Hugo Chavez Ortega Obama
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Rule by decree is one of the tools that have been used by dictators from time immemorial.
The "democratic" constitution of the Weimar Republic, that is, of the German national state that was reconstituted after the end of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles permitted the President of the German Republic to issue "emergency" decrees without the prior consent of the Reichstag, the lower house of the German national legislature. Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution permitted the Reichstag to overrule an emergency decree by a majority vote. Article 25 of the Weimar Constitution, however, permitted the president to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections within sixty days. It was under the provisions of Article 48 that many of Adolf Hitler's "emergency decrees" received their "constitutional" foundation and justification.
Communist dictators from the time of Vladimir I. Lenin and Josef Stalin to our days of Hugo Chavez and Raoul Castro and Vladimir Putin (don't kid yourselves, folks) and Kim Jong Un and Daniel Ortega (who's still a Communist no matter what he says) have issued executive decrees to increase the scope of their power and to suppress and punish dissent and/or to imprison, torture or execute recalcitrant, unreconstructed counter-revolutionaries.
Vast emergency powers were given to the President of the French Republic in Article Sixteen Constitution of the Fifth Republic that went into effect on October 4, 1958 (well, I can't teaching Comparative Government any longer, so I have to make do on this site now and again with bits and pieces of what was taught in years gone by). There are constitutional guarantees that prevent the French National Assembly from being dissolved and of referring the invocation of presidential emergency powers to the Constitutional Council upon the recommendation of the President of the National Assembly (which is, of course, a different position from that of the President of the French Republic). It was President Charles de Gaulle who requested the powers at the height of the uprising in the then French colony in Algeria on February 3, 1960, and de Gaulle, a very grandiose man who envisioned himself more of a monarch than a republican president as he knew that France was still suffering the after-effects of the French Revolution, was very pleased use those powers.
Numerous articles on this site have documented how Presidents of the United States of America have used "executive orders" to exercise explicit and implied powers of the American presidency as found in various provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America. Some of these executive orders have been used as the means to bypass Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States of America in order to arrogate unto the executive branch a virtual hammerlock on decision making in times of crisis. Abraham Lincoln, of course, did this during the War between the States. Woodrow Wilson did this during World War I. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did this during the Great Depression and World War II. Every American president did this during the Cold War. Lyndon Baines Johnson used all manner of devices to use the legislation establishing the War on Poverty and Great Society programs to expand the power, the size and the scope of the Federal government of the United States of America. "Conservative" presidents have done so to achieve their own ends.
It is arguably the case though, that only Abraham Lincoln did more damage to the Constitution of the United States of America that Hugo Chavez Lenin Ortega Castro Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama does not care about the provisions of the Constitution. He is determined to govern in the way that he deems is necessary. Thus it is that he has followed the unconstitutional precedents of his predecessors by committing the armed forces of the United States of America to intervene in conflicts without even seeking to notify the leaders of Congress, no less to seek a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Thus it is that his lawless Attorney General, Eric Holder, enforces laws when it is beneficial to one particular racial group and seeks to nullify perfectly constitutional law that have been passed by states that he believes would "disenfranchise" a racial group. And thus it is that our little caesar from Hawaii and Chicago has declared the United States Senate to be in recess to afford him to make a "recess appointment" under the provisions of Article II, Section 2, when the Senate is not in recess, which it is not at this time.
Obama has unconstitutionally and illegally appointed the former attorney general of the State of Ohio, Richard Corday, to serve as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so that he can exercise the bureau's statutory powers to "protect" American consumers, although the actual job of this bureau is to fascistically direct the United States economy to bring the private sector more and more under government bureaucratic control.
As noted just above, the United States Senate is not in recess. It is in session. Even Senate Democrats used pro forma sessions in the last decade to keep then President George Walker Bush from making recess appointments.
Also, the legislation that created the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau states specifically that its authorities remain with the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury until its director is confirmed by the United States Senate, and even an actual, honest-to-goodness recess appointment of a person to serve as the bureau's direction would be an empty gestures as the director could exercise no powers until and unless he was confirmed by the United States Senate.
Barack Hussein Obama, enabled by his fellow members of the organized crime family of the naturalist left called the Democratic Party, knows that he can get away with this as most of the citizens of this country are distracted by their bread and circuses. After all, what's the big deal about breaking the Constitution when one breaks God's laws in one's own life and justifies, if not actively participates in, their violation under cover of the civil law? And Obama knows that the Republicans will huff and puff. They will file lawsuits, and they might even win as the constitutional arguments against Obama's power grab are airtight. This means nothing to Obama as he would then denounce the Supreme Court of the United States of America for "interfering" with his efforts to "protect" the "ninety-nine percent" from the "one percent," which would include, of course, himself and other millionaires who make up his Cabinet. Barack Hussein Obama will use demagoguery as the means to win sympathy for himself from voters who do not care to see the truth that he has the heart and soul of a dictator in the model of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega.
