Author: admin

Where is the FBI’s authority written down?

The FBI has a range of legal authorities that enable it to investigate federal crimes and threats to national security, as well as to gather intelligence and assist other law enforcement agencies.

Federal law gives the FBI authority to investigate all federal crime not assigned exclusively to another federal agency (28, Section 533 of the U.S. Code). Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 533, authorizes the attorney general to appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3052, specifically authorizes special agents and officials of the FBI to make arrests, carry firearms, and serve warrants. 

Constitution Daily

Constitution Check: Does the FBI have power to decide who gets prosecuted?

July 6, 2016 by Lyle Denniston

THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case…In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts….There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret, special access program at the time they were sent and received.”

 – Excerpt from a statement that FBI Director James B. Comey made during a news conference about the conclusion of the federal investigation of how Hillary Clinton and her aides used e-mail servers for communicating messages during her time as Secretary of State.

“The major functions of the Bureau include…investigate violations of the laws of the United States and collect evidence in cases in which the United States is or may be a party in interest, except in cases in which such responsibility is by statute or otherwise specifically assigned to another investigative agency.”

 – Excerpt from the FBI’s statement of its mission, as shown on the Justice Department’s official website.

From the beginning of the new national government in 1789, the president has had an attorney general to act as a legal adviser.  For a time, actually prosecuting criminals was a sideline for that officer.  Private lawyers were hired to do that task, and that approach grew – by the end of the Civil War – to be very expensive. 

In 1870, Congress decided to create a Department of Justice, with its own staff of lawyers, and, from then on, it was the chief law enforcement agency in the presidential Cabinet.

While the department and all of its sub-agencies do work under the president’s leadership, and that can raise the prospect that politics will enter into the department’s work, most attorneys general have tried to keep a wall of separation between how and who they prosecute, on the one hand, and the politics of law-and-order, on the other. 

The public’s perception of justice has depended on that wall, attorneys general have said, over and over again.

From the attorney general, down through the ranks of the department’s employees and sub-agencies, the tradition of political impartiality is taught as a matter of professional ethics.  In fact, every lawyer in the department each year must attend a refresher course in legal ethics.

As an integral part of the department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is supposed to share in that tradition.

But the public may not always understand that the FBI does not have the job of deciding who should, or should not, be prosecuted for crime.  It was created to do investigations – period. 

When it finishes one of its probes, it can and usually does make recommendations, but someone else has the job of deciding what to do with the results of those investigations – an actual prosecutor.

The Supreme Court has raised the role of prosecutor to a level of eminence that is close to that of a judge. 

Judges have long been immune to being sued for the way they perform their tasks on the bench, and the Supreme Court – in a famous decision in 1976, in the case of Imbler v. Pachtman — declared for the first time that prosecutors, too, are almost entirely immune for the choices they make about filing charges and pursuing them at trial.

Of course, even the Supreme Court cannot insulate prosecutors from public – and political — criticism about how they perform their jobs.  And, if a given prosecutor abuses the office, by going outside the scope of their official duty, they are subject to legal claims of “malicious prosecution.’  

But, because their normal legal immunity is so expansive, it is very difficult to prove the misuse of power in a given case.  The Supreme Court has made clear, repeatedly, that this broad immunity is designed to encourage behavior by prosecutors that will keep the public’s trust while at the same time maintaining prosecutors’ independence.

All of these questions of professional responsibility and legal immunity of prosecutors can suddenly gain very high political visibility, especially when a criminal investigation is aimed at a prominent political figure. 

No matter how impartial the FBI may be in conducting such an investigation, or a federal prosecutor may be in deciding what to do with the results of an FBI investigation, there is almost no way to avoid political controversy in such a case. That is where we are today in the case of the raid on Former President Trump’s home.

History.com

On July 26, 1908, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was born when U.S. Attorney General Charles Bonaparte ordered a group of newly hired federal investigators to report to Chief Examiner Stanley W. Finch of the Department of Justice. One year later, the Office of the Chief Examiner was renamed the Bureau of Investigation, and in 1935 it became the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

When the Department of Justice was created in 1870 to enforce federal law and coordinate judicial policy, it had no permanent investigators on its staff.

 At first, it hired private detectives when it needed federal crimes investigated and later rented out investigators from other federal agencies, such as the Secret Service, which was created by the Department of the Treasury in 1865 to investigate counterfeiting.

In the early part of the 20th century, the attorney general was authorized to hire a few permanent investigators, and the Office of the Chief Examiner, which consisted mostly of accountants, was created to review financial transactions of the federal courts.

Seeking to form an independent and more efficient investigative arm, in 1908 the Department of Justice hired 10 former Secret Service employees to join an expanded Office of the Chief Examiner.

The date when these agents reported to duty—July 26, 1908—is celebrated as the beginning of the FBI. By March 1909, the force included 34 agents, and Attorney General George Wickersham, Bonaparte’s successor, renamed it the Bureau of Investigation.

The federal government used the bureau as a tool to investigate criminals who evaded prosecution by passing over state lines, and within a few years the number of agents had grown to more than 300.

The agency was opposed by some in Congress, who feared that its growing authority could lead to abuse of power. (really?) With the entry of the United States into World War I in 1917, the bureau was given responsibility in investigating draft resisters, violators of the Espionage Act of 1917, and immigrants suspected of radicalism.

Meanwhile, J. Edgar Hoover, a lawyer and former librarian, joined the Department of Justice in 1917 and within two years had become special assistant to Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer.

Deeply anti-radical in his ideology, Hoover came to the forefront of federal law enforcement during the so-called “Red Scare” of 1919 to 1920. He set up a card index system listing every radical leader, organization, and publication in the United States and by 1921 had amassed some 450,000 files.

More than 10,000 suspected communists were also arrested during this period, but the vast majority of these people were briefly questioned and then released.

Although the attorney general was criticized for abusing his power during the so-called “Palmer Raids,” Hoover emerged unscathed, and on May 10, 1924, he was appointed acting director of the Bureau of Investigation.

During the 1920s, with Congress’ approval, Director Hoover drastically restructured and expanded the Bureau of Investigation.

He built the agency into an efficient crime-fighting machine, establishing a centralized fingerprint file, a crime laboratory, and a training school for agents.

In the 1930s, the Bureau of Investigation launched a dramatic battle against the epidemic of organized crime brought on by Prohibition.

Notorious gangsters such as George “Machine Gun” Kelly and John Dillinger met their ends looking down the barrels of bureau-issued guns, while others, like Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, the elusive head of Murder, Inc., were successfully investigated and prosecuted by Hoover’s “G-men.”

Hoover, who had a keen eye for public relations, participated in a number of these widely publicized arrests, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as it was known after 1935, became highly regarded by Congress and the American public.

With the outbreak of World War II, Hoover revived the anti-espionage techniques he had developed during the first Red Scare, and domestic wiretaps and other electronic surveillance expanded dramatically. After World War II, Hoover focused on the threat of radical, especially communist, subversion.

The FBI compiled files on millions of Americans suspected of dissident activity, and Hoover worked closely with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Senator Joseph McCarthy, the architect of America’s second Red Scare.

In 1956, Hoover initiated COINTELPRO, a secret counterintelligence program that initially targeted the U.S. Communist Party but later was expanded to infiltrate and disrupt any radical organization in America. During the 1960s, the immense resources of COINTELPRO were used against dangerous groups such as the Ku Klux Klan but also against African American civil rights organizations and liberal anti-war organizations.

One figure especially targeted was civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., who endured systematic harassment from the FBI.

By the time Hoover entered service under his eighth president in 1969, the media, the public, and Congress had grown suspicious that the FBI might be abusing its authority.

For the first time in his bureaucratic career, Hoover endured widespread criticism, and Congress responded by passing laws requiring Senate confirmation of future FBI directors and limiting their tenure to 10 years.

On May 2, 1972, with the Watergate scandal about to explode onto the national stage, J. Edgar Hoover died of heart disease at the age of 77.

The Watergate affair subsequently revealed that the FBI had illegally protected President Richard Nixon from investigation, and the agency was thoroughly investigated by Congress.

Revelations of the FBI’s abuses of power and unconstitutional surveillance motivated Congress and the media to become more vigilant in the future monitoring of the FBI.

So this brings us back to present day.

Who is the current US Attorney General, and who does he answer to?

The United States attorney general (AG), Merrick Garland, leads the United States Department of Justice, and is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government of the United States. The attorney general serves as the principal advisor to the president of the United States on all legal matters. So I find it hard to believe that the President was unaware of the raid on Trump’s home.

This leads to the next question. Who has authority over the FBI?

Federal law gives the FBI authority to investigate all federal crime not assigned exclusively to another federal agency and Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 533, authorizes the attorney general to appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.

Furthermore, The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. So, the US attorney General works directly for the President.

28 U.S. Code § 503 – Attorney General

https://www.law.cornell.edu › … › PART II › CHAPTER 31

U.S. attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. attorney continues in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified.

Manchin Goes All-In On Tax Hike And Climate Spend

Senators Manchin and Schumer come to an 11th-hour deal.

By: Mark Angelides July 28, 2022

Liberty Nation News

In an abrupt about-face, West Virginia’s Senator Joe Manchin has reached an agreement with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on a spending package that they claim will lower health care costs, combat climate change, and reduce the federal deficit. Critics, however, say the proposal is little more than a tax hike on American businesses that will add even more inflationary pressure.

Manchin stated, “I now propose and will vote for the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Rather than risking more inflation with trillions in new spending, this bill will cut the inflation taxes Americans are paying, lower the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs, and ensure our country invests in energy security and climate change solutions.”

Indeed, a bill with “inflation reduction” in its very name might set alarm bells ringing for the more fiscally conservative. After all, the estimated $433 billion in new spending has to come from somewhere.

Climate change $369 billion

Obamacare $64 billion

So, it seems that the majority of the freshly-printed cash will go to climate change programs and clean energy production, making it the largest such outlay in US history.

Also included is a three-year subsidies extension for the Affordable Care Act.

While the administration will tout this as an environmental victory in the lead-up to the November elections, American voters may not be as thrilled.

According to a July PBS/NPR poll, climate change did not make the list of priorities for voters of any party. Topping the survey was, of course, inflation.

To pay for the spending, Manchin and Schumer have agreed to establish a minimum 15% corporate tax, IRS enforcement, and other tax law changes, which they say will raise $739 billion over ten years in revenue.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was quick to lash out at the package, tweeting:

“Democrats have already crushed American families with historic inflation. Now they want to pile on giant tax hikes that will hammer workers and kill many thousands of American jobs. First, they killed your family’s budget. Now they want to kill your job too.”

This sentiment was echoed strongly by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who simply wrote, “Build Back Broke is going to bankrupt America.”

