It is difficult to understand how laws made without representation, and adjudications made without independent judges and juries, have the obligation of law; instead they apparently rest merely on government coercion. They therefore cannot be perpetuated on a theory of consent or acquiescence, and they traditionally would have had the potential to justify revolution.

Obama’s Contagious Contempt For The USA’s Constitution

This newsletter has repeatedly claimed that The One Leader issues unconstitutional executive orders that usurp upon the exclusive legislative authority of Congress. The editorial page of The Wall Street Journal recounts an instance of Obama’s dictatorial mentality and its consequences. Here is a summary:

In 2015, District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas issued an injunction that blocked an Obama executive order that modified — well, rewrote— federal immigration law. The judge’s action stopped the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from illegally legalizing the resident status of aliens. DHS told Hanen that it would comply with his injunction. The catch: DHS lied, and legalized some one hundred thousand applicants…on the orders of Obama. The president had decided that he has the executive authority to tell a federal bureau to break or disregard a law passed by Congress. In fact the constitution prohibits the executive branch from assuming that dictatorial power.

Hanen bit back: he denounced DHS’s deceit as statements “made in bad faith”, and called that transgression a “…serious, …calculated plan of unethical conduct”.

To the “Progressive” mentality, the nation’s constitution is just so much irrelevant babble. As the newspaper says, “…Obama’s refusal to recognize the legal limits of his executive power has spread a culture of lawlessness among his lawyers….”

Do you believe President Hillary will address, or even understand, the ethical issues involved in the chief executive’s fascistic assumption of illegitimate power?

Can Hillary Defeat Trump?

Of course she can, and she will.

Trump gets a lot of attention because he’s unique in US politics. His supporters hope he can restore decency to governance, correct egregious errors, and improve the economy. There is a case to be made for his candidacy, but none of it is based on Trump’s qualifications for the presidency. Most voters know that; that is why he will lose.

The polls bear those contentions out. A solid majority of voters believe Hillary is qualified, while Trump is considered ready to be president by a bit more than one-third of voters. The GOP will be promoting a candidate who represents risk, while the Democrats back a figure who promises continuity. There is no third alternative.

The voters don’t especially like Hillary, and they absolutely do not trust Trump. His refusal to divulge his tax returns is very unpopular, along with his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA, and his idiotic threats to (a) build that useless wall and (b) deport all illegal (“undocumented”) aliens. He is overwhelmingly believed to be unfamiliar with and insensitive to the economic problems of most folks in the USA. He lacks credibility — except as a madcap exponent of reform.

The excruciating truth is that Trump’s candidacy guarantees Hillary’s election.

That fact is so obvious that some have insisted that Trump must be Hillary’s stalking horse. Indeed he does make it possible for her to avoid facing a principled, qualified candidate. While it is not likely that he has conspired with Hillary, in fact he is her key to the White House.

US citizens: first, know that Trump will lose.

Second, understand that Hillary’s past makes it evident that she will never admit responsibility for her blunders, inanities, or depredations; she will always remain faultless, and reject criticism as erroneous or dishonest.

Third, focus narrowly on convincing your senators and your representative in Congress that, in the interests of The Republic, they must rein in an ethically unqualified and preternaturally intractable president.

Ordinary Links

Here’s a good description of the miseries of Hillary’s campaign.

Newt Gingrich has been busy; this newsletter suggests that he hopes to be Trump’s running mate.

US education, big government, and libertarianism. Recommended.

This is genuine inquiry into the philosophy of governance.

What do you call this? Is it simply an attempt to hide facts, or worse, to promote lies? It is clear that Hillary’s version of events is not accurate, for she “…has repeatedly claimed that her exclusive use of a personal email account during her four years as secretary of state was authorized by the rules in effect at the time, but investigators from the State Department’s Office of Inspector General reached just theopposite conclusion“.

This is where you can get the latest information on the attempt to rescue the truth from the claws of Hillary and Huma.

The masthead includes a quote from the works of Philip Hamburger.