There is simple remedy for Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus's "recess" appointments: Impeachment by the United States House of Representatives and trial by the United States Senate.
That is not going to happen because (a) Congressional Republicans do not want to give Obama an excuse to make himself out to be a "victim" of Congressional "bullying" and (b) because the votes are not there in the United States Senate to convict him.
Nevertheless, however, someone in the United States House of Representatives should introduce a resolution of impeachment.
Readers of this site know that I am critic of the founding principles of the United States of America, based as they are on the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian premises that doomed the Constitution from the outset to be utterly defenseless against itself. Let me paste a few passages from that article to illustrate this point once again:
Similarly, it takes a lot of dodging on the part of
those who have made demigods out of the framers of the Constitution of
the United States of America to refuse to admit that it is entirely
logical for contemporary jurists and elected officials to have has
little regard for the plain meaning of the words contained in that
document's text as Protestants and modernist Catholics have shown for
the plain meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture as they have been
given and explained to us by the infallible teaching authority of the
Catholic Church. Why should we have any more reverence for the words of
mere men, whose bodies have long since decayed after their deaths, when
the written Word of God can be deconstructed of Its plain meaning to
suit the arbitrary whims of men?
It is important to remember this fact as the
Constitution is utterly defenseless against being misinterpreted as its
framers did not accept the fact that there is an ultimate teaching
authority to be found in the Catholic Church to guide men as they pursue
the common temporal good in light of man's Last End: the possession of
the glory the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost. Although Holy Mother Church leaves it to the prudence of
men to form the specific institutional arrangements by which they will
govern themselves in a particular body politic, she does insist that men
defer to her in all that pertains to the good of souls and that they
seek to pursue virtue in their own lives by cooperating with the graces
won for them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of
the Holy Cross that flows into their hearts and souls through the
loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.
Men who do not accept this, however, will find that
all of their efforts to provide for a just social order, no matter how
well-intentioned, will decay over the course of time. The fact that the
specific institutional arrangements to be found in the Constitution of
the United States of America, none of which is objectionable in se to
the Catholic Faith, have been used to pursue more and more manifest
injustices that are at odds even the words found in the document's text
and are opposed to written thought of the framers themselves is the
result of the anti-Incarnational premises which formed their
intellectual perspectives. We are witnessing a more open and thus
obvious collapse of the order that was meant to be provided by the
Constitution for a variety of reasons, including, of course, the fact
that there has been a deprivation of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in
the world as a result of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of
The proximate root cause of this decay was caused by
the false premises of the American founding that have led jurists and
politicians to make as much short work of the text of the Constitution
as the plain words of Holy Writ have been made by the Scriptural and
dogmatic relativism that Protestantism let loose on the world nearly
five hundred years ago. The framers of the American Constitution were
but the victims of Protestantism's revolution against the objective
nature of Revealed Truth.
The men who framed the
Constitution of the United States of America were products of the
Protestant Revolt and of the so-called Age of Reason (or Enlightenment).
They accepted without question the belief that it was possible for men
of divergent religious beliefs–or the lack thereof–to work together
reasonably for the common good without referencing any one church as the
foundation of a country’s civil order. They believed further in the
heresy of semi-Pelagianism, which contends that men have enough inherent
grace in themselves to be good, that we do not need belief, in access
to or cooperation with sanctifying grace to be virtuous. The framers of
the Constitution believed that men of “civic virtue” would present
themselves for public service and would, after a long process of
compromise, negotiation and bargaining amongst the diverse interests and
opinions represented in the United States Congress, make decisions that
redounded to the common good (see, for example, James Madison, The Federalist, Numbers 10 and 51).
James Madison himself quite specifically believed that there was no
one “opinion” that could unite men of such divergent backgrounds as
found themselves in the United States of America at the end of the
Eighteenth Century. Thus, a dialectical process of conflict amongst
divergent interests (religious, sectional, economic, occupational) had
to be created to force those who took positions that constituted a
majority “view” at any time to at least consider the viewpoints of those
who were in the minority of a given issue. In this way, Madison
reasoned, whatever majorities emerged in Congress on any piece of
legislation would be transient, indigenous to one particular issue at
one particular time, and sensitive to and concerned about the rights of
those who disagreed with them. Such a system, which was premised on the
exercise of statesmanship on the part of those elected to serve in
Congress and as President, would create the “extended commercial
republic” where no one person or interest could predominate on all
issues at all times.