Can It Pass?

Democrat leadership will try to pass the bill through reconciliation.

Budget reconciliation is a special parliamentary procedure of the United States Congress set up to expedite the passage of certain budgetary legislation in the United States Senate. The procedure overrides the filibuster rules in the Senate, which may otherwise require a 60-vote supermajority for the passage by the Senate.

So, with the help of Vice President Kamala Harris and her tie-breaking vote in the upper chamber, no bipartisan support is required.

However, this razor-thin majority also means that Democrats can’t afford to lose even one member of their caucus.

If it passes, the bill will doubtless be hailed by Team Biden and the media as a significant accomplishment, and a primary reason voters should cast a blue ballot in November.

And yet, according to almost every major poll, the issue of climate change does not even register.

The Washington Examiner

by Zachary Halaschak, Economics Reporter | 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/business/manchin-agrees-15-percent-corporate-minimum-tax

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is supposedly a replacement for President Joe Biden’s ambitious, and expensive, $2.4 trillion spending bill, known as Build Back Better.

As I said earlier, the legislative proposal would levy a 15% minimum tax on the book income of companies.

The United States currently has a 21% corporate tax rate, which it assesses based on companies’ tax returns. The new proposal would assess a minimum 15% tax on the adjusted financial statement income of corporations — book income, something that Democrats estimate will raise $313 billion in new tax revenue.

“Tax fairness is vital to our nation’s economic future,” Manchin said. “It is wrong that some of America’s largest companies pay nothing in taxes while freely enjoying the benefits of our nation’s military security, infrastructure, and rule of law.

“It is common sense that a domestic corporate minimum tax of 15% be applied only to billion-dollar companies or larger, ensuring that America’s largest businesses are no longer able to operate for free in our economy,” he added.

Does anyone out there believe that large corporations won’t pass that tax on to their customers by cutting wages and increasing the price of their products?

Also included in the agreement was a plan to bolster IRS tax enforcement, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will net $124 billion in increased revenue.

Manchin stated. “Through the enforcement of a fair tax code, we can use the revenue to cut the deficit and lower the cost of healthcare for working families and small businesses.”

Bottom line, Biden’s Newest “Build Back Better” Boondoggle Would Worsen Inflationary Squeeze on Middle America

The Heritage Foundation

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/bidens-newest-build-back-better-boondoggle-would-worsen-inflationary

To avoid stoking the inflationary firestorm sweeping the country, Congress must reject this newest iteration of Build Back Better. 

This version of Build Back Better could increase insurance costs for the vast majority of Americans by way of destructive price controls.

Today’s inflation is the result of Washington printing an incredible amount of money and adding $7 trillion to the national debt since the COVID-19 pandemic.

With inflation surging to 9.1% and averaging much higher in the rural heartland than in urban areas, now is not the time for the federal government to pour gasoline on the fire.

Yet, as Democrats negotiate the newest iteration of their socialist nightmare—the so-called Build Back Better Act—that is exactly what they are planning to do. This plan would increase inflationary pressures with shortage-inducing price controls on prescription drugs and an increase in spending for Obamacare subsidies.

If this sounds like the approach of the 1970s, it is—rapidly expanding federal spending and the money supply, and ultimately triggering double-digit inflation. Then, too, rather than rein in spending, Washington resorted to price controls.

The newest version of the euphemistically named Build Back Better follows this failed playbook.

In the 1970s, government price-meddling led to gasoline lines stretching for blocks. This time the price-meddling will make it harder for vulnerable Americans to get their hands on lifesaving drugs.

Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services, and this bill dumps in even more dollars, while chasing down and destroying even more economic production.

Price Controls to Oblivion

The legislation would impose a formula-driven price ceiling on certain prescription drugs sold in the Medicare market.

With statutory limitations on prices imposed, the “negotiations” between the government and the private companies that develop and produce lifesaving medicine would be about as one-sided as the Pittsburgh Steelers squaring off against a Pop Warner football team.

A company could either accept the government-dictated price or be cut off altogether from the large Medicare market. 

If a business were to sell a price-controlled drug at higher than the “negotiated” price, it would face an effective tax rate of more than 100%.

So, the Government sets the price and could care less if the company makes a profit or not. Some companies will be forced out of business altogether or simply lay off workers and cut production, creating a shortage.

(Dialysis Clinic story)

No business can afford a 100% tax, but this tax isn’t about raising revenue or reducing the deficit. In fact, it’s designed to raise zero dollars of tax revenue. The point of the tax is to strong-arm businesses into doing what the government wants. Or else.

The price controls may look like spending cuts, but they would act like new business taxes. Whether businesses are taxed at 30% on sales or whether they’re forced to reduce prices by 30% makes no meaningful difference to them. The chilling effect on business activity and research and development would be the same.

These regulations would only make it harder to produce vital medicines, and they wouldn’t mitigate the true cost of producing such important products.

Instead, these costs would simply be shifted to other Americans—most likely, to the 82% of Americans not covered by Medicare who could see the largest cost increases.

This version of Build Back Better—theoretically intended to reduce the cost of insurance—could instead indirectly increase insurance costs for the vast majority of Americans by way of these destructive price controls.

However, we cannot know for sure how far-reaching these negative effects will be. They will show up as costs that slow down other sectors of the economy, that reduce wage levels, and that will mean some new businesses and research projects will never get started at all.

Hauntingly, we will never know how many millions of lives could have been saved or brought out of poverty by the innovative pursuits that these price controls will choke to death.

Whenever governments spend—as this plan would, on more Obamacare subsidies—they have three options to pay for it. 

They can tax it, taking directly from hardworking Americans and destroying the delicate business arrangements that provide jobs and produce the things we use and need.

They can print it, devaluing your savings and the value of your paycheck by watering down the value of each dollar.

Finally, they can borrow the money, leaving debts for your children while draining the oxygen out of the economy today as the government squanders job-creating investment dollars to bloat itself.

When the government borrows, it does so with the promise to either tax someone or print even more money in the future to pay it back.

The certainty of the burden it will impose, and the uncertainly of how it will impose it, will cause economic chaos.

Governments can’t create value out of nothing. There are no free lunches here.

Spending more money to reduce inflation doesn’t pass the smell test.

Inflation is a hidden tax, but it’s still a tax, and no tax in history was ever reduced by the government spending more money. To reduce a tax, including inflation, the government must spend less.

Today’s inflation is the unavoidable result of Washington printing an incredible amount of money and adding $7 trillion to the national debt since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rather than acknowledge this reality, congressional Democrats and the Biden administration have now spent more than a year obsessively trying to force through yet another massive spending package.

There was the fake “infrastructure” plan (supported, unfortunately, by 19 Republican senators), then Build Back Better, then a revised version of the latter packed with deceptive budget gimmicks, and now this newest plan.

Regardless of how many more mutations Build Back Better goes through, regardless how many times President Joe Biden renames and repackages it, it still suffers from the same fundamental flaw: It concentrates more money and power in Washington at the expense of the real economy.

It distorts the economy for the benefit of special interests, and it will lead to a combination of tax hikes, deficit spending, and inflation, now and well into the future, all to the detriment of hardworking families.

Instead of further antagonizing households, we should use deregulation and pro-growth tax reform to help the economy. This path would revitalize the nation and dust off the engines of the world’s most dynamic economy.

Or with this new Build Back Better, we can continue down the road to expanding government control, crushing businesses and jobs, and squeezing families trying to make ends meet.

Make no mistake, this will lead straight to a more painful and longer-lasting inflationary crisis.

• 1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

• 1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

• 1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune

• 1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

• 1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

• 1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975

• 1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine

Now shifting back in the other direction……..

• 1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times

• 1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

• 1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

• 2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001

• 2006 – “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the media’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006

Now folks, this is just a sampling of the climate change controversy we have seen in the past. It is not a new issue. With over 100 years of fear mongering and “scientific studies”, you can see, we are now no closer to the truth than we were in 1895.

James Fite July 21, 2022 –Liberty Nation News

The Climate Emergency Even Biden Doesn’t Seem to Buy

President Joe Biden announced action on what he calls a climate emergency Wednesday, July 20. But the measures fell far short of fulfilling the list of progressive demands, and the president stopped just shy of actually declaring an emergency.

Despite the loudest voices on the left screaming for more, recent polling shows that a mere 1% of total voters – just 3% of Democrats and 3% of voters aged 18-30 – see climate as the most important issue today.

“Climate change is literally an existential threat to our nation and to the world,” Biden said Wednesday. “This is an emergency, an emergency, and I will look at it that way.”

With words like this, one might expect a declaration of emergency, followed by some bold executive action that stretches the bounds of the president’s power. That’s precisely what progressives and Democrat lawmakers wanted. Instead, the commander-in-chief announced a comparatively modest list of orders.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is directing money toward shoring up infrastructure against heat waves, drought, hurricanes, and the like, while the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is issuing guidance for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

The Department of the Interior is exploring wind energy in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will be conducting heat-related inspections and developing standards to protect workers from overly hot conditions whenever the heat index is 80 degrees or higher.

As reported by the Washington Times, the left has a “laundry list” of demands – the first of which was an official declaration under the National Emergencies Act. So far, at least, that hasn’t come.

Activists and politicians also pushed for Biden to direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to get involved in local and state lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, invoke the Defense Production Act and apply American manufacturing might to renewable energy technology, end domestic and international federal subsidies on fossil fuels, restrict imports, and ban exports.

They wanted a fully electric USPS fleet, stricter vehicle emissions standards, and an end to oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters.

“We’re urging the administration to do things that it can do administratively,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “and we’re going to look at everything that we can do.”

“If President Biden was ever serious about being a climate president, this is his last chance,” said Kat Maier, national coordinator for Fridays for Future, an international climate group founded by Greta Thunberg. “Everyone from Republicans to Democrats, institutions to individuals, has shown their hand, and we know who stands on the side of climate action. There’s nothing to wait for anymore, no compromises to make anymore. It’s time for the bold action.”

Left-wing politicians aren’t worried about some crisis of climate change – but they are terrified of the very real electoral emergency looming over them as the midterms approach.

And this puts Biden in a precarious position. The president and the party are too invested in climate change and a green agenda to do anything short of moving forward – yet Congress has failed to deliver a significant legislative win. Even though none but a few are buying it, the narrative must go on. At this point, it may be all they have left.

July 21, 2022

Saving the Planet, or Themselves?

By Jeffrey Folks

American Thinker

Since well before the publication of Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit in 1992, we’ve been told we can “save the planet” by eliminating fossil fuels.

Bjorn Lomborg’s book False Alarm exposes a host of false claims by environmentalists, including the notion that warming has been producing more storms, drought, and floods.  

In fact, all of these have remained at the same level over the past 100 years.  As Lomborg writes, “deaths caused by climate-related disasters have declined precipitously over the past century” (p. 73) — not because of fewer storms, but because increasing wealth has made it possible to protect ourselves from climate events.  

The real danger lies in useless spending on climate change that will bankrupt societies and make it impossible for their people to protect themselves.

The global economy has now constructed an entire society atop the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming, and activists like Gore collectively have made billions if not trillions of dollars off their predictions of doom.  

Now under Biden, activists promise to transform the global economy at a cost of hundreds of trillions.  

An SEC proposed rule on “climate change reporting and control” would, if enacted, lower profits and productivity for large businesses and bankrupt smaller ones.  And the SEC is just one among hundreds of federal agencies targeting fossil fuel emissions and exposing the private sector to huge reporting and legal costs.  

According to the National Law Review, “companies will likely need to consider and quantify the impact of environmental factors on both the upstream and downstream aspects of their business.”

Ironically, the global warming society is beginning to crack as European nations reverse their behavior, if not their rhetoric, on warming.  

Germany never fully complied with the Paris Agreement to begin with, but on May 24, it announced that it may use idled coal-fired power plants to compensate for lost Russian natural gas supplies.  

All of this government action, in the U.S. and abroad, is avoidable.  The reality is that wind and solar supply only 1.1% of global energy needs at present and will not supply more than 5% by 2040 (Lomborg, p. 104) — and this at a cost of trillions of dollars in subsidies and credits.  

It is madness for politicians and corporate leaders to promise “net zero” by 2030 or even 2050.  We must face reality and insist, for both strategic and economic reasons, that an adequate supply of fossil fuels is produced in our own country.

Despite the history I stated earlier, environmentalists present a doomsday scenario of rising seas, catastrophic storms, and worldwide drought — none of which is happening.  

A simple test is to examine the number of major hurricane strikes on the U.S. soil.  According to NOAA, with data going back to 1850, that number has remained entirely stable: 27 from 1850 to 1900, 32 from 1900 to 1950, and 28 from 1950 to 2000.  The deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history occurred in 1900, 1919, and 1926, not in the era of so-called global warming.

Katrina, the only devastating 21st-century storm, was the 33rd deadliest storm in our history — and it was devastating because of inadequate government preparation and response.

Climate alarmists also point to purported drought as evidence of warming.  

Again, examine the evidence: a chart showing wet and dry periods in Oklahoma shows beyond all doubt that Oklahoma was far drier in the period from 1900 to 1980, and greener from 1980 to the present — just the opposite of what alarmists claim it should be.  

The fact is that the Central Plains, our country’s breadbasket, has become greener precisely during the period of greater warming.

Even if we wished to change the climate, there’s little we could do about it.  

…The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has admitted in the past that a portion of recent warming is due to natural causes and that even a complete global transition to “net zero” would have not prevented further temperature increases, or declines for that matter.  

In any case, why would we wish to return to cooler “pre-industrial” levels when there are many advantages to warmer temperatures, including higher agricultural productivity.

Today’s warming of one degree Celsius is not an “inconvenient truth” — it is, for some, a minor inconvenience.  

But for most of us, it is not even that; it is an opportunity, as, with warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels, plants grow more quickly and in regions where they could not have grown before.  

Warming increases the Earth’s productivity, making it possible to feed the 10 billion persons expected by 2050.  If the Earth entered a period of sudden cooling, as it well might, the Earth’s poor would be at risk of starvation.

Our values with regard to climate, as with regard to so much else, have been twisted by a nihilistic generation that prefers enslavement and government control to freedom and opportunity.  

It is the ordinary American who is the loser in environmental politics.  Radical environmentalists have expressed pleasure at seeing working Americans paying $5 and $6 for gas and seeing the price of natural gas, which heats half of homes and offices and most electricity production, rise from an average of $2.03 per m Btu in 2020 to $6.07 in 2022.

Environmentalists celebrate the harm that comes to others who disagree with them, even as they relish their own power and control.  

In the end, it is a matter of who thrives and who does not.  Once we realize this fact, it becomes clear that we must reject the myth of climate catastrophe and return to a rational policy allowing for the unrestricted production of fossil fuels.

The truth is that we are facing a climate catastrophe — in the form of trillions of worthless spending on so-called renewables.  

Our economy is already beginning to collapse under the burden of this spending, but it is not too late to save it.  One must question and oppose all spending on climate change and support rational policies that include reliance on fossil fuels.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

The Heritage Foundation

REPORT Political Process

From Administrative State to Constitutional Government

Joseph Postell

2017-18 Visiting Fellow in American Political Thought

Over the past 100 years, our government has been transformed from a limited, constitutional, federal republic to a centralized administrative state that for the most part exists outside the structure of the Constitution and wields nearly unlimited power.

This administrative state has been constructed because of a massive expansion of the national government’s power.

When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself.

A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent.

In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking.

The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens.

In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. [2]

The Constitution vs. the Administrative State

Central to the idea of American constitutionalism are the concepts of representation, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. The administrative state does damage to all of these principles. A few examples demonstrate how these principles are violated by the administrative state.

We often think that the laws of this country are passed by Congress. Since Members of Congress are elected by the people, we assume that we have therefore indirectly consented to the laws that we must follow.

The reality is much different. Most federal law is created by the agencies and departments that make up the national bureaucracy, not by Congress.

 Congress passes laws delegating its legislative power to these agencies and departments, and they in turn develop the laws with which we must comply.

When Nancy Pelosi famously declared that we would have to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (popularly known as “Obamacare”) so that we could find out what is in it, she was not referring to the length of the bill.

Rather, she was referring to the fact that most of the laws—such as the infamous Health and Human Services (HHS) requirement that all insurance providers cover contraception, abortion drugs (day after pills), and sterilization—would be made by HHS, not found in the statute that Congress was passing.

Similarly, in March 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the Clean Air Act suddenly allowed it to regulate mercury emissions from coal plants.

The EPA announced that the rule would cost $10.9 billion annually over the next 10 years so that older plants could be retrofitted for the new technology.

In announcing the rule, the EPA acknowledged that many coal plants would have to be shut down, and several power companies testified that the rule would result in rolling blackouts and unreliable energy supply. [3]

Why is an agency run by unelected officials making such massive decisions affecting the U.S. economy? And why is it doing this under a mandate, created decades ago, that was designed to deal with a completely different problem?

This is fundamentally contrary to the idea of republican government and the principle that all laws must be passed by our elected representatives.

The administrative state also undermines the rule of law. Bureaucrats regularly make exemptions to the regulations that they create. By its own count, HHS has granted over 1,700 waivers from its own regulations under Obamacare. [4] 

Bureaucrats therefore write the laws and, because they execute them, are also able to exempt politically powerful groups and industries from those same laws. This violates the idea that we are all to be treated equally under the law, rich and poor, powerful, and weak alike.

Finally, the administrative state violates the principle of the separation of powers by breaking down the divisions between the constitutional branches of government.

Power is transferred from Congress to agencies and departments, which are then influenced by all three branches of government but not directly accountable to any, and the effect of checks and balances is reversed.

All of the branches work together to control the unwieldy administrative apparatus that often combines all three powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial.

The National Labor Relations Board is a perfect example of this combination of powers. In its infamous decision to sue to block airline manufacturer Boeing from moving some of its facilities to South Carolina, which is a “right to work” state, the NLRB acted as lawmaker, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

This is clear from the facts of the decision. The machinist’s union notified the NLRB that Boeing was moving some of its production to South Carolina from Washington State, and this prompted the NLRB’s lawsuit.

In specific cases where an employee alleges that an employer is engaging in “unfair labor practices” (a vague phrase that is defined, of course, by NLRB rules), the employee’s allegation is typically resolved in a hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge.

These administrative law judges issue decisions on behalf of the agency. Employers who receive an adverse decision by the NLRB’s administrative law judge can appeal to…the NLRB. [5] 

The NLRB itself decides several hundred cases per year, and only about 65 of those cases are appealed to an independent court. While the circuit courts are called upon to review the NRLB’s orders, the agency boasts on its website that “The majority [of cases]—nearly 80%—are decided in the Board’s favor.” [6]

The NLRB, in short, makes rules governing employer–labor relations, investigates violations of the rules that it issues, decides particular cases involving employers and employees, and enforces the decisions that it orders. This combination of legislative, executive, and judicial power inevitably causes objectionable bureaucratic decisions. When we create institutions that violate our basic constitutional principles, we lay the groundwork for tyrannical decisions.

The problem, in other words, is not necessarily the specific people running the NLRB. The agency was set up to act in a dysfunctional manner.

In sum, the administrative state centralizes power in Washington and then consolidates that power in the hands of agencies and departments that violate republican government, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.

As a result, citizens find themselves at the mercy of government agencies and departments over which they have no control. With the removal of these controls, bureaucrats often overreach and cause profound damage with little accountability or public awareness.

Examples of bureaucrats gone wild abound. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in pursuance of the lawmaking powers delegated to it by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is authorized to list a species as either “threatened” or “endangered.” The agency also designates “critical habitat” for all listed species.

Anyone affecting the habitat of a threatened or endangered species in any way is subject to substantial fines and even criminal charges.

Once a species is listed, in other words, FWS bureaucrats assume control over the use of all private property in the area where the threatened species lives.

In New Jersey, a 77-year-old woman “was prohibited from building a home on land she had bought for her retirement because the FWS ruled that there was a federally protected plan species ‘within five miles of the proposed project site.’” [7]

Under the broad powers delegated to it by the ESA (endangered species act), the FWS has delayed the building of schools and hospitals, dictated to landowners how their land is to be used, and generally prohibited development when any listed species may be affected in any way.

For example, after “negotiations” between the FWS and biologist consultants hired by the Napa Valley Unified School District in California, the district was required to purchase 317 acres of vacant open space at a price of $4.6 million to mitigate risks to the California Red-Legged Frog. [8]

To save the same frog, the city of San Francisco proposed a series of projects to preserve a public golf course (the Sharp Park Golf Course) that would cost from $6 million to $10 million by relocating Red-Legged Frog egg masses to safer areas under the supervision of FWS authorities.

However, environmental groups are using the ESA to sue the city of San Francisco, saying that these relocation measures are insufficient and that nothing short of shutting down the course is acceptable. [9] The California Red-Legged Frog and the California Tiger Salamander have caused similar problems for the Northern California wine industry. [10]

In each of these cases, the rights of citizens were threatened by administrative agencies that have been given the power to make laws; investigate, prosecute, and enforce laws; and even in many cases to judge violations of their laws.

In fact, most of the “laws” of this country are made, executed, and applied by administrative agencies and departments. They operate under the radar, largely insulated from the control of the people. They often combine the powers of government, and their personnel are primarily unelected.

This is the predominant feature of our new form of government, the administrative state, and it’s where the action is.

When our elected representatives (Congress) fail to enact policies because of popular opposition, they know that the institutions of the administrative state can carry these very policies out without resistance, using the powers delegated to them by Congress.

Elections do not matter very much if agencies can make policy without the support of our elected representatives. Yet today, whether or not Congress makes law, administrative agencies and departments already have the power to make new rules, rendering the concept of representation irrelevant.

A little history….

The administrative state was not created all at once in America. Its roots go back to the late 19th century, when changes in the American economy spurred by the Industrial Revolution created a political crisis.

Starting in the 1870s, farmers in Western and Midwestern states began to clamor for government intervention to control railroads, which farmers used to ship crops to markets; banks, which loaned money to farmers for land and equipment; and other powerful economic entities.

This “Granger” (farmer/homesteader) movement took hold in many states, and railroad commissions were created at the state level to dictate rates at which railroads could haul goods to markets.

In response to these concerns, the first federal administrative agency—the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)—was created in 1887.

But the Grangers were wary of entrusting bureaucrats in centralized agencies with too much power. They were fearful of bureaucracy as much as they were fearful of powerful economic interests.

Thus, the ICC’s power was carefully limited. In the same spirit, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, which was intended to break up powerful economic combinations called “trusts,” did not create a federal bureaucracy.

From 1887–1900, the federal government tried to regulate the new industrial economy without enacting full-scale bureaucracies, but the precedent of the ICC would be used by a new group of reformers, called the Progressives, to create the first batch of federal programs and agencies that would become the administrative state.

The Progressives were led by reformers such as Theodore Roosevelt; Woodrow Wilson; Herbert Croly, co-founder of The New Republic and author of The Promise of American Life ; and Frank Goodnow, a prominent professor of public administration who taught at Columbia University and was later president of Johns Hopkins University.

Like the Grangers, these Progressives aimed to expand national power, but their ends were very different from those of the Grangers. Many of them were educated in 19th century German philosophy, particularly Hegelian idealism. (Government evolves, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) The Progressives were heavily influenced by this new philosophy of government and sought to implement that new philosophy in America.

In a nutshell, these American Progressives applied the political philosophy of Hegelian idealism to mean the following:

• Individuals do not possess natural rights; rights and liberty are granted by government.
• The purpose of rights is not to promote the pursuit of individual happiness, but to allow individuals to dedicate themselves to the collective good of the whole society.
• For government to assist in achieving this dedication to the collective good, it had to be centralized at the national level, expanded dramatically, and involved in regulating most (if not all) of the economic and social decisions made by citizens.
• In order to administer this dramatically expanded government, federalism, limited government, and the separation of powers had to be scrapped in favor of rule by enlightened, intelligent experts located in administrative agencies.

These Progressive reformers seized upon the public’s desire for regulation and enacted laws creating new bureaucracies and strengthening the ICC.

In 1906, Theodore Roosevelt used his“bully pulpit” to force Congress to pass the Hepburn Act, which dramatically expanded the ICC’s power to set railroad rates and regulate the railroads.

After Woodrow Wilson’s important victory in the 1912 presidential election, the wave of Progressive reform became a tsunami.

The Federal Reserve Act, creating the Federal Reserve System, was passed late in 1913, and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed in 1914, strengthening the antitrust powers held by the Federal Trade Commission, which had been created that same year.

The FTC was empowered to eliminate “unfair competition,” an open-ended phrase defined, of course, by the FTC commissioners. These commissioners, furthermore, would be appointed by the President upon confirmation by the Senate, but they could not be removed by him except in extreme cases of wrongdoing or incompetence. The same was true of the commissioners of the ICC.

Other major bureaucracies were created during the Progressive Era as well. In addition to the ICC, the FTC, and the Federal Reserve, the Food and Drug Administration was created in 1906 by the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Federal Radio Commission (precursor to the Federal Communications Commission) and Federal Power Commission were created in 1927 and 1930, respectively.

The first wave of the creation of the administrative state established new and unprecedented principles about how government should work. These agencies had broad delegations of authority that gave them the power to make law, not simply execute it.

The Federal Communications Act of 1934, for example, created the Federal Communications Commission and directed it to grant broadcast licenses to applicants “if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby.”  

Additionally, the heads of these agencies would not be accountable to the President, which meant that they existed as a “fourth branch” of government, not directly accountable to any of the three constitutional branches.

This new administrative state was expanded in two later periods in American history: the New Deal of the 1930s and the regulatory explosion of the 1960s and 1970s.

In the New Deal, the administrative state created by the Progressives was expanded massively. Huge new agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission were created during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency.

The Great Society went even further, establishing agencies with broad authority to regulate the environment (the Environmental Protection Agency); consumer products (the Consumer Product Safety Commission); highway safety (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration); and workplace safety (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration).

In addition, although the Great Society is associated with Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon also contributed significantly to the expansion of government and bureaucracy during his tenure in office (1969–1974).

President Nixon instituted wage and price controls in 1971 and 1973, showing that he was no believer in limited government or economic freedom. He also supported the Clean Air Act and created the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. With the creation of EPA and OSHA under his watch, Nixon ranks as one of the greatest expanders of bureaucracy in American history.

So, what can be done? Three simple solutions.

1. Provide a period of time before agency rules become effective, during which time Congress can strike them down, or
2. Do not allow agency rules to become effective unless Congress affirmatively approves them.
3. Hold Congress accountable to do their jobs. If they don’t, vote them out.

Boris Johnson resigns: Five things that led to the PM’s downfall

By Owen Amos
BBC News

Less than three years ago, Boris Johnson led the Conservatives to their biggest election victory since 1987.

Now, the prime minister has lost the support of his MPs and is set to resign. How did it come to this?

The Chris Pincher affair

On Wednesday 29 June, the MP Chris Pincher – at the time, the Conservative deputy chief whip – went to a private members’ club in London. In his words, he “drank far too much” and “embarrassed himself”.

He was accused of groping two men, which led to a flurry of allegations, some dating back years. It set off a chain of events that ended with the prime minister’s downfall.

First, Downing Street said Mr. Johnson was not aware of “specific allegations” about Mr. Pincher before appointing him as deputy chief whip in February. Ministers later reiterated this line – even though it turned out to be inaccurate.

On 4 July, the BBC reported Mr Johnson had been aware of a formal complaint. The next day, a former civil servant – Lord McDonald – said the prime minister had been told of the complaint in person.

Mr Johnson then admitted he had been told in 2019 and apologized for appointing Mr Pincher as deputy chief whip.

Partygate

In April this year, the prime minister was fined for breaking lockdown rules, after attending a gathering on his birthday in June 2020.

He also apologized for going to a “bring your own booze” party in the Downing Street garden during the first lockdown.

More widely, the Metropolitan Police issued 126 fines to 83 people for breaking lockdown rules in Downing Street and Whitehall.

And a report by Sue Gray – a senior civil servant – described a series of social events by political staff that broke lockdown rules.

“The senior leadership at the centre, both political and official, must bear responsibility for this culture,” she wrote.

Last December, Mr Johnson told the Commons that “all guidance was followed completely in No 10”. He is now being investigated by a Commons committee over whether he knowingly misled Parliament.

The cost of living crisis – and a tax rise

Inflation has risen sharply in 2022, to the current rate of 9.1%.

Many of the reasons were outside Boris Johnson’s control. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, has led to rises in oil prices and the cost of food.

And, while the government has taken some steps – for example, by cutting fuel taxes by 5 pence per litre – it also went ahead with a tax increase in April. National Insurance went up by 1.25 pence per pound. Note British Pound is 100 pence.

The government said the tax increase would pay for health and social care, and changes that kicked in this week softened the blow – but anyone earning more than £34,000 ($39,000 US) a year will still pay more.

“In the middle of the worst cost of living crisis for decades,” said Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in April, “the government chooses to increase taxes on working people”.

Owen Paterson Affair

In October 2021, a House of Commons committee recommended a 30-day suspension for then-Conservative MP Owen Paterson.

The committee said he broke lobbying rules, to try to benefit companies who paid him.

But the Conservatives – led by the prime minister – voted to pause his suspension, and set up a new committee to look at how investigations were carried out.

After an outcry, Mr. Paterson ended up resigning. Mr. Johnson later admitted he had “crashed the car” in his handling of the case.

So, what happens now?

Boris Johnson has resigned as Conservative leader and will step down as prime minister when a new leader is found. But how does that happen?

How long will Boris Johnson stay in power?

In the past, prime ministers choosing to step down have usually stayed in office until a successor is found. That means he would stay in office until the Conservatives choose a new leader, as his predecessors Theresa May and David Cameron did when they resigned.

It’s been suggested that process could last until October, although it could be much shorter – the replacement of Theresa May as leader took two months.

In his resignation statement Mr. Johnson said: “I’ve agreed with Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of our backbench MPs, that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now and the timetable will be announced next week.”

Could he go any sooner?

Some Conservative MPs have suggested the timetable for the leadership election could be shortened and completed in a few weeks.

Former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major said it would be “unwise” for Mr. Johnson to stay in office for three months. He said one option was that Mr. Johnson could resign as prime minister immediately and his deputy Dominic Raab could take over temporarily.

But that appears unlikely now that Johnson has appointed a new cabinet.

Sir John also suggested there could be a significant change to the leadership election process.

And to add to the mix, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says he intends to bring a parliamentary vote of no confidence.

Under a motion of no confidence, all MPs – not just Conservatives – would get to vote. One more MP voting in favor than against would be required for it to pass.

Such an outcome, however, would rely on Conservative MPs voting against their own government – which would be unlikely.

How do the Conservatives elect a new leader?

Once a Conservative leader stands down, an election for a new party leader is triggered. Under the current rules, candidates need the support of eight Conservative MPs to enter the race.

Once all the candidates have declared – if there are more than two candidates – Tory MPs will hold a series of votes until only two remain.

• in the first round, candidates must get 5% of the votes to stay in the running (currently 18 MPs)
• in the second round, they must get 10% (currently 36 MPs)
• in the following rounds, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated

When two MPs are left, all Conservative Party members around the country – so not just MPs – will vote for the winner. Of course, there’s still time to change that process.

Whoever wins the contest to lead the Conservatives will become the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs in Parliament.

The Queen will therefore ask them to form a government.

Will there be a general election?

Probably not.

When a prime minister resigns, there is not automatically a general election.

The latest an election can be held is January 2025, but the new prime minister could choose to call an election before then.

In the days following the prime minister’s announcement that he has resigned as leader of the Conservative Party a number of MPs have announced their bids to replace him.

So, Who could replace Johnson?

Ex-Chancellor Rishi Sunak, Attorney General Suella Braverman, former Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch and Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Tugendhat have all said they’ll run.

Also in the race are two former health secretaries – Sajid Javid and Jeremy Hunt, as well as Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.

Other possible contenders include International Trade Minister Penny Mordaunt and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.

What powers does Boris Johnson still have?

Until he goes to the Queen and formally resigns as prime minister, Mr Johnson still has the same powers, in theory.

In reality, he now lacks the authority to introduce any radical new policies and has promised his cabinet he will not make any “major changes of direction”.

He will still represent the UK abroad and can continue to make public appointments or changes to his team of ministers.

One of his final acts in office is likely to be awarding knighthoods and appointments to the House of Lords.

Now all this sounds very confusing, so I thought it would help if we broke down how the British Government actually works.

In our current situation here in the US, many people have suggested that maybe our British friends across the pond have a better system for dealing with a government out of control. So here goes.

How British government works

In the UK, the Prime Minister leads the government with the support of the Cabinet and ministers.

Who runs government?

The Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is the leader of Her Majesty’s Government and is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions.

The Prime Minister also:

• oversees the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies
• appoints members of the government
• is the principal government figure in the House of Commons

The Cabinet

The Cabinet is made up of the senior members of government. Every week during Parliament, members of the Cabinet (Secretaries of State from all departments and some other ministers) meet to discuss the most important issues for the government.

1 Prime Minister

21 Cabinet Ministers (Transportation, Sect. of State, Education, Health & Social Services, etc.)

98 other ministers (Assistant Secretaries of the various agencies and Department heads)

120 Total Ministers

Ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister from the members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. They are responsible for the actions, successes, and failures of their departments.

How government is run

Departments and their agencies are responsible for putting government policy into practice.

Government departments

Some departments, like the Ministry of Defense, cover the whole UK. Others don’t – the Department for Work and Pensions doesn’t cover Northern Ireland. This is because some aspects of government are delegated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Non-ministerial departments are headed by senior civil servants and not ministers. They usually have a regulatory or inspection function like the Charity Commission.

Executive agencies

These are part of government departments and usually provide government services rather than decide policy – which is done by the department that oversees the agency.

An example is the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (overseen by the Department for Transport).

300+ Agencies other public bodies

Legislation

Laws go through several stages before they are passed by Parliament. The House of Commons and the House of Lords work together to make them.

Bills are proposals for new laws or changes to existing ones. Once agreed by Parliament, they have to be approved by The Queen before becoming law.

Acts of Parliament

These are bills which have been approved by the Commons, the Lords, and The Queen. The relevant government department is responsible for putting the act into practice.

General elections

A general election is an opportunity for people in every part of the UK to choose their MP. This person will represent a local area (constituency) in the House of Commons for up to five years.

There is a choice of several candidates in each constituency. Some will be the local candidates for national political parties. The candidate that receives most votes becomes their MP.

When is the next general election?

The date of the next general election has not yet been announced. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 revived the power of the monarch to dissolve Parliament, at the request of the Prime Minister of the day.

Who decides when to call a general election?

The government of the day can decide when to call a general election.

When is the latest that the next general election could be held?

The maximum term of a Parliament is five years from the day on which it first met. The current Parliament first met on Tuesday 17 December 2019 and will automatically dissolve on Tuesday 17 December 2024, unless it has been dissolved sooner by the Queen.

Polling Day would be expected to take place 25 days later.

Can I vote for a new Prime Minister?

Now folks, this is a key difference that you see between our government and that of The United Kingdom.

You can only vote to elect your local MP in a general election. You cannot vote for a new Prime Minister. If you live in the constituency represented by the current Prime Minister you are still only voting for them as your local MP in the next Parliament. This is the same if you live in the constituency of the leader of another political party. You will only be voting for them as your local MP.

So you as a citizen of the United Kingdom, do not get to elect the person that runs your government. Parliament does. Big difference!

So, who actually chooses the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch based on the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons at a general election.

Its leader becomes Prime Minister if the Queen approves.

The Prime Minister, with the Queen’s approval, then forms a new government, and appoints ministers who work in the government departments. The most senior of these attend Cabinet meetings.

So, there you have it folks. In our country we elect a president for 4 years and are pretty much stuck with that choice unless we impeach them. In the United Kingdom, all it takes is a vote of no confidence by Parliament and the Prime Minister is ousted and a new government is formed.

What do you think? Is this a better system than ours?

June 30, 2022, 10:45 AM CDT

By Jessica Levinson, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

If it weren’t for a certain case about reproductive choice, we’d likely consider the biggest Supreme Court case of the term the one that was decided last Thursday: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.

The court ruled 6-3 with fossil fuel companies and conservative states and against the EPA’s power to impose greenhouse gas emissions caps, concluding that Congress failed to give the EPA the power to implement these sweeping environmental controls.

This essentially guarantees a significant roadblock to the Biden administration’s plans to fight climate change and shift from coal-burning power to cleaner energy sources.

Ultimately, the case has huge implications not just for the power of the EPA to try to curtail climate change, but also for how and whether federal government agencies can issue rules and regulations in the first place.

The specific issue in the case is whether, under a portion of the 1970 Clean Air Act, Congress had the constitutional power to allow the EPA to issue “significant rules.” These are rules that are “capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy—without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts, and energy requirements.” This particular case involves rules that allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

The case brings up a major legal issue called, fittingly, “the major questions doctrine.” The doctrine dictates that a federal agency must have clear statutory authority before it decides an issue of major national significance.

In plain English, that means before a federal agency makes a huge decision, it better be sure Congress gave it the authority to do so. The specific question here is whether then-President Barack Obama tried to create a rule — the Clean Power Plan — that went beyond the admittedly broad authority Congress granted to the EPA under the Clean Air Act.

This type of action is often called, The Administrative State.

The Administrative State Is Under Assault And That’s A Good Thing

Forbes,  by Chuck DeVore

Texas Public Policy Foundation VP and former California legislator

Although the “administrative state” has been in the news of late. Few Americans can define it.

The administrative state describes a form of government that uses an extensive professional class to provide oversight over government, the economy and society. It stands in stark contrast to a representative democracy with limited powers and reach.

The quintessential example of the administrative state are the 220,000 federal regulators working with a regulatory budget of about $63 billion who write and enforce 185,000 pages of rules that cost the economy in the neighborhood of $1.9 trillion annually. For perspective, $1.9 trillion is about what the federal government raises each year from individual and corporate income taxes.

Alexis de Tocqueville (French political scientist) only spent nine months in America in 1831, but that trip gave this keen observer of political systems and people enough to pen “Democracy in America.”

Understanding American character, he warned of a future where excessive government regulation “…compresses, enervates (weakens), extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

It took another 80 years before America started to accelerate towards the administrative state with its, as Tocqueville described, “network of small complicated rules” bringing about what he would call soft tyranny.

President Woodrow Wilson played big role in establishing and growing the administrative state as well as criticizing the Constitution as a roadblock to his vision of robust government.

Commenting on representative democracy, Wilson said, “The problem is to make public opinion efficient without suffering it to be meddlesome.” Investing unelected bureaucrats with great power, then insulating from representatives accountable to voters, goes a long way towards efficiently interpreting public opinion while in reality largely ignoring it.

In the Federalist Papers No. 51, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution and our fourth president, wrote that the human tendency to accumulate power required a government with checks and balances “…to control the abuses of government.” Madison sagely observed, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Wilson scoffed at the idea of checks and balance, writing, “No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.” Wilson elaborated, “The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of ‘checks and balances.’ The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life.”

By Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, the Federal Register, a compendium of federal rules, was created and the administrative state was off to the races.

Since 1960, the federal rule book proscribing American activities large and small has grown from 22,000 pages to 185,000 pages—ObamaCare regulations alone consume about 10,000 pages of that total. As the United States was created, there were some half-dozen federal laws such as treason and counterfeiting that could send you to prison. Now, violate any one of the estimated 300,000 rules—even if you’re completely unaware of the rule—and you may be sent to the federal slammer in what is referred to as “overcriminalization.”

Over the past 57 years, the ranks of the regulatory bureaucracy, many of them lawyers and other highly trained workers, swelled from 57,000 to more than 185,000.

Every dollar spent at the direction of the federal government is a dollar not spent by Americans exercising their own priorities. Federal spending dictated 17.2 percent of the economy in 1960. In the last full year of the Obama administration, it grew to command 20.9 percent of the economy.

The federal tax code runs to 2,600 pages requiring 70,000 pages to explain. Its complexity and rates largely shape economic activity. Although tax rates jumped in 2013, they were lower than they were in 1960, thanks to major tax cuts from the Kennedy and Reagan years.

For the past 57 years there have only been four periods where the growth of federal power has been reversed: President Kennedy’s tax cuts in 1963; in the early 1980s with President Reagan’s tax and regulatory reforms; the 12 years of spending restraint following the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994; and in the last administration with President Trump’s battle against the federal “swamp”.

The Federalist

How Our Administrative State Undermines The Constitution

BY: WILLIAM TURTON

FEBRUARY 08, 2019

When Justice Clarence Thomas served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Reagan administration, he brought two political theorists, John Marini and Ken Masugi, onto his staff.

As close advisors to Thomas, they spent much time discussing the political principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and their application to contemporary American politics.

These principles of natural rights, the separation of powers, and constitutionally limited government have served as the cornerstone of Thomas’s judicial philosophy throughout his nearly three decades on the Supreme Court.

Marini’s new book, which is edited by Masugi, is Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century. 

The collection of essays provides a critical analysis of how the administrative state has undermined America’s constitutional order and threatens to replace self-government with the rule of unaccountable experts.

In the chapters of this book, he argues that the administrative state—the centralized institutions of the federal bureaucracy—has produced a regime change in America.

It has overthrown the Constitution and seeks to replace it with the unlimited authority of a bureaucracy ruled by an intellectual elite. In practice, the administrative state, not Congress, now exercises the power of making the laws under which we live.

This is the foundation upon which the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA last week.

Rejecting the Founders

Marini writes that “constitutionalism as a theoretical doctrine is no longer meaningful in our politics…. When the principles that establish the legitimacy of the constitution are understood to be changeable, are forgotten, or are denied, the constitution can no longer impose limits on the power of government.”

As a number of scholars have pointed out, the Progressives of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century rejected the concept of natural rights and the idea that government is a creation of a social compact among the people.

In the view of the Founders, the people establish government for the purpose of protecting their natural rights, and the structure of the Constitution, by separating power between the branches, seeks to preserve this liberty from arbitrary rule.

As president, Franklin Roosevelt successfully realized the vision of the earlier Progressives by establishing a new understanding of rights as the gift of government that would require government to take on a new role as the organizing force of society.

He proclaimed a new understanding of the social contract in which “rulers were accorded power, and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights.”

As Marini notes, “It was in the cause of this new understanding of freedom that America’s constitutional form of limited government was gradually replaced—beginning with the New Deal and culminating in the late 1960s and 1970s—by an administrative or welfare state.”

Roosevelt’s presidency inaugurated the founding of the modern administrative state, which would subsequently secure its central position as the cornerstone of a new regime of American government with the advent of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.

Article I of the Constitution declares, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The people, in establishing the Constitution, delegated the power to make laws to Congress alone.

The non-delegation doctrine, which holds that the legislature cannot delegate its legislative powers to any other hands, is a logical conclusion of the Founders’ understanding of government by consent of the governed. The people delegated legislative authority specifically to Congress. It cannot turn around and pass that authority to any other set of hands.

As the political philosopher John Locke wrote in 1690, the legislature holds authority “only to make laws, and not to make legislators.” The administrative state has no constitutional authority.

At most, all administrative agencies would fall within the purview of the executive branch and be answerable to the president in his constitutional role of enforcing the nation’s laws. How, then, did this vast bureaucracy come to wield such sweeping powers to make the rules that govern us?

Over the course of the past century, Congress abandoned its legislative function and delegated its legislative powers to the unelected bureaucracy.

 It still passed resolutions that were officially called laws, but have generally taken the form of sweeping grants of authority empowering agencies to craft rules and fill in the details of unfinished legislation.

The Affordable Care Act is an excellent example of this. On its face, the ACA appeared to be a law Congress passed to regulate health care and insurance. However, Marini observes, the ACA “is not a law in the constitutional sense. It makes sense only within the context of an administrative state.”

By leaving the law unfinished and incorporating broad delegations of power within the statute, Congress “established the legal requirements necessary to provide the administrative apparatus with the legal authority to formulate the rules that would govern health care nationwide.”

Instead of fulfilling its traditional lawmaking function, Congress delegated the authority to make rules and regulations to the agencies, who will rule by virtue of their supposed neutrality and technical expertise.

The unconstitutional delegation of the legislative power to the administrative state shifts the key decisions on policy from the halls of Congress to the conference rooms of the bureaucracy. Accordingly, the administrative state has taken on an increasingly central role in our politics.

In just the past few years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sought to force religious organizations to provide birth control—despite their deeply held moral objections to some or all of the birth control methods—to their employees or face steep fines.

The Environmental Protection Agency attempted to extend its regulatory jurisdiction over private land by reinterpreting the Clean Water Act to cover ponds and wet meadows and over energy production through it’s cap and trade rules.

The federal government has even been forbidden to ask about citizenship in the 2020 Census because career bureaucrats opposed the decision by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.

The administrative state is not simply unconstitutional; it is anti-constitutional. In its structure and operation, it represents a system of government that cannot be reconciled with constitutional government.

In effect, the modern administrative state destroys the separation of powers by uniting all the powers of government in its hands.

Thanks to congressional delegation of legislative power and the judiciary’s acquiescence in the growth of the administrative state, agencies craft rules and regulations in what amounts to an alternative legislative process. They enforce these rules as they see fit, and the judiciary defers to the agency’s interpretation of its own rules in adjudication…….until last Thursday’s decision.

The administrative state, for all intents and purposes, has become the central institution of national authority. Furthermore, government by administration has played a major role in undermining the conditions of self-government.

According to Marini, “In attempting to provide administrative solutions to social, economic, and political problems, it [the administrative state] undercut or destroyed those institutions within civil society that had established the foundations of self-government, including the family and the church.”

The struggle between the defenders of the administrative state and those who challenge its claim to rule forms the central battleground of political conflict in America today. The administrative state institutionalized its authority in the mid-1960s, but it has today produced a backlash from citizens and political leaders who deny its legitimacy.

William Turton is a graduate student at the Van Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. He is pursuing a master’s degree in American politics and political philosophy, and his interests include the American founding, Congress, and the separation of powers.

A US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel who posted a video demanding accountability from military leaders over the evacuation of Afghanistan has been relieved of his duties and will leave US service, the marines and the officer involved said on Friday.

Lt. Colonel Stuart Scheller posted his video to Facebook and LinkedIn on Thursday, the day 13 US service members, 11 of them Marines, and reportedly as many as 170 Afghans, were killed in a suicide bomb attack at the airport in Kabul.

“I have been fighting for 17 years,” said Scheller, then commander of the advanced infantry training battalion. “I am willing to throw it all away to say to my senior leaders: ‘I demand accountability.’”

Scheller said he was “willing to risk my current battalion commander’s seat, my retirement, my family stability to say some of the things that I want to say”. Doing so, he said, would give him “some moral high ground to demand the same honesty, integrity, accountability for my senior leaders”.

Scheller criticized the commandant of the Marine Corps, David Berger, for a note sent to marines about how they might feel about the near-20-year US presence in Afghanistan.

“I’ve killed people and I seek counselling and that’s fine,” Scheller said. “There’s a time in place for that. But the reason people are so upset … is not because the marines on the battlefield let someone down … people are upset because their senior leaders let them down. And none of them are raising their hands and accepting accountability or saying, ‘We messed this up.’

“We have a secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, a former army general, that testified to Congress in May that the Afghan national security force could withstand the Taliban advance. We have [the] joint chiefs [of Staff], the commandant is a member of that, who’re supposed to advise on military policy. We have a marine combatant commander. All of these people are supposed to advise.”

Scheller said he was “not saying we’ve got to be in Afghanistan for ever, but I am saying: ‘Did any of you throw your rank on the table and say, hey, it’s a bad idea to evacuate Bagram airfield, a strategic airbase, before we evacuate everyone?’ Did anyone do that?

“And when you didn’t think to do that, did anyone raise their hand and say, ‘We completely messed this up’?

“I’ve got battalion commander friends right now that are posting similar things, and … wondering if all the lives were lost, if it was in vain … Potentially all those people did die in vain. If we don’t have senior leaders that own up and raise their hand and say, ‘We did not do this well in the end,’ without that we just keep repeating the same mistakes.

“This amalgamation of the economic-slash-corporate-slash-political-slash-higher military ranks are not holding up their end of the bargain.”

The video went viral. Less than a day later, on Friday afternoon, Scheller said on Facebook he had been “relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence as of 14.30 [2.30pm] today”.

He would not comment further until he had left the Marine Corps, he said, adding: “My chain of command is doing exactly what I would do … if I were in their shoes.”

Now folks, this is the scariest thing I have seen since our current administration came to power.

Why? Not because they fired this soldier. The real story is what the soldier was saying. He was willing to give up everything to let us know that our military has lost confidence in its leadership.

He knew the consequences, but had the guts to tell us all, that things must change, or they will be changed for us.

So, why am I scared?

The answer is simple, history.

All we have to do is look at the past and we can see what happens when a nation’s military loses confidence in the government and is used to bring about change.

Let’s start with Russia.

Vladimir Illyich Ullanov, who we know as Lenin, wanted to overthrow the Russian Czar Nicholas and started spreading the word. For this he was arrested in 1895, exiled to Siberia in 1897 and expelled from the country in 1900.

He returned to Russia in 1905 and stayed until 1907 when he was again threatened with arrest and fled the country.

While in exile, Lenin still participated in the politics and publications of the Russian social democratic party (that’s right folks, I said Social Democrats).

Lenin’s biggest problem with true Marxian socialism was that it called for a long slow progression to a truly socialist society.

Lenin wanted rapid change and advocated any means of bringing this change about even if it meant resorting to terrorism.

In early 1917 there were no more than 25,000 to 30,000 Bolsheviks in Russia.

Fairly early in the revolution, Lenin preached that it should become a civil war among the classes and that this civil war should spread to all countries of the world.

Lenin was smuggled back into the country by the Germans during WWI to launch his revolution.

He immediately denounced the provisional government and promised the people the 2 things they wanted LAND & PEACE.

Lenin’s timing was perfect. People were starving to death and the war had cost the lives of over 6 million Russian soldiers.

Lenin’s battle cry was “all power to the soviets!” (Local councils)

With the full backing of the Russian military who wanted out of the war,  Lenin’s November 1917  revolution was accomplished easily.

Lenin’s men captured the Petrograd (St. Petersburg) communication, transportation, and utility installations.

Kerensky, (Leader of the Provisional Government) simply didn’t have enough support to put up any resistance.

Moscow put up nearly no resistance at all.

Lenin quickly learned that the international revolution he foresaw was not going to happen.

With the Russian army virtually extinct since they had all joined the revolution, Russia was at the mercy of the Germans.

In early December Lenin began negotiations with the Germans at the polish town of Brest -Litovsk

Lenin knew it was folly to think that Russia could stop a German invasion at this point and went ahead with the signing of the treaty on March 3, 1918, ending Russia’s participation in WWI.

Russia was forced to give up territory which held 26% of the population, 27 % of the cultivated soil, and 75% of their iron and steel production.

This settlement was a devastating blow to the people of Russia but they were powerless to resist.

Having seized power rather than being elected to it, the Bolsheviks did not have the full support of the people.

Once in power, the Bolshevik assembly called for elections. Lenin said elections weren’t needed but the assembly insisted.

Lenin finally gave in and in the elections his party got only a quarter of the vote.

Lenon now simply called upon the military, who were loyal to him for getting them out of the war, and they ousted the assembly.

Lenin now purged the country of all opposing parties and suppressed all press.

The Russian people weren’t about to take this lying down and a civil war now broke out between the reds (military loyal to Lenin) and the whites who were a smorgasbord of groups opposed to Lenin.

Lenin now moved the capital of Russia from Petrograd to Moscow. (more protected)

The red army now systematically wiped out the whites.

As a result, Russia was even more ruined and then to make matters worse, a famine set in in 1921.

That same year, the soldiers and sailors of Kronstadt, the island base in the Gulf of Finland, revolted. They wanted the people freed from Lenin’s control and supported by the local soviets, the people revolted.

Lenin now sent in the military who gunned down the protestors.

The revolution that had promised land and peace now brought civil war, famine, and a return to serfdom.

How did Lenin do it? Using Russia’s own, well equipped, WWI, battle hardened military.

Still not convinced that a military who has lost faith in their leadership is a frightening thing?

Here is one more example from history.

In 1916, 18 socialists were expelled from the Reichstag (German Parliament) for voting against the war.

This small group of German socialists openly opposed the war. They were call spartacists.

In September 1918, the Germans were on their last legs in WWI and were now ready to negotiate a peace settlement.

The morale of the people now fell apart. they couldn’t believe they had lost the war!

Everything they heard up until now said they were winning.

Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to abdicate in disgrace and the socialists (yes you hear me right again, SOCIALISTS) now proclaimed a republic.

The German people had just suffered a terrible defeat and were starving but unlike the Russians, they did not want to add to their problems by launching a socialist revolution.

The socialists did make an attempt at a coup in January 1919, but it was quickly put down by the government,

Two leaders of the Spartacists, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were arrested, released and then murdered by Berlin soldiers in what amounted to a lynching.

In Germany the people looked upon the socialist/communists as being the people to blame for betraying the nation at a time when it was hurting.

As a result, the returning WWI troops saw the socialists as stabbing the country in the back after they had just fought so hard to defend it.

Once the army came home it regrouped and formed the “free corps” which then terrorized the socialists.

With the support of a disgruntled military, a new form of government now emerged. Fascism.

Fascists hated socialists, intellectuals, Jews, and the old aristocracy.

Their sole aim was to restore order at any cost.

In November 1923, a time of political and economic chaos, Hitler led an uprising (Putsch) in Munich against the postwar Weimar Republic, proclaiming himself chancellor of a new authoritarian regime.

Unfortunately for Hitler, he did not yet have the military support he needed, and the revolt collapsed.

As leader of the plot, Hitler was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and spent the eight months he actually served dictating his autobiography Mein Kampf (My Struggle).

Following the war, Germany was forced to pay reparations. They spent all their money on the war, so they were broke. What did they do? They printed money. Sound familiar? As a result, inflation now ran rampant in Germany.

10,000 marks worth $2,500 in 1922 by the end of 1923 were worth one millionth of a penny!

Life savings were completely wiped out

A 100 billion mark note which would have bought the whole Rhineland the year before now was barely enough for a loaf of bread.

This is the environment into which Hitler now began his rise to power.

Needless to say, the German people were not happy with their government

In 1925, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg was elected as president where he would remain in power for the next 9 years

He ran for the presidency again in 1932 as the only one who could defeat the National Socialist (Nazi) party candidate Adolf Hitler.

The new party grew slowly, and principally in Bavaria. Convinced of the necessity of violence to achieve its ends, the party soon organized the Sturmabteilungen (Storm Troops), or SA, to defend its meetings; to disrupt the meetings of liberal democrats, socialists, Communists, and trade unionists; and to persecute Jews, especially Jewish merchants.

In 1921 Hitler was elected “unlimited chairman” of the party.

He now called on the disgruntled German Army veterans to help him take control. WWI Flying Ace Herman Goering, General Erich Ludendorff, and Captain Ernst Rohm are just a few of veterans who joined Hitler’s cause.

There are many other examples of this scenario throughout history. Napolean used the French Military to overthrow the government of France and take control. Francisco Franco, a General in the Spanish Army, used the military to take control of Spain. The list goes on and on.

So, let’s get back to our original point of this history lesson. If the military loses faith in the government, what could be the consequences? Even our forefathers saw this threat. The very first act of Congress following the American Revolution was to disband the Continental Army.

23 of the 40 men who signed the Constitution had served in uniform during the Revolutionary War.

While the war had helped focus the attention of all the delegates on areas of mutual concern, the separate, shared experiences of those who had served under arms undoubtedly acted as a catalyst in moving the majority toward final compromise and action on national problems.

These 23 signers had volunteered to fight for independence, had sacrificed and suffered to win the war, and then, with their fellow Patriots, had shed their uniforms to resume civilian careers.

Many of them would go on to lead the new government established under the Constitution.

The founders had a total fear of standing armies. Bear in mind, that had just fough a revolution against their own army, led by the King.

This fear led them to provide Congress with specific power to determine the size and composition of the armed services, make rules to govern those forces, mobilize and oversee the federal use of the militia, control the size and distribution of the military’s budget, and, most importantly, declare war.

These congressional powers and the designation of the president as commander in chief of the armed forces were designed to ensure civilian control of the military with ultimate direction, oversight, and decision-making authority over the military in the hands of properly elected and appointed civilian officials.

Now folks, let’s get this straight. I am not saying we should fear our military. They are heroes and are the reason we have our freedom today.

And no, I am not saying they will lead us to a life under a Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, or Franco.

What I am saying is that history shows us that if they lose faith in their leadership, they can, and do have, the power to overthrow the government of the United States.

What they want, is for us to do our jobs and call out a corrupt government that is incapable of leading them. The ball is in our court and using the tools our founding fathers gave us, the military is counting on we the people to take action to fix the problem.

If we don’t, history has shown what can happen.

Brandeis Now, Brandeis University

By Jarret Bencks May 4, 2020

When the United States suffered a great wave of smallpox outbreaks at the turn of the 20th century, the public health field was in its infancy.  

Compulsory vaccinations were haphazard and often discriminatory. Many people did not trust the vaccines or the local governments doing the vaccinating.

Does any of this sound familiar folks?

At the time, the federal government passing nationwide vaccination measures would have been unthinkable.

The events of this time, known as the Progressive Era, paved the way for laws and regulations still in force today. 

Michael Willrich, Professor of History, wrote about this period in American history in his award-winning book, “Pox: An American History.”

In the article, Willrich took some time to discuss the smallpox outbreaks and their relevance to today’s COVID-19 pandemic.

Question #1

What are some of the laws and rules established during the smallpox outbreaks of the early 20th century that still apply today?

Willrich stated: In the wake of the smallpox epidemics of the late 19th and early 20th century and the controversies they generated, Congress enacted what was called the Biologics Control Act, which lay the foundation for the vaccine safety regulations that are still in effect today.

It established a new system of federal licensing and regulation of vaccine production, ultimately leading to safer production and more effective vaccines, and it paved the way for greater regulation later in the century. 

Question #2

What role did the U.S. Supreme Court play?

Willrich answered: In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination measures in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts.

In upholding the legitimacy of compulsory vaccination, the Supreme Court compared the right to enact public health measures during an epidemic to the right of a government, any government, to defend its people from a military invasion.

And they compared the right to compel individuals to be vaccinated, whether they wanted to or not, to the power to conscript the people in order to raise an army. These are very strong statements of public health authority. 

However, the Court emphasized that these measures must not be arbitrary and unreasonable, that they must address legitimate public health concerns, and that in some extreme cases public health regulations might be “so arbitrary and oppressive” as to justify judicial review.

That is an important standard, and Jacobson remains the major case today in public health law, more than a century later.  

Question#3

Why was there resistance to compulsory vaccination during these outbreaks?

Willrich responded: The smallpox vaccine had been around for more than a century by this time, but vaccines were mostly produced by unregulated commercial enterprises.

The governments were compelling people to get vaccinated, but those same governments were not regulating vaccine production to ensure that vaccines were safe and effective. Again folks, does any of this sound vaguely familiar? 

In the U.S., the vaccines on the market in the early 20th century were mixed in terms of quality and safety.

Some of them were connected to tetanus outbreaks, such as in 1901 in Camden, New Jersey, when nine school children died of tetanus following a compulsory vaccination order. So, there were concerns about vaccine hazards that were not negligible.

Also at this time, there was no workman’s compensation. Ordinary working people could expect to be sick for a few days, to have sore arms, to be unable to go to work for a couple of days after vaccination, and this was considered a violation of their right to support their families.  

Then there were groups of people with reasons to harbor opposition. African Americans were suspicious of white health officials.

Christian scientists and other faith groups that believed in either natural healing or community or individual control over health decisions had strong opposition to the mandates.

Question #4

How were public health measures determined and carried out?

Willrich: Public health measures then were almost entirely the province of state and local governments. The vaccine orders were being carried out by local boards of health or state law, under what was known as the police powers — a reservoir of powers going back to the Anglo-American common law that gave governments the authority to interfere with individual liberty or property rights in the name of the general welfare and the public well-being.

Question #5

How was compulsory vaccination carried out in discriminatory ways?

This one really scares me.

Willrich: Ultimately, compulsory vaccination was carried out in many communities in a way that was discriminatory against African Americans and immigrant groups. There were examples of compulsory vaccination being carried out with force in immigrant tenement districts in cities like Chicago, New York and Boston.

Local governments created “virus squads,” teams of police and vaccinators that cordoned off city blocks, entered neighborhoods in the middle of the night, and went door to door, checking people to see if they had vaccination scars proving they had recently been vaccinated. Police tore infected children from their mothers’ arms and took them to isolation hospitals called “pesthouses.”

Question #6

What was the role of the federal government during these epidemics?

Willrich: It was very different from today, where people are looking to the White House for leadership. Even in the era of Teddy Roosevelt, who was the president during these smallpox epidemics, very few people looked to the president for leadership on how to fight a disease.

This was before the extraordinary growth of the federal government in the 20th century. At the time, it would have been foreign to the way of American thinking about politics and government to have the federal government passing nationwide vaccination measures.

So let’s move on to the second big question.

Can the government legally force you to wear a mask?

By: Al Tompkins in Poynter.org

June 22, 2020

Well unfortunately, according to the article, the answer is “yes.” In a pandemic, governments have the authority to do a lot of things that would otherwise be questionable.

Think of it like this: The government has the right to ban smoking in public places because your smoking can affect my health. And some places have signs that say, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” Just add “no mask” to the sign.

However, there are exceptions. If you cannot wear a mask for health reasons or if you are in a “protected class,” then you might get a mask pass. Syracuse.com turned to a prosecutor for advice:

“All businesses have the right to refuse service so long as it is not violating one of those protected classes,” said Robert Mascari, chief assistant district attorney in Madison County. “You can’t refuse to serve me because I’m half Italian and half Irish. You can refuse to serve me if I’m being an idiot.”

He goes on to say, “Store managers are obligated to keep their employees and customers safe and they have the power to deny entry to people who might cause an unsafe condition.

“If store policy says X and I don’t want to follow that, you’re not allowed in the store,” he said.

However, a store policy doesn’t carry any criminal penalties, and law enforcement officials say they’re not citing anyone for not wearing a mask.

Now many people have taken to claiming they can’t wear a mask due to a disability.

Doron Dorfmann, a Syracuse University law professor who specializes in disability law, told Syracuse.com:

There may be legitimate disabilities that would prevent someone from wearing a mask: someone with autism who has sensory issues, for example, or someone with a respiratory problem for which a mask would make breathing difficult.

Under the (federal Americans with Disabilities Act), he said, store managers must be cautious in questioning anyone who says they have a disability. The manager, for example, can’t ask what the disability is.

Shop keepers can ask two questions of that person, Dorfman said: “Is (not wearing a mask) an accommodation? What kind of benefit do you get from not wearing a mask?”

When a local or state government issues a “must wear” order, it gives individual businesses a lot of legal cover to enforce mask requirements. Without the government’s order, an individual business might run into some trouble denying customers who claim to have disabilities that prevent them from wearing masks.

The National Law Review warned that businesses that exclude non-face-mask-wearing customers who claim a disability have to reach a pretty high legal bar:

The ADA permits a retailer to deny goods or services to an individual with a disability if their presence would result in a “direct threat” to the health and safety of others, but only when this threat cannot be eliminated by modifying existing policies, practices or procedures or permitting another type of accommodation.

Whether a customer poses direct threat is an individualized, fact-sensitive inquiry. If a business does not have a clear policy of turning away customers who refuse to wear face masks, and turns away an individual for that reason, the business must be prepared to identify how/why that individual’s specific, observable, condition/behaviors made them a “direct threat”.

So, what would that “direct threat” look like? The ADA says that a direct threat is “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies.”

It might be difficult to deny service to a person who does not have COVID-19 symptoms. The Law Review said:

For example, if the person exhibited generally recognized symptoms of COVID-19 (such as aggressive coughing compounded with profuse sweating or visible difficulty breathing), refusal of service without a mask on an individualized basis may be justifiable.

Conversely, a business could be hard-pressed to successfully argue that a customer without a face mask posed a “direct threat” if he or she was asymptomatic or if there was some form of accommodation that would have allowed the person to be served (e.g., allowing someone to wear a scarf instead of a mask).

Can an employer force you to wear a face mask?

The answer again is “yes,” under Occupational Safety and Health Administration statutes that say:

“Employers may choose to ensure that cloth face coverings are worn as a feasible means of abatement in a control plan designed to address hazards from COVID-19. Employers may choose to use cloth face coverings as a means of source control, such as because of transmission risk that cannot be controlled through engineering or administrative controls, including social distancing.”

If the requirement is for you to wear personal protective equipment, a higher level of protection, then the employer must furnish it (see OSHA’s PPE standard 29 CFR 1910.132). But the employer is not required to give you a cloth face mask.

So now we come down to the really big question.

Do you have a constitutional right not to wear a mask?

The answer is “no.”

Governments have the power to regulate in the name of safety. In a pandemic, state governments are the key players.

The American Bar Association explained:

Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions.

The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.

As a reminder, the 10th Amendment says, “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

States also retain significant emergency powers to regulate public safety and health through their own state constitutions and legal precedent dating back to the early 1800s.

The federal government’s quarantine powers are limited to those things the feds control, like ports of entry, airspace and such.

States each have specific laws that set out who has what authority. 

But there is a legal argument around something called “the Preemption Doctrine” (if you really care, see the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI., § 2).

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The preemption doctrine refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority when the two authorities come into conflict.

Let’s say a state says, “We are in an emergency and you have to wear a mask” (as California did). A local government can’t come along and say, “Forget what the state said.”

Generally, then, an act of Congress preempts state constitutions and an FDA ruling preempts state court rulings and so on.

Now I don’t necessarily agree with that, but, that is the current interpretation.

Might make for a good show in the future.

So there you have it folks. Can the government make you get a vaccine? The answer is yes.

Can they make you wear a mask? Again, the answer is yes.

Is this the first time we have been down this road? As you can see, history tell us that the answer is absolutely not.

So what do you think folks?

Haiti

Haiti president Jovenel Moïse (Joe Van Nell,  Mo Ease) was recently assassinated by  an ‘armed commando group’

Peter Beaumont, Tom Phillips and Julian Borger

 The Guardian, Wed 7 Jul 2021 20.29 EDT

The president of Haiti, Jovenel Moïse, has been assassinated in his home by a group of armed men who also seriously injured his wife, according to a statement and comments made by the country’s interim prime minister.

Speaking on a local radio station, Claude Joseph confirmed that Moïse, 53, had been killed, saying the attack was carried out by an “armed commando group” that included foreigners.

In a televised national address later on Wednesday, Joseph declared a state of emergency across the country, and made a call for calm. “The situation is under control,” he said.

Late on Wednesday Haiti’s communications secretary said police had arrested the “presumed assassins”. Frantz Exantus did not provide further details about the killing or say how many suspects had been arrested. The police chief later said officers were fighting with the group and that four had been shot dead and another two arrested.

According to the Haitian ambassador to Washington, Bocchit Edmond, Moïse’s killers claimed to be members of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as they entered his guarded residence.

“This was a well-orchestrated commando attack,” Edmond told the Guardian. “They presented themselves as DEA agents, telling people they had come as part of a DEA operation.”

In videos circulating on social media, a man with an American accent is heard saying in English over a megaphone: “DEA operation. Everybody stand down. DEA operation. Everybody back up, stand down.”

Residents reported hearing gunshots and seeing men dressed in black running through the neighborhood.

“It could be foreign mercenaries, because the video footage showed them speaking in Spanish,” Edmond said. “It was something carried out by professionals, by killers … But since the investigation has been just been opened, we prefer to wait on legal authorities to have a better assessment of the situation. We don’t know for sure, with real certainty, who’s behind this.

“This is an act of barbarity. It’s an attack on our democracy,” he said.

Edmond said he had asked the White House on Wednesday morning for US help in identifying and capturing the killers.

“We need a lot more information,” Joe Biden said later at the White House, calling the killing “very worrisome”.

In a written statement, the US president offered condolences and assistance. “We condemn this heinous act, and I am sending my sincere wishes for First Lady Moïse’s recovery,” the statement said. “The United States offers condolences to the people of Haiti, and we stand ready to assist as we continue to work for a safe and secure Haiti.”

Moïse’s time in office was marked by an increase in political instability, allegations of corruption and a long-running dispute about when his period in office should end. He had been ruling by decree for more than a year after the country failed to hold legislative elections and he wanted to push through controversial constitutional changes.

Haiti’s opposition claims Moïse should have stepped down on 7 February to coincide with the fifth anniversary of 2015 elections that were cancelled and then re-run a year later because of allegations of fraud. In February the US said it supported Moïse’s position that he had the right to govern until February 2022.

Earlier this year amid allegations by Moïse of a coup attempt that planned to “murder him” and fresh protests, he moved to protect his position, ordering the arrest of 23 people including a supreme court judge and a senior police official, while declaring he was “not a dictator”.

Opponents had also accused Moïse’s government of fuelling political violence by providing gangs with guns and money to intimidate his adversaries.

So where is this place and what can history tell us about Haiti?

The native Taino – who inhabited the island of Hispaniola when Christopher COLUMBUS first landed on it in 1492 – were virtually wiped out by Spanish settlers within 25 years.

In the early 17th century, the French established a presence on Hispaniola. In 1697, Spain ceded to the French the western third of the island, which later became Haiti.

The French colony, based on forestry and sugar-related industries, became one of the wealthiest in the Caribbean but relied heavily on the forced labor of enslaved Africans.

In the late 18th century, Toussaint L’OUVERTURE led a revolution of Haiti’s nearly half a million slaves that ended France’s rule on the island.

 After a prolonged struggle, and under the leadership of Jean-Jacques DESSALINES, Haiti became the first country in the world led by former slaves after declaring its independence in 1804, but it was forced to pay an indemnity to France for more than a century and was shunned by other countries for nearly 40 years.

The United States Government’s interests in Haiti existed for decades prior to its occupation. As a potential naval base for the United States, Haiti’s stability concerned U.S. diplomatic and defense officials who feared Haitian instability might result in foreign rule of Haiti.

In 1868, President Andrew Johnson suggested the annexation of the island of Hispaniola, consisting of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, to secure a U.S. defensive and economic stake in the West Indies.

Following the assassination of the Haitian President in July of 1915, President Woodrow Wilson sent the United States Marines into Haiti to restore order and maintain political and economic stability in the Caribbean. This occupation continued until 1934.

After the US occupied Haiti from 1915-1934, Francois “Papa Doc” DUVALIER and then his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” DUVALIER led repressive and corrupt regimes that ruled Haiti from 1957-1971 and 1971-1986, respectively.

A massive magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti in January 2010 with an epicenter about 25 km (15 mi) west of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Estimates are that over 300,000 people were killed and some 1.5 million left homeless.

On 4 October 2016, Hurricane Matthew made landfall in Haiti, resulting in over 500 deaths and causing extensive damage to crops, houses, livestock, and infrastructure. 

Currently the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti continues to experience bouts of political instability.

Population

11,198,240 (July 2021 est.)
Ethnic groups

Black 95%, mixed and White 5%

Languages

French (official), Creole (official)

Religions

Roman Catholic 54.7%, Protestant 28.5% (Baptist 15.4%, Pentecostal 7.9%, Adventist 3%, Methodist 1.5%, other 0.7%), Vodou 2.1%, other 4.6%, none 10.2% (2003 est.)
Population below poverty line

58.5% (2012 est.)

So now let’s turn to Cuba

JULY 12, 2021 By Jordan Davidson, The Federalist

Thousands of Cubans banded together over the weekend to protest the island’s communist regime and the dire, impoverished conditions that come with living under a dictatorship.

In Havana, the nation’s capital, protesters gathered to chant for “Liberty” and “Freedom” while demanding the current President Miguel Díaz-Canel resign.

Other protesters waved an American flag as they marched down the capital city’s streets.

As pent-up rage about the authoritarian regime spread, Cuban officials rushed to block the internet, dismiss anti-government content as “disinformation,” and crack down on dissidents which could further taint the country’s image.

“The order to combat has been given,” the Cuban president said in a nationally televised address. Calling on counter-protesters who support his regime to step in, he added, “Revolutionaries need to be on the streets.”

“Cuba is often held up as a poster child of a successful socialist society and it isn’t,” Jim Carafano, vice president for the Heritage Foundation’s Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, told The Federalist. “It’s completely masked an unmitigated failure that’s literally propped up by external partners and an incredibly oppressive regime. This is just a reminder that [while] people think that these kinds of societies lead to better outcomes and more equity, it’s just not true.”

The corporate press, big tech, and the Biden administration also quickly misconstrued the Cubans’ cries when they chose to finally cover the outrage.

The New York Times faced backlash on Sunday for tweeting that protesters were “shouting ‘freedom’ and other anti-government slogans.”

Twitter was quick to slap a slanted explainer on the trending videos, pictures, and reports which Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (who is Cuban-American) said “ignores this is really about how socialism is a disaster and always leads to tyranny, despair, and suffering.”

Julie Chung, Acting Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, misrepresented the protests by claiming that they were largely focused on COVID-19.

“Peaceful protests are growing in #Cuba as the Cuban people exercise their right to peaceful assembly to express concern about rising COVID cases/deaths & medicine shortages,” Chung tweeted. “We commend the numerous efforts of the Cuban people mobilizing donations to help neighbors in need.”

After facing backlash, Chung quