Which Branch Appropriates Funds for Government Spending?

Even someone who flunked American Government in the ninth grade of school surely must know that only Congress is allowed to do that.  The U.S. Constitution is clear:  Congress is the ultimate authority on Government spending.  That's because it's Congress who represents the People, not the other two Branches.

The White House is being petulant in its attempts to blackmail Congress, and the result is:  hundreds of thousands of workers are suffering.  Never mind the rest of us who deserve and require certain Gov't services.  The Executive Branch is manufacturing "emergencies" out of thin air in order to force the Legislative Branch to kowtow.  It appears that the President still does not accept the fact that ours is a government of three co-equal Branches.

Like Dubya Bush before him, and to a lesser extent both Bill Clinton and Obama, our current Oval Office Occupier believes in the Unitary Executive Theory.  Essentially, that means the President can be an Autocrat.  Hidden away in one part of the theory is the idea that neither Congress or the Courts have any say at all in matters of "national security".  That's hogwash.  Not only is it hogwash, it's an extremely dangerous concept.  It lays the groundwork for a completely undemocratic, even totalitarian government.

As the White House lies continue to build, let's all hope that Congress and the Courts don't fold.  Over the last few decades, the Executive Branch has claimed (and garnered) more & more unwarranted power for itself.  That's a long way from what supposedly is a democratic government.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Question for His Lordship: On What Authority???

In terms of foreign policy, we've gone from Donald Trump (which was bad enough) to Hillary Trump...the Perpetual War Hawk.  Yes, the gassing of civilians was horrific, & allegedly done by Assad; that doesn't mean the US Gov't has any right to attack Syria.  The attack violated both the U.S. Constitution and International Law.  But then, our Gov't has been doing that for decades.

Before he was elected, Donald Trump tweeted (back when) that Obama had to have the approval of Congress before airstrikes in Syria could be launched.  [If I recall correctly, Obama never obtained that approval, & very few of us objected.]  Apparently the puppet Hillary Trump has changed his/her mind.  So far, the only Repub politician I've seen protest His Lordship's violation of the Constitution is Rand Paul.

The "Unitary Executive" concept reigns supreme.  That's Executive Absolutism.  Bye-bye, Congress...you're screwed.  The public and private Oligarchs in this Land are trying to provoke another major war.  That's what Oligarchies do when a country's economy is tanking and the Propaganda no longer is effective.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Trump Already is Imploding AND Unitary Executive Power

King Donald appears to think he's still a CEO, or worse, the owner of the American Gov't.  This is somewhat understandable because there are few (if any) institutions more dictatorial than a Mega Corporation...and that's the atmosphere our President is used to.  He appears to believe that he's the Boss of the entire Fed Gov't., and that being Commander-in-Chief entitles him to ignore Immigration Laws passed by Congress and other laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) passed into Law during the Nixon Era.  [Just the other day, the Army cancelled/terminated the NEPA requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).  That's a direct violation of NEPA.]

The Don appears to be ignorant of the fact that we have a government composed of three separate branches---all co-equal.  He apparently doesn't believe in the concepts of Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers.  This also is somewhat understandable.  That's because going back at least to the Bill Clinton Era, the Executive Branch has pretty much embraced the concept of Unitary Executive Power (especially promulgated during the Dubya Bush Era).  This concept purports that the President is allowed to set aside any laws that conflict with the Executive's view of actions necessary to preserve "National Security".  It was honed into a weapon (against democracy) primarily by John Yoo and David Addington in the Bush Administration.  In essence, it places the President above the law.  Clinton, Bush, Obama, and it looks like Trump as well all believe in it.  This is a big part of the reason for Presidential violations of statutory law and the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution.

This is the reason that recent Presidents believed they could spy on Americans without obtaining individual warrants signed by a judge.  It's the reason that recent Presidents thought they could go to war without the approval of Congress.  It's the reason they believed that people (U.S. citizens) can be arrested and held incommunicado without a warrant.  It's the reason they all still believe that the President can order weaponized drone attacks whenever and wherever the Executive Branch so chooses...even if the target country says NO.  This is the reason that FBI Agents now can write their own Search Warrants (called "National Security Letters"), and if you're served with one, you cannot reveal that to anyone (not even an attorney) or you're subject to five years in prison.  That's a prime example of Fascism in action.

Trump's implosion is evidenced by his continual whining about judges, about "fake news", about Nordstrom dropping his daughter's clothing line (!), about lawmakers who wish to alter Asset Forfeiture laws, about anyone who criticizes or opposes him, and by his continual use of Twitter as a vehicle for all his woes & complaints.  [He's acting like a teenager.]

King Donald, like all recent Presidents, appears to believe that no one in the Judicial Branch or the Legislative Branch has the right or duty to oppose him.  He seems to think that he's the Head Honcho of the whole Shebang.  He thinks he's the CEO of the Fed Gov't.  Like the Presidents of our recent past, apparently he believes that being Commander-in-Chief of the military means that he's entitled to be above the law.  Being the Head Honcho of the military does not entitle any President to ignore any part of the Constitution or any Law passed by Congress.  There are limits on the Presidency...a lot of limits.  Without strict observance of those limits, we have a Fascist government.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Part II: The Bush-Obama Doctrines

PREFACE
These blog pieces should not in any way, shape, or form be viewed as "anti-American".  The principles of We the People in the USA have not been represented by the Fed Gov't for decades.  I'm talking about the principles of freedom, Free Market Capitalism, fairness, and justice.  Our Gov't has been co-opted by a fairly disorganized (but nevertheless effective) Oligarchy whose members don't believe in any of those things.  That has been going on for a very long time.  The dissidents in America are far more patriotic than the Oligarchs can ever hope to be or care to be.

Now, on to the Bush-Obama Doctrines, Part II.  [Many other Democrat and Republican Administrations could be included, but for clarity I'll stick with only those two.]

1.  Dictators around the world should be opposed... unless, of course, they march to the tune of the U.S. Fed Gov't.  Then they should be supported.  [Example:  the Feds fairly recently gave the military dictatorship of Egypt 1.5 BILLION dollars in aid.  This is the same dictatorship that conducts court trials of hundreds of dissidents at once; each trial lasts about 30 minutes.  This is the same dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected government.  Previous to all that, the Bush Administration gave similar amounts of aid to the Gov't of the dictator Mubarak.]

2.  Continue to inundate the People with Edward Bernays style propaganda.  [Examples:  lies about NSA surveillance; lies about the health of our economy; lies about Oligarchs "creating jobs"; lies about the power of the Office of President; lies about the role of the U.S. in world affairs; lies about mega banks; lies about conflict of interest in DC;  lies about so-called "Free Trade" Agreements; and many other items too numerous to list.]

3.  Tell the People whatever you think it is that they want to hear... even if it's untrue, or utter nonsense.  [Examples:  "Saddam is linked to Al Qaida"; "Our troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2014"... a bit later--- "Our troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2016"; "This is not anything like our involvement in Vietnam"; "We will assure the People of Iraq and Afghanistan the right of free choice"; "They hate us for our Freedom"; "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"; "Our economy will collapse if we don't do this"; "Congress has NSA oversight"; "All NSA surveillance is authorized by a court...it's all legal and Constitutional" (no mention that it's the kangaroo, rubber-stamp FISA "court"... a secret court... and no explanation of exactly HOW/WHY it's Constitutional... because it isn't.); etc., etc., ad nauseum.]

4.  Originate (Bush) and continue (Obama) the concept of the Unitary Presidency... an absurd, false principle concocted primarily by John Yoo, former Counsel to Dubya.  It's basic premise is that the Office of President legally can bypass Congress, the Courts, or anybody when undertaking actions previously denied by our system of Checks and Balances in government.  [Google:  Unitary Presidency.]  The result has been to convert the Office of President into that of a virtual King.

5.  Prosecute war criminals and terrorists... unless, of course, those same people are in the U.S. Fed Gov't.  [Richard Clarke, former Counterterrorism "Czar" under Clinton, and for a short time under Bush, has stated publicly that he believes some of the actions of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld measure up to "war crimes".  Noam Chomsky--- political dissident, political analyst, Professor Emeritus of M.I.T.--- has stated publicly that he believes the invasion of Iraq was in itself a war crime.  Other prominent people in the world believe the same thing.  I would ask this:  did Iraq, a country that did not threaten or attack the U.S., and also a country that we supplied arms to in the '80s (including chemical weapons), have sovereignty in 2003 or not?  Yes, Saddam was a brutal ruler; however, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitutionally permitted use of our military.  Nothing at all.  That war was completely unconstitutional.  It was an exercise in NeoImperialism & Big Bullyism perpetrated by a President and supported by Senator Obama who both are puppets of the mega corporation Oligarchy.  The Feds even provided tutorial conferences (relative to the war) for mega corporations, showing them how to belly-up to the Federal Money Trough, the Fed Gravy Train.]

6.  Sign International Agreements relating to war crimes and terrorism... but exempt the USA's Gov't from being subject to any prosecution under their provisions.  [That has been going on for decades.  The Fed Gov't always has self-immunized itself from any such prosecution.  That is understandable to some degree... until the Feds (as they often do) chastise some country or another for violating "International Law"... the Law to which the Feds are not subject... by their own insistence.  That is completely bizarre.]

Out of time.

Be Well