The institutional arrangements created to effect this “extended
commercial republic” were very complex. A division of powers between the
central government and the state governments (Federalism). A separation
of powers amongst the three branches of the central government
involving a number of checks and balances. Different powers given to
each of the two chambers of the Congress (bicameralism). Staggered
elections for the members of the United States Senate, a body whose
members were elected by state legislatures until the ratification of the
Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Popular election originally of only one
body, the House of Representatives. A President elected by electors
appointed by whatever method deemed best by state legislatures. All of
this was supposed to produce a tension that resulted in internal
safeguards to prevent, although not absolutely make impossible, the
abuse of power and the rise of the tyranny of the majority.
There is only one little problem with this schemata: it was premised
on the belief that matters of civil governance do not have to be
founded in a reliance on the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has
entrusted to His true Church and that the Church herself has no role to
play to serve as the ultimate, divinely-instituted check on the abuse of
temporal governmental power. It was difficult enough for the Church at
times during the Middle Ages, when she exercised the Social Reign of
Christ the King, to restrain certain rulers. It is impossible for any
purely human institution to restrain the vagaries of fallen human nature
over the course of time. Men who are not mindful of their First Cause
and their Last End as He has revealed Himself solely through His true
Church will descend to their lower natures sooner rather than later.
This is what happened in short order following the ratification of the Constitution.
Political parties arose
during President George Washington’s tenure in office. Although
Washington himself abhorred the rise of political parties and saw the
dangers that would threaten national order if professional, career
politicians emerged as a caste undo themselves, he was powerless to stop
them from forming and taking over the entirety of the governmental
process. Although the names of the political parties have changed over
the last two hundred ten years, the partisan political divisions that
developed during the Washington Administration have come to define the
very nature of American electoral politics and the making of public
policy. What is best for a particular political party is best for the
nation. So much for the pursuit of the common temporal good on a purely
naturalistic level, no less in light of man's Last End.
The era of “Jacksonian Democracy” from 1828 to 1836 spelled the
death-knell for the founders’ misplaced hopes that the Constitution
itself would serve as a safeguard against the dangers posed by raw
majoritarianism, the essence of Andrew Jackson’s political beliefs,
which were derived from the American Revolution’s foreign cousin, the
French Revolution. All notion of a political system that restrained the
exercise of raw political power was pure mythology from Jackson’s time
Abraham Lincoln had little regard for Constitutional restraints.
Woodrow Wilson, an Anglophile, believed that he was a Prime Minister entitled to reflexive support of the Congress.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke every law imaginable
to pursue his statist policies of the New Deal and the involvement of
the United States in World War II.
John Kennedy, Lyndon
Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack
Hussein Obama each have seen fit to make the Constitution suit their own
purposes, sometimes by ignoring it entirely or, at least in some cases,
by getting a compliant Supreme Court of the United States of America to
ratify their abuses of power.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have justified
the creation of so-called “independent regulatory agencies, which
violate the principles of “separation of powers” by exercising each of
three powers of government (legislative, executive, judicial), applied
the provisions of the Bill of Rights, written to restrain the powers of
the central government and not the state governments,
to the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process
of law” clause, thereby expanding the power of the central government
greatly, circumscribed the legitimate powers of the states to supervise
their own elections, and have served as laboratories of rank social
engineering by making it impossible to prevent the sale of
contraceptives and to permit the execution of the innocent unborn by
abortion and the elderly by means of the withdrawal of food and water
and by “doctor-assisted suicide.” And this is to say nothing about how
the "commerce clause" (subsection eight of section eight of Article I of
the Constitution) has been used to justify expansions of the power of
the Federal government that make poor King George III seem like quite an
amateur in the practice of abusing executive powers.
Many of the various people who have served as
justices of the Supreme Court of the United States over the years have
believed that the words of the Constitution represent either the
ultimate authority pertaining to the exercise of governmental power or
are so fungible as to admit of constant re-interpretation. Cases
involving various constitutional principles may be decided one way at
one time and another way at another time. Few things are ever "settled"
entirely the Supreme Court decisions unless the naturalists of the
"left" are satisfied. We have too much evidence of how the naturalists
of the "right" talk about "reversing" various Supreme Court decisions
(such as the decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,
January 22, 1973) at one time to wind up "settling" for what their
counterparts in the "left" believe is "settled" law. How much talk have
you heard this year from candidates on the "right" about reversing Roe v. Wade? Point made, thank you very much.
Such is the inevitable,
inexorable result of a country that rejects the belief that all civil
law, whether exercised by a central government or state governments,
must be subordinated in all things at all times to the binding precepts
of the Divine positive law and the natural law as those laws have been
entrusted to and explicated by Holy Mother Church.
No level of government, whether central or state, has any authority
to permit any action contrary to God’s law and thus injurious to the
sanctification and salvation of the souls of its citizens. No mere human
constitution is above God’s law. No mere human being has the right to
decide for himself that he is exempt from the immutable doctrine of the
Social Reign of Christ the King. Thus, those men, including the framers
of the Constitution of the United States of America, no matter how
well-intentioned, who believed that it is possible for “reasonable men”
to pursue the “common good” absent a subordination of their lives and
their work to Our Lord as He has revealed Himself through His true
Church are bound to set their descendants on a downward spiral that will
end only in the destruction of their nation or when said nation is
converted to the true Faith.
What does any of this mean to the currently reigning
caesar, Barack Hussein Obama? Nothing. He lives in utter ignorance,
convinced of his own righteous, convinced that he can twist and distort
the plain words of the Constitution to justify his statist policies.
All of this having been reiterated once again, I do want to remind readers of this site that I have labored quite hard, despite all efforts to caricature my work and to misrepresent it, to make the proper distinctions concerning the falsity of the founding principles as distinguished from the specific provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America that are entirely unobjectionable and can, if used in light of the pursuit of man's Last End, be used by Catholics in public life to limit the size and growth and power of the Federal government.
Absent the unifying force provided a nation by the Holy Faith, however, men will be more divided on matters of temporal concerns than they would otherwise be as a result of their fallen human natures and the after-effects of their own Actual Sins. This division among men breeds contempt for anything that is considered immutably binding, including the words of the provisions of the Constitution governing the separation of powers among the three branches of the Federal government and the division of powers between the Federal government and the state governments, to which the Tenth Amendment reserves those powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government nor denied to them.
Barack Hussein Obama is simply one of many naturalists in public life who harbor a complete contempt for anything and everything considered to be immutably binding. If one believes that there is no ultimate arbiter given to man by God to guide him in the knowledge of supernatural truths as the foundation for his every action, you see, it is inevitable for the individual to become that ultimate arbiter, in other words, for the individual to arrogate unto himself what belongs to God and to His Holy Church. This is of the very essence of the spirit of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, which is why I will never cease, although I do get very tired, of reminding the few readers of this site about the simple fact that the errors of Modernity in the world and those of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism can never serve as the foundation of personal or social order. Indeed, such errors lead to the eventual, albeit temporary, triumph and reign of Antichrist himself.
Ultimately, however, Barack Hussein Obama and his immoral policies at home and abroad that promote moral evils aplenty and thus sow the seeds for further unrest here and elsewhere in the world, policies that also undermine very directly the national sovereignty of the United States of America, are made more possible by the nefarious ways in which the conciliar "pontiffs" have violated the First and Second Commandments openly as they have esteemed the symbols of false religions publicly and have called places of false worship, which are nothing other than dens of the devil, as "sacred" and have praised the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the cause of justice and "world peace."
Sure, each of our own sins has contributed more than we would like to admit to ourselves to the chastisements that are upon us right now. Yes, this is certainly true. It is also true, however, that sins against the honor and glory and majesty of God make more possible sins against men in the world, a point that I have tried to make in many articles on this little-read website, including in Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment and A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work. God will not be mocked by the lords of Modernity or by the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. He does not countenance the daily warfare that is made upon the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law by the lords of Modernity, and He does not countenance the daily warfare that is made upon His Sacred Deposit of Faith by the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
The way is being prepared for the coming of Antichrist. The lords of Modernity, such as Obama, are taking active measures to undermine national sovereignty in the name of the "world community" and hence of global governance and to consolidate their own power at home by simply ignoring the organic documents under which they are supposed to work and by which they are supposed to govern and be governed. The lords of Modernism, such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have been undermining the integrity of the Deposit of Faith as they advance the goals of a One World Ecumenical Religion that corresponds almost exactly to the prophetic warning provided us by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves,
Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas!
this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations,
this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by
the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable
affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every
country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have
neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb
for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human
dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome)
the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the
weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
We must consider a privilege given us by the good God to be alive in these challenging times as we pray our Rosaries and make many sacrifices as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We have work to do, namely, to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, which alone is the sole foundation of personal and social order.
It will be only when men and their nations are converted to the Catholic Faith that their constitutions will truly bind them together and serve legitimate national interests as civil leaders seek to pursue the common temporal good in light of the man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, god the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven, remembering that, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, "the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it." It will be only then that civil constitutions will serve the interests of men in this life because they seek to serve God through His Catholic Church as our mater and magister exercises the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints