

A linear succession of global internationalist Communists have led the United States in the Office of the Presidency for nearly the past 30 years, and their coordinated work against the interests of the American people is now nearly complete – each and every day President Donald Trump is running into oligarch-built road blocks and political glass ceilings designed to prevent him from delivering for the American people, and a full-blown Communist rebellion has now fully taken afoot in retaliation for his successful election by the American people.

This Communist rebellion has come in the forms of the ludicrous “Russia-Collusion” hearings in both the U.S. Congress and Senate, being propped up non-stop 24/7 by the mainstream media, and being spearheaded by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a suspected leader and proponent of these international globalist communist infiltrators.

Many argue that Robert Mueller is merely taking revenge for the firing of James Comey, former F.B.I. Chief, who is also equally entrenched in the international banker communist conspiracy, having tasted it while working on the Board of Directors of London-based HSBC Bank after serving as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

President Theodore Roosevelt famously called the presidency a “bully pulpit” from which to raise issues nationally, because when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate.

President Donald Trump has successfully used his Twitter account and other social media outlets to raise issues important to the American people, as well as speak directly to them, in defiance of the Mainstream Media which is nearly 100% controlled by the international banks and global communists.

A president’s power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington D.C. and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.

Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the priorities of the government.

The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies, but do not require approval of the United States Congress.

Executive orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation, however, but this is after the fact.

The president, as the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, may also call into federal service individual state units of the National Guard.

In times of war, or national emergency, the Congress has already granted the President broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States. (“Executive Power,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School).

A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to perform actions that it would normally not be allowed to.

A government can declare such a state of emergency during a disaster, civil unrest, or armed conflict.

National Emergencies Act

The National Emergencies Act regulates this process at the federal level.

It requires the President to specifically identify the provisions activated, and to renew the declaration annually, so as to prevent an arbitrarily broad or open-ended emergency.

Presidents have occasionally taken action justified as necessary or prudent because of a state of emergency, subject to review by the courts, but again, after the fact (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1953).

The Act authorizes the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration, on the condition that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress.

An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency.

After presidents objected to this “Congressional Termination” provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution.

The Act also requires that the President and executive agencies maintain records of all orders and regulations that proceed from the use of emergency authority, and to regularly report the cost incurred to Congress.                      

Unitary Executive Theory

The “Unitary Executive Theory” is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President possesses the power to control the entire executive branch.

The doctrine is rooted in Article II of the United States Constitution, which vests “the executive power” of the United States in the President.

The Vesting Clause of Article II provides, “The executive Power (of the United States) shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Proponents of the Unitary Executive Theory argue that this language, along with the “Take Care Clause” (“The President shall ‘take care’ that the laws be faithfully executed”), creates a “hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President.” The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary, Harvard Law Review, 105 (6).

In its most extreme form, Unitary Executive Theory can mean that neither Congress nor the Federal Courts can tell the President what to do, or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters. Dean, John (2007), “Broken Government,” Viking. p. 102. ISBN 9780670018208.

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive says that, when the president considers a national emergency to have occurred, an “Enduring Constitutional Government” comprising “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President,” will take the place of the nation’s regular government.

This clearly places the President in his executive capacity to be above the other 2 branches, legislative and judiciary, to “coordinate” the “comity” by and between all 3 branches, during a declaration of this national security “emergency.”

This Presidential Directive was signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, which claims the power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a “catastrophic emergency,” such as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

This condition would be very easy for President Donald Trump to satisfy, given the current circumstances of the U.S. Economy, extreme corruption/government gridlock, and communist infiltration of the U.S. Government in its current form.

The signing of this Directive was not surprisingly not covered by the mainstream U.S. media, or discussed by the U.S. Congress.

Since President Donald Trump has already declared a National Emergency with respect to the Opioid Crisis, even his own administration has case precedent to get this done on an immediate and urgent basis.

Ranked amongst Top Attorneys in the United States by Newsweek Magazine in 2012 and 2013.

Continue Reading


Wendy Sherman’s China visit takes a terrible for the US turn



Photo: Miller Center/ flickr

US Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, had high hopes for the meeting in China. At first, the Chinese side did not agree to hold the meeting at all. The reaction had obvious reasons: Antony Blinken’s fiasco in Alaska left the Chinese disrespected and visibly irritated. This is not why they travelled all the way.

So then the State Department had the idea of sending Wendy Sherman instead. The US government actually needs China more than China needs the US. Sherman was in China to actually prepare the ground for Biden and a meeting between the two presidents, expecting a red carpet roll for Biden as if it’s still the 2000s — the time when it didn’t matter how the US behaved. Things did not go as expected.

Instead of red carpet talk, Sherman heard Dua Lipa’s “I got new rules”. 

That’s right — the Chinese side outlined three bottom lines warning the US to respect its system, development and sovereignty and territorial integrity. In other words, China wants to be left alone.

The bottom lines were not phrased as red lines. This was not a military conflict warning. This was China’s message that if any future dialogue was to take place, China needs to be left alone. China accused the US of creating an “imaginary enemy”. I have written about it before — the US is looking for a new Cold War but it doesn’t know how to start and the problem is that the other side actually holds all the cards

That’s why the US relies on good old militarism with an expansion into the Indo-Pacific, while aligning everyone against China but expecting the red carpet and wanting all else in the financial and economic domains to stay the same. The problem is that the US can no longer sell this because there are no buyers. Europeans also don’t want to play along.

The headlines on the meeting in the US press are less flattering than usual. If the US is serious about China policy it has to be prepared to listen to much more of that in the future. And perhaps to, yes, sit down and be humble.

Continue Reading


Why Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer



When Sarah Huckabee Sanders showed up on the scene as White House Press Secretary, the reaction was that of relief. Finally — someone civil, normal, friendly. Jen Psaki’s entry this year was something similar. People were ready for someone well-spoken, well-mannered, even friendly as a much welcome change from the string of liars, brutes or simply disoriented people that the Trump Administration seemed to be lining up the press and communications team with on a rolling basis. After all, if the face of the White House couldn’t keep it together for at least five minutes in public, what did that say about the overall state of the White House behind the scenes?

But Psaki’s style is not what the American media and public perceive it to be. Her style is almost undetectable to the general American public to the point that it could look friendly and honest to the untrained eye or ear. Diplomatic or international organization circles are perhaps better suited to catch what’s behind the general mannerism. Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer, but a Sean Spicer nevertheless. I actually think she will do much better than him in Dancing With The Stars. No, in fact, she will be fabulous at Dancing With The Stars once she gets replaced as White House Press Secretary.

So let’s take a closer look. I think what remains undetected by the general American media is veiled aggression and can easily pass as friendliness. Psaki recently asked a reporter who was inquiring about the Covid statistics at the White House why the reporter needed that information because Psaki simply didn’t have that. Behind the brisk tone was another undertone: the White House can’t be questioned, we are off limits. But it is not and that’s the point. 

Earlier, right at the beginning in January, Psaki initially gave a pass to a member of her team when the Politico stunner reporter story broke out. The reporter was questioning conflict of interest matters, while the White House “stud” was convinced it was because he just didn’t chose her, cursing her and threatening her. Psaki sent him on holidays. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Psaki has a level of aggression that’s above average, yet she comes across as one of the most measured and reasonable White House Press Secretaries of the decade. And that’s under pressure. But being able to mask that level of deflection is actually not good for the media because the media wants answers. Style shouldn’t (excuse the pun) trump answers. And being able to get away smoothly with it doesn’t actually serve the public well. Like that time she just walked away like it’s not a big deal. It’s the style of “as long as I say thank you or excuse me politely anything goes”. But it doesn’t. And the American public will need answers to some questions very soon. Psaki won’t be able to deliver that and it would be a shame to give her a pass just because of style.

I think it’s time that we start seeing Psaki as a veiled Sean Spicer. And that Dancing with the Stars show — I hope that will still run despite Covid.

Continue Reading


As Refugees Flee Central America, the Mexican Public Sours On Accepting Them



Authors: Isabel Eliassen, Alianna Casas, Timothy S. Rich*

In recent years, individuals from Central America’s Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) have been forced out of their home countries by extreme poverty and gang violence. While initial expectations were that the Lopez Obrador administration would be more welcoming to migrants, policies have slowly mirrored those of his predecessor, and do not seem to have deterred refugees. COVID-19 led to a decrease in refugees arriving in Mexico, and many shelters in Mexico closed or have limited capacity due to social distancing restrictions. Now that the COVID-19 situation has changed, arrivals could increase again to the levels seen in late 2018 or 2019, with overcrowded refugee centers lacking in medical care as potential grounds for serious COVID-19 outbreaks.

Mexico increasingly shares a similar view as the US on this migration issue, seeking ways to detain or deport migrants rather than supporting or protecting them. For instance, Mexico’s National Immigration Institute has been conducting raids on freight trains to find and detain migrants. Public opinion likely shapes these policies. In the US, support for allowing migrants into the country appeared to increase slightly from 2018 to 2019, but no significant majority emerges. Meanwhile, Mexican public opinion increasingly exhibits anti-immigrant sentiments, declining considerably since 2018, with a 2019 Washington Post poll showing that 55% supported deporting Central Americans rather than providing temporary residence and a 2019 El Financiero poll finding 63% supportive of closing to border to curb migration.

New Data Shows the Mexican Public Unwelcoming

To gauge Mexican public opinion on refugees, we conducted an original web survey June 24-26 via Qualtrics, using quota sampling. We asked 625 respondents to evaluate the statement “Mexico should accept refugees fleeing from Central America” on a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For visual clarity, we combined disagree and agree categories in the figure below.

Overall, a plurality (43.84%) opposed accepting refugees, with less than a third (30.08%) supportive. Broken down by party affiliation, we see similar results, with the largest opposition from the main conservative party PAN (52.90%) and lowest in the ruling party MORENA (41.58%). Broken down by gender, we find women slightly more supportive compared to men (32.60% vs. 27.04%), consistent with findings elsewhere and perhaps acknowledgment that women and children historically comprise a disproportionate amount of refugees. Regression analysis again finds PAN supporters to be less supportive than other respondents, although this distinction declines once controlling for gender, age, education and income, of which only age corresponded with a statistically significant decline in support. It is common for older individuals to oppose immigration due to generational changes in attitude, so this finding is not unexpected.

We also asked the question “On a 1-10 scale, with 1 being very negative and 10 very positive, how do you feel about the following countries?” Among countries listed were the sources of the Central American refugees, the three Northern Triangle countries. All three received similar average scores (Guatemala: 4.33, Honduras: 4.05, El Salvador: 4.01), higher than Venezuela (3.25), but lower than the two other countries rated (US: 7.71, China: 7.26) Yet, even after controlling for general views of the Central American countries, we find the public generally unsupportive of accepting refugees.

How Should Mexico Address the Refugee Crisis?

Towards the end of the Obama administration, aid and other efforts directed at resolving the push factors for migration in Central America, including decreasing violence and limiting corruption, appeared to have some success at reducing migration north. President Trump’s policies largely did not improve the situation, and President Biden has begun to reverse those policies and re-implement measures successful under Obama.

As discussed in a meeting between the Lopez Obrador administration and US Vice President Kamala Harris, Mexico could adopt similar aid policies, and decreasing the flow of migrants may make the Mexican public respond more positively to accepting migrants. Lopez Obrador committed to increased economic cooperation with Central America days into his term, with pledges of aid as well, but these efforts remain underdeveloped. Threats to cut aid expedite deportations only risks worsening the refugee crisis, while doing little to improve public opinion.

Increasingly, the number of family units from Guatemala and Honduras seeking asylum in Mexico, or the United States, represents a mass exodus from Central America’s Northern Triangle to flee insecurity. Combating issues such as extreme poverty and violence in Central American countries producing the mass exodus of refugees could alleviate the impact of the refugee crisis on Mexico. By alleviating the impact of the refugee crisis, refugees seeking asylum will be able to navigate immigration processes easier thus decreasing tension surrounding the influx of refugees.

Likewise, identifying the public’s security and economic concerns surrounding refugees and crafting a response should reduce opposition. A spokesperson for Vice President Harris stated that border enforcement was on the agenda during meetings with the Lopez Obrador administration, but the Mexican foreign minister reportedly stated that border security was not to be addressed at the meeting. Other than deporting migrants at a higher rate than the US, Mexico also signed an agreement with the US in June pledging money to improve opportunities for work in the Northern Triangle. Nonetheless, questions about whether this agreement will bring meaningful change remain pertinent in the light of a worsening crisis.

Our survey research shows little public interest in accepting refugees. Public sentiment is unlikely to change unless the Lopez Obrador administration finds ways to both build sympathy for the plights of refugees and address public concerns about a refugee crisis with no perceived end in sight. For example, research in the US finds public support for refugees is often higher when the emphasis is on women and children, and the Lopez Obrador administration could attempt to frame the crisis as helping specifically these groups who historically comprise most refugees. Likewise, coordinating efforts with the US and other countries may help portray to the public that the burden of refugee resettlement is being equitably shared rather than disproportionately placed on Mexico.

Facing a complex situation affecting multiple governments requires coordinated efforts and considerable resources to reach a long-term solution. Until then, the Central American refugee crisis will continue and public backlash in Mexico likely increase.

Isabel Eliassen is a 2021 Honors graduate of Western Kentucky University. She triple majored in International Affairs, Chinese, and Linguistics.

Alianna Casas is an Honors Undergraduate Researcher at Western Kentucky University, majoring in Business Economics, Political Science, and a participant in the Joint Undergraduate/Master’s Program in Applied Economics.

Timothy S. Rich is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Western Kentucky University and Director of the International Public Opinion Lab (IPOL). His research focuses on public opinion and electoral politics.

Funding for this survey was provided by the Mahurin Honors College at Western Kentucky University.

Continue Reading