Tag Archives: executive order

Cryptocurrency, Interviews

Trump Issues An Executive Order to Ban the Venezuelan Petro

Leave a comment

(Dash Force News) Donald Trump has issued an executive order to ban all cryptocurrencies issued “by, for, or on behalf” of the Venezuelan government by a “United States person or within the United States”.

“All transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, any digital currency, digital coin, or digital token, that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela on or after January 9, 2018, are prohibited as of the effective date of this order.”

The executive order is a follow up to the sanctions that were placed on Venezuela by the US this past December since the Petro was seen as a work around by the Maduro regime. The action echos the US Treasury Department’s previous statement that advised investors to avoid the Petro, which called it “another attempt to prop up the Maduro regime, while further looting the resources of the Venezuelan people.”

[RELATED: Venezuela’s Government-Backed Petro Faces Obstacles, Scrutiny]

The Petro, pre-sale launched on February 20, was proclaimed to be backed by oil from the country and thus many saw the Petro as a de facto oil future rather than a cryptocurrency. However, the democratically elected body of Venezuela have already called the Petro illegal. In addition, many have called into question the cryptocurrency’s decentralized nature since a majority of the Petro seems to be in a few wallets and many suspect that most buyers were governmental agencies.

Fallout for other cryptocurrencies and the Venezuelan people

This move by the US President is the first major national decision by the US to ban a cryptocurrency. The executive order, which allows the president to act unilaterally, specifically mentions cryptocurrencies that are “by, for, and on behalf” of the “Government of Venezuela” so it does not appear to be an immediate threat to other cryptocurrencies.

The executive order does, however, beg the question if the same action can be extended to other more open cryptocurrencies that may be adopted by the Venezuelan government. Even if this becomes the case, the effect on Venezuelans would still be minimal, as long as the cryptocurrency is properly structured. The USD exchange price would most likely plunge, but Venezuelans will still be able to use said crypto within their country, free of governmental manipulation, and use decentralized exchanges to exchange into other cryptocurrencies when they want to trade within another country that initiated a ban.

For the time being, the Petro seems to only serve the interest of the Venezuelan government rather than the citizens of the country who use Bolivars, USD, and other cryptocurrencies. Thus the citizens of Venezuela should not suffer much from this ban since Venezuelans are utilizing other cryptocurrencies to escape the terrible policies of their government.

Dash is on the ground and improving lives in Venezuela

Dash is continuously increasing its presence within Venezuela, most recently seen in the Dash Caracus Conference, which had such a large influx of attendees that a second overflow conference was held. Then while governments place sanction on the Maduro regime in an attempt to weaken it, the Dash community is volunteering to give direct aid to Venezuelans by donating Dash. Venezuelans have seen their currency suffer from over 2,500% annual inflation and their economy destroyed by a corrupt and ignorant government. Nevertheless, Venezuelans refuse to let external factors stop them and are using Dash to provide real alternatives that better their lives.

Creative entrepreneurs are using Dash to restart their economy. Citizens are using Dash to purchase goods and services, while also maintaining the value of their currency better than the Bolivar. Each Dash Caracus Conference holds a Dash City (Ciudad Dash) to sell goods from local entrepreneurs and the most recent one had 53 vendors. This everyday use of Dash to solve real world problems leads to even greater adoption and a stronger user base, which will further contribute to Dash decreasing its volatility when compared to other cryptocurrencies.

 

Written by Justin Szilard

Featured, Gun Rights, Politics

President Obama Outlines, Defends Gun Control Executive Orders

Leave a comment

On Tuesday, President Obama announced and outlined the executive orders that he will sign to unilaterally implement new gun control regulations.

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking,” said President Obama in a White House address according to CNN.

He added, “We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.”

Obama’s orders will mandate that anyone who sells firearms at all, including online or at gun shows, obtain a license and perform background checks. The New York Times notes that the White House claims that this rule could even affect individuals selling only one or two guns.

[RELATED: New California Law Allows Seizure of Legal Guns Without Notice in 2016]

Another order will mandate background checks when guns are purchased through a trust or corporation.

Obama’s executive actions include steps that he claims will improve criminal record sharing between states to beef up the nation’s background check system. He will also hire 200 more ATF agents and over 230 more National Instant Criminal Background Check System examiners to enforce gun regulations.

The Social Security Administration will also begin analyzing recipients of mental health disability payments to determine if their gun rights should be suspended.

[RELATED: President Obama to Announce Executive Action for Gun Control]

Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a statement on the orders and said, “From day one, the president has never respected the right to safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued since its founding. He knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue. Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

Ryan continued, “His executive order will no doubt be challenged in the courts. Ultimately, everything the president has done can be overturned by a Republican president, which is another reason we must win in November.”

President Obama said in his address, “Congress still needs to act. … Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures, we can reduce gun violence a whole lot. But we also can’t wait. Until we have the Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives.”

The Blaze captured screenshots of a White House fact sheet outlining the executive actions in detail, which can be seen below.

WhitePaper1

WhitePaper2

WhitePaper3

WhitePaper4

Featured, Gun Rights, Opinion, Politics

President Obama to Announce Executive Action for Gun Control

Leave a comment

Washington D.C. – President Obama is starting off 2016 with a strong call for gun control measures through the use of presidential executive orders. In 2015, Obama made several promises and appeals to lawmakers and the American people regarding the need for tighter restrictions on purchasing firearms.

US News reports that White House aides stated that Obama will exercise his executive authority later this week and possibly change the background check policy for small-scale gun dealers. This is known as the “gun show loophole” because small arms dealers often able to sell at gun shows without conducting background checks on prospective buyers.

Although Congress would still need to change the current laws before background checks become universal, the Obama administration is attempting to find a provision in the law that could allow unilateral action.

Republican presidential candidates were quick to criticize the potential executive order. Presidential candidate and Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, told Fox News Sunday: “The president is a petulant child. Whenever he doesn’t get what he wants… this president acts like a king.” Fellow presidential candidate Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, also told Fox News, “The president has a pattern of taking away rights of citizens.”

In addition to anticipated action on guns, CNN reported that the news station would host a town hall meeting on Thursday to discuss gun control action. CNN’s Anderson Cooper will host a one-hour live town hall meeting with Obama at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. The event, titled “Guns in America”, is scheduled for 8 p.m. Eastern Thursday night.

CNN also reported that although plans for the executive orders are not complete, President Obama is attempting to reveal the plans before his annual State of the Union address on January 12.

In President Obama’s weekly radio address he said he has received “too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids, to sit around and do nothing” about the issue.

“Change, as always, is going to take all of us,” Obama said in his address. “The gun lobby is loud and well organized in its defense of effortlessly available guns for anyone. The rest of us are going to have to be just as passionate and well organized in our defense of our kids. That’s the work of citizenship — to stand up and fight for the change that we seek.”

Democratic Presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders told “State of the Union” that he wishes there was another way but supports President Obama.

“I would prefer that we could have bipartisan support, but the truth is Republicans aren’t interested in doing anything on gun safety,” Sanders said.

Former Secretary of State and current front-runner in the Democratic presidential race Hillary Clinton said she worries that a Republican president would repeal executive actions, “including one that we expect (Obama) to make in the next weeks to try to do more to have background checks for more gun buyers by requiring more sellers to do them.”

Conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch told Reuters on Sunday that the group will “sue to block any executive order on gun control.”

President Obama could take action that does not require executive order. As Reuters recently reported, Obama “could direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to redefine its guidance on who is considered a dealer under federal gun law.” However, this would only be advisory and not strong enough to enforce the law.

“The guidance could be used as evidence that prosecutors made a reasonable interpretation that a dealer needed a license, but it’s not binding,” James Jacobs, law professor at New York University and author of the 2004 book Can Gun Control Work?, told Reuters.

The outcome of such an attempt could be that Republican lawmakers attempt to defund the ATF in order to combat such a guidance change.

However, Stanford University law professor John Donohue told Reuters that he does not think requiring background checks would be great enough to warrant a legal challenge. “There are very few things I’d say with 100 percent certainty about what the Supreme Court and other courts would do, but I’m 100 percent certain that no court would say requiring more background checks violates the Second Amendment,” said Donohue.

According to the latest CNN/ORC poll, “fifty-one percent of Americans oppose more stringent gun-control laws and 48 percent favor them. Thirty-nine percent say Obama has gone too far in changing gun laws; 38 percent say he hasn’t gone far enough, and 20 percent say he has done about the right amount.”

Focusing on whether or not requiring background checks is illegal seems to ignore the larger question: is President Obama’s unilateral action legal or constitutional?

Activists, media, and political pundits were quick to call out President George W. Bush’s unilateral action on war-making, surveillance and torture, but seem less inclined to call out a Democratic president for unilateral actions, especially when the actions favor their causes, like gun control. Lovers of liberation should do their part to remain principled in the face of government oppression and media lies.

Stay tuned to Truth In Media for more on this developing situation.

Featured, Gun Rights, Politics

Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Block Obama from Executive Action on Gun Control

Leave a comment

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul re-introduced a bill on Monday that would prevent funding for any executive order from President Obama that would enact gun control measures.

The Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act, which is currently being fast-tracked through the Senate, and could see a vote as early as next month, is an updated version of a bill that was introduced in the 2013-14 session.

The bill states that any “existing or proposed executive action that infringes on the powers and duties of Congress under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall have no force or effect.

[pull_quote_center]It is the sense of Congress that any executive action issued by the President before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act that infringes on the powers and duties of Congress under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States or the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or that would require the expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the executive action, is advisory only and has no force or effect unless enacted as law.[/pull_quote_center]

The bill would also give Americans the right to launch a civil lawsuit, if they were affected by an executive action on gun control.

“In the United States, we do not have a king, but we do have a Constitution,” Paul said in a statement. “We also have the Second Amendment, and I will fight tooth and nail to protect it.”

In October, reports claimed that Obama was considering using an executive order to circumvent Congress, in order to mandate that anyone who sells more than 50 guns a year has to have a federal license, and any potential customers must have federal background checks.

Featured, Politics

Obama Announces Executive Action to Keep Criminal History Off Federal Job Applications

Leave a comment

President Obama announced a new directive on Monday which would prevent individuals from having to immediately disclose their criminal history on federal job applications.

In a statement, the White House noted that Obama has “called on Congress to follow a growing number of states, cities, and private companies that have decided to ‘ban the box’ on job applications.”

[pull_quote_center]We are encouraged that Congress is considering bipartisan legislation that would ‘ban the box’ for federal hiring and hiring by federal contractors. In the meantime, the President is directing the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to take action where it can by modifying its rules to delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process.[/pull_quote_center]

The White House called the move a “fair opportunity to compete for Federal employment” for individuals “from all segments of society, including those with prior criminal histories.”

[RELATED: Congress to Take On Criminal Justice Reform this Year]

During an event in Newark, New Jersey, Obama said that he believes federal agencies should follow the steps of 19 states and major companies such as Koch Industries, Target and Walmart to remove questions about criminal history from job applications.

“It is relevant to find out if somebody has a criminal record,” Obama said. “I’m not suggesting ignore it. I’m suggesting that when it comes to applications, give folks a chance to get through the door.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: U.S. Non-Violent Drug Offenders Incarceration Rate Is Shameful]

Vox noted that the initiative is one that advocated “a concrete step toward not just reversing mass incarceration in the future, but also making sure its past victims don’t slip through the cracks.”

Critics such as The Guardian’s Steven Thrasher called the “ban the box” initiative a “band-aid on a gaping wound that is mass imprisonment” and said that it is “a feel-good half measure which likely will accomplish little.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is sponsoring legislation with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that would have a similar effect. He said that he is “really happy to see the president continue to push the envelope” on the issue, but that he thinks implementing “should be done legislatively, so that the stroke of another president’s pen can’t undo it.”

Featured, Technology, US

President Obama signs cyber-security executive order

45 Comments

While visiting Stanford University on Friday, President Obama announced he was signing an executive order meant to encourage the sharing of information, regarding cyberthreats, between private sector companies and the government.

The order was signed at the first summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection, which focused on consumer protection and private-public partnerships against cyberthreats.

While at the summit, the president likened the internet to the “Wild West,” and said the public are looking to the government for protection against cyber attacks. President Obama also called these cyber attacks one of the greatest threats to national security, safety, and economic issues.

“Everybody is online, and everybody is vulnerable,” said President Obama, according to NBC News. “The business leaders here want their privacy and their children protected, just like the consumer and privacy advocates here want America to keep leading the world in technology and be safe from attacks.”

However, groups in Silicon Valley are not jumping on board with the president’s push for new digital securities.

Ben Desjardins, the director of security solutions with the cyber-security firm Radware, said, “The new proposals face significant headwinds, both legislatively from Congress and cooperatively from heavyweights in the tech sector.”  Desjardins also said many companies in Silicon Valley already feel “burned” by the government after the companies learned of the various government surveillance programs through the Snowden leaks.

Scott Algeier, the executive director of the nonprofit organization Information Sharing and Analysis Center, also said this new executive order sounds like a federal takeover of information sharing among people and companies in the private-sector.

The White House has said the executive order is only a framework, and with it the White House aims to allow private companies access to otherwise classified cyber-threat information and ensure information sharing is strongly secure, all while protecting the civil liberties of citizens.

The text of the executive order can be found here for more details.

Economy, International, Politics, US

U.S. Opens Largest Immigration Detention Center, Claims It Will Be a Deterrent to Border Crossings

6 Comments

On Monday, the largest immigration detention center in the United States was opened in South Texas, as a provision of President Obama’s recent executive order on immigration.

The New York Times reported that the center, which is part of Obama’s effort to “reinforce the southwest border to prevent a new surge of illegal immigration,” covers 50 acres of land in the town of Dilley, and will “hold up to 2,400 migrants who have illegally crossed the border.”

The facility, which has been named the South Texas Family Residential Center, will house families, mainly women and children, while their deportation cases go through the courts.

Reuters reported that the center “has several dozen small cottages where families can live,” and it “includes medical facilities, a school and recreational facilities.”

According to The Dallas Morning News, Republicans “have assailed Obama’s measures, saying he overstepped his constitutional authority with a sweeping program of deportation reprieves,” and they are predicting that it will “attract another wave of migrants like the one in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas last summer.”

The New York Times reported that the Corrections Corporation of America, which will be in charge of running the center, “estimates the cost at $296 a day for each detainee.”

Jeh C. Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, attended the grand opening of the detention center, and stated that the United States’ borders are “not open to illegal migration,” and that with the new detention center, it will now be more likely that future immigrants “will be detained and sent back.”

“If Congress is interested with me in supporting the border security measure we are outlining here today, it should act immediately on our budget request for fiscal 2015,” said Johnson. “Everyone agrees that border security is important. Now it’s time to step up and partner with this department to help support that.”

The opening of the detention center in Texas comes less than two weeks after Texas led a coalition of 17 states suing Obama on the claim that his executive order to grant amnesty to up to nearly 5 million illegal immigrants violated constitutional limits on presidential power.

Politics

Legislator’s open letter to Obama: Welcome to Rocky Top, We’ll See You In Court

4 Comments

DRESDEN, Tenn., December 9, 2014–

President Obama,

Welcome back to Rocky Top. Polls across the State of Tennessee have consistently indicated strong opposition to amnesty; especially unilateral, executive amnesty which you have chosen to force upon an unwilling populace.  While I am sure you will be greeted with a warm welcome at Mayor Dean’s Casa Azafran Center, I want to ensure that the voice of millions of Tennesseans, which your recent executive order will undoubtedly disenfranchise, is heard. This is why I have initiated a lawsuit against your administration, based on this aforementioned unconstitutional action, in the Tennessee General Assembly.

Mr. President, let me be clear: my opposition isn’t necessarily about immigration, and it’s not about party politics. My opposition is deeply rooted in principle and my constant effort to maintain the delicate balance of power; a separation of powers which has served our nation well for many, many years.

You do not have the power to commandeer state resources to fulfill your roughshod and unwelcome plans for immigration. Not even Congress has that power, as the Supreme Court of the United States has made this explicitly clear in more than 180 years of precedent. The most recent Court decision holding this doctrine being the ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius (Obamacare). Here is an excerpt from the majority opinion to refresh your memory:

“For this reason, ‘the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.’ New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.”

-But you already knew that.

While many, including myself, maintain that your executive order is illegal, some disagree. After all, “Bush did it!” Let’s say the Court does decide to grant the Executive Branch even more power by upholding your executive action as a constitutionally legitimate power. If your executive order is deemed the law of the land, then such laws are not allowed to mandate state implementation. At that point, based on precedent previously cited, if one dollar of state resources are required to carry out your demands, the anti-commandeering principle gives every state in America the power to render your lawless executive order null and void.

We plan to wage a full scale resistance to your executive action in Tennessee, and I hope that other states will continue to follow suit.

Enjoy your stay, and we soon hope to see you in court soon,

– State Representative Andy Holt (R- Dresden)

Press Release: State Representative Andy Holt (R-Dresden) In Response To President Obama’s December 9, 2014 Visit To Nashville, Tennessee To Discuss Recent Immigration Executive Order

Follow Michael Lotfi: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

Politics, US

Texas Leads Coalition of 17 States Suing Obama on Immigration

12 Comments

On Wednesday, Texas led a coalition of 17 states suing the Obama administration, on the claim that it acted illegally last month when initiating an executive order that would grant amnesty to up to nearly 5 million illegal immigrants.

USA Today reported that Texas is being joined by Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

According to the New York Times, although Republicans in the House of Representatives are preparing to vote on a bill on Thursday that would “dismantle the president’s programs,” the lawsuit from the states is the “first major legal challenge” to Obama’s executive order.

Reuters reported that the case was “filed at the Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas,” stating that Obama’s executive order should be declared illegal, due to the fact that it “violated constitutional limits on presidential powers.”

The coalition is being led by Greg Abbott, the Attorney General and Governor-elect of Texas. Abbott stated that Texas was “uniquely qualified to challenge the president’s executive order,” due to the fact that the state has received he majority of the impact from illegal immigration.

“The President is abdicating his responsibility to faithfully enforce laws that were duly enacted by Congress and attempting to rewrite immigration laws, which he has no authority to do,” Abbott said.

According to USA Today, Obama claimed that he was “forced to act because Congress failed to pass a comprehensive immigration bill,” and he defended his actions, saying that although his immigration steps are “incomplete,” they are “good for the economy.”

The Huffington Post reported that the lawsuit “could make things awkward come Friday, when Abbott travels to Washington to meet with Obama as part of a group of newly elected governors.”

The Governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, said his state is involved in the lawsuit, because they believe the President “has exceeded the balance of power provisions clearly laid out in the U.S. Constitution.”

Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General, released a similar statement, saying that the lawsuit was a way for the states to stand up to the Obama administration.

“We joined this lawsuit to stand up once again with other state attorneys general and governors against an out-of-control executive branch,” Morrisey said.

Featured, International, Politics, US

BREAKING: Tennessee moves to sue Obama over amnesty

116 Comments

NASHVILLE, November 21, 2014– On Friday, in response to President Obama’s plan to take executive action on illegal immigration reform, two Tennessee legislators are filing a Joint Resolution requesting Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) file a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of the state.

“Article II of the United States Constitution is explicitly clear on the powers vested within the Executive Branch. President Obama lacks the authority to execute even the slightest change in policy. The Constitution delegates President Obama the power to make suggestions concerning policy and nothing more,” said State Representative Andy Holt (R- Dresden) Thursday night after President Obama delivered a prime-time speech announcing his plan of action. “Anything beyond making suggestions is an illegal usurpation of undelegated power, and we simply cannot allow it to go unchecked.”

The two legislators are citing the commandeering of state resources, which would be required to execute the President’s Executive Order, and the lack of enforcement of deportation statutes as warrant for legal recourse.

“President Obama’s moves are a dangerous and insidious display of blatant abuse of power. Tennesseans will not stand for it, and I am here to demand the integrity of our Constitution and our state is protected,” said State Senator Mae Beavers (R- Mt. Juliet). “As state legislators, we have a constitutional responsibility to ensure our state is not illegally commandeered by the federal government.”

Holt and Beavers cite 180 years of Supreme Court precedent protecting state governments from the federal commandeering of resources.

“Illegally assigning millions of illegal immigrants what equates to pseudo de jure citizenship will cost Tennessee incalculable tax-payer dollars,” said Beavers. “Not even Congress has the power to place this undue burden on Tennessee tax-payers, so it’s unclear why President Obama, acting alone, believes he has the authority to do so. Let me be clear– he doesn’t.”

“The United States Supreme Court has been very clear concerning the commandeering of state resources by means of federal legislation and initiatives through coercion,” said Holt. “For more than 180 years the Court has explicitly repudiated such acts of commandeering in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, New York v. United States, Printz v. United States, and most recently in NFIB v. Sebelius.”

Both legislators believe the need for reform exists, but that it must be delivered by legal means.

“Our immigration system is wrecked, and I doubt anyone denies that. However, we are a nation of laws, not men, and we must work together to resolve these issues while maintaining the integrity of our Republic,” said Holt.

Holt will draft and sponsor the House Resolution, and Beavers will carry it in the Senate. 

(PRESS RELEASE)

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & Twitter.

Featured, US

Sen. Coburn: “you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence”; Armed Patriots Headed to White House to Arrest Obama

172 Comments

U.S. Tom Coburn told USA Today that if President Obama violates the U.S. Constitution and grants amnesty to illegal aliens, the reaction to his executive order may turn violent.

“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” Coburn said. “You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”

Currently there is a call for patriot groups to protest at the White House. Activist and U.S. Marine Manny Vega told Guerilla Media host Pete Santilli  that “…we will use our 1st Amendment in front of the White House but we have backup, we got the 2nd Amendment behind us.”

“This is real. This is going on. We are going to the White house. This will be a peaceful assembly but we will be aggressive. We will be loud and apply the pressure so Obama will resign.”

“This is a critical moment in our history. We will go there and we will demand Obama to resign; that his entire administration resign including Vice President Joe Biden. We will give them an ultimatum. If they do not, we will conduct a citizens arrest,” said Vega.

Post by Guerilla Media Network.

Featured, International, Opinion, Politics, US

Scott Brown Wants To Give Obama Power To Strip US Citizenship

18 Comments

Republican candidate for US Senate Scott Brown called on President Obama and Congress last week to acquire the ability to strip United States residents of their citizenship as a method of fighting terrorism.

“One of the greatest threats facing the homeland today is the mayhem that will happen when hundreds of American ISIS fighters return to the United States to spread their terror here. Their goal is to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and plant a flag at the White House, and mass killing is their means for achieving that goal. That’s why Congress needs to pass legislation that would strip the citizenship of any American who joins a foreign terrorist organization,” said Brown.

Brown said that passing such a bill is “common sense”.

This is not the first time Brown has attempted to pass such a law. In 2010, Brown and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced a bill, called the Terrorist Expatriation Act: “To add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States or its allies to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.” 

That bill died, but it reappeared in 2011 as the Enemy Expatriation Act, with similar language: “To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.”

Brown said the two failed bills were representative of “what was going on at the time.”

Brown’s urging to strip US citizenship of alleged terrorist allies does not stop with just legislation; he also suggested that Obama could issue executive orders revoking citizenship. “He likes executive orders,” Brown said. “This is one executive order that I’d agree with.”

Brown’s primary opponent, Jim Rubens, was heavily critical of Brown’s proposal and remarks, calling them a “flagrant attack on constitutional liberty.”

“During times like these good intentions can lead to stripping away of personal liberties,” said Rubens.

“That is exactly what Scott Brown proposed this morning, calling for the stripping of citizenship from Americans believed to be aiding terrorists. This is not a new proposal, in fact it was introduced in 2010 and 2012 in Congress. Both times, it was very quickly determined that they so egregiously violated the Constitution, they never even made it to a vote,” Rubens said.

Rubens continued, “There are many reasons it violates the Constitution including only requiring that the violation was ‘more likely to happen than not’ and the vague definition of ‘engaging in hostilities against American or its allies’ which could be broad enough to include donating books to a school in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the constitutional right of citizenship cannot be taken away unless a person obtained it illegally or voluntarily renounced American citizenship.”

“Make no mistake, anyone found to be aiding terrorists should be brought to swift justice. Our system already allows for that without the stripping away of Constitutional rights of the citizens we are trying to protect,” Rubens concluded.

 

US

A “Mental Health” Assault on the Second Amendment… by Executive Order

79 Comments

A few weeks ago on January 3rd, 2014, the Obama administration quietly announced two new executive orders regarding gun control policy. With these pronouncements President Obama, after failing to gain public support, and a failed attempt to push legislation through Congress, has made absolutely clear his intention of now unilaterally imposing his gun control mandates.

These new executive orders would allow the federal database access to mental health records by offering an exemption to existing laws that protect patient privacy, essentially overriding the Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule protections, in place for individual’s medical records.

States that were once required by law to protect personal medical information will now be required to submit their patient’s private and confidential records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

These types of provisions are likely to draw fire from constitutionalists as well as gun rights activists who respectively note that the Second and Fourth Amendments offer no such exceptions, but simply state that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”, and that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”.

The justification for these blatant privacy rights violations are, “an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands,” according to the White House statement.

The executive order claims to “clarify”, that citizens that are involuntarily committed to inpatient or outpatient facilities can be prohibited from owning a firearm. To allay concerns, the administration goes on to state that seeking help for mental health issues doesn’t prohibit a person from firearm ownership. The White House states, “The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm”.

Unfortunately, even prior to the executive orders currently applied, we have already seen government deceptively utilize this specific tactic to revoke legitimate gun ownership without due process.

Following the passage of the NY SAFE Act, New York gun owners were sent letters from the N.Y.P.D. demanding them to surrender their guns which have feeding capacities that violate the 5-round rule. Other gun owners in New York have had their fully legal firearms confiscated, after medical records, which detailed prescriptions, were shared with authorities. At the time, this was in direct violation of HIPAA as it was prior to the recent executive order and would seemingly have civil rights implications. The law is being applied and enforced as such, that being on anti-depressants or anxiety medication is reason to enough to revoke your Second Amendment rights without any recourse or due process of law.

In another recent case a Pennsylvania State Superior Court ruled that a state trooper who had 7 years earlier been hospitalized for depression wouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm off-duty, but would be allowed to carry a firearm while on-duty.

Judge Kate Ford Elliott declared, “A present clean bill of health is no guarantee that a relapse is not possible.” The Superior Court found there is no way for Keyes to have the record of his involuntary mental health commitment expunged. That means Keyes can never surmount the federal ban on his having a gun off-duty. She went on to state, “We see an important government interest in controlling the availability of firearms for those who have ever been adjudged mentally defective or have ever been committed to a mental institution but are now deemed to be cured.”

The biggest irony comes from the fact that Elliott also ruled that Keyes should still be allowed to have a firearm while on-duty as a state trooper, with the implication that government officials have special status above that of private citizens.

Both the media and administration’s explicit failure to consider these numerous abuses, systematically justified by the accessing of private mental health records, reveals a model of how these executive orders will most likely be carried out. With the façade of a mental health fix, the same power structures that pushed dangerous prescription drugs onto an unassuming American public will now use them against law-abiding Americans to usurp their constitutional guarantees.

Many fear, and rightly so, that these new rules targeting those with mental health issues might serve as a very slippery slope as such rules open the door for the federal government to decide who is “mentally healthy” enough to own a firearm, using metrics such as what medications one takes to base decisions on, similarly to what we have seen take place in New York since the NY SAFE Act went into effect.

The ever-increasing number of cases in which law-abiding citizens are being stripped of their constitutional rights without due process is alarming. With the destruction of privacy protections and increased scrutiny for those who have been committed to receive help, or who even get a prescription for anxiety medication, many citizens will likely become extremely reluctant to seek any type of mental health help due to the danger of having their Second Amendment rights revoked.

Should citizens be stripped of their Second Amendment rights under the Constitution simply because they are prescribed a medication for anxiety or mild depression by a licensed medical professional, due to state legislation or an executive order by a President? That is what is happening in NY, and if any indication, most likely what is coming down the pipe nationally with this executive order.

Follow Jay on Facebook and on Twitter @SirMetropolis

 

Politics, US

BREAKING: Obama Signs Two New Executive Orders On Gun Control

589 Comments

It was reported a few days ago that President Obama was meeting secretly with America’s top mayors to announce executive action on gun control. According to Kristin Tate, one of our reporters, “As you may remember, Obama failed to pass gun control measures through the Senate last spring. Most notably, the president was pushing for background checks for gun purchases.”

Today Obama made good on his promise to push for more gun control.

Rather than wait for Congress to pass new laws Obama bypassed them today. The two executive orders were announced at the same time the new Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) director Todd Jones was sworn in. Jones has been upheld by Senate republicans until recently. The ATF will be the enforcer of Obama’s two new executive orders.

The first order seeks to close a loophole, which allows felons and others who would be otherwise prohibited from owning firearms to bypass the law by registering their firearms with a trust or corporation. This would exempt them from having to complete a background check. It also forces anyone associated with a trust or corporation to complete a background.

The second order signed by Obama seeks to prohibit military-grade weapons from entering into America by keeping private entities from re-importing guns that the US previously sent to foreign allies. Currently, a law already requires U.S. government approval before these weapons can be re-imported. The White House says that more than 250,000 weapons have been brought back to America since 2005. Under the new executive order this practice will no longer be allowed. The weapons sent to foreign countries will have to remain there.

Is Obama overstepping his authority by enforcing laws through an agency rather than have Congress pass them?

-Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Politics, US

Obama Says He Will Use “Executive Action” On Gun Control

155 Comments

During a private meeting with some of America’s major mayors on Tuesday, President Obama said he would use executive action to promote his gun control agenda.

President Obama

As you may remember, Obama failed to pass gun control measures through the Senate last spring. Most notably, the president was pushing for background checks for gun purchases.

A White House press release said that during Tuesday’s meeting Obama “vowed to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action and to press Congress to pass common-sense reforms like expanding the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking.”

Attorney General Eric Holder was also present at the meeting; he spoke about “strategies to reduce youth violence,” according to the press release.

It continued, “The president reiterated that government alone can never fill the void that causes a child to turn to violence, but that we all have a responsibility to do our part to create safe communities and save lives. The president applauded the mayors for their local efforts to combat violence, solicited their input about proven methods, and pledged his Administration’s partnership.”

According to the Washington Post, those present at the meeting included “Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, N.J., a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter; Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray; New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu; Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, Calif.; Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo.; Mayor Molly Ward of Hampton, Va., and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed.”

The Post pointed out, however, that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was not at the meeting. This comes as a surprise, since Emanuel represents a city that struggles with gun violence.

What are your thoughts on this? Would bypassing the Senate to push gun control be a proper use of executive order? And would it represent what the American people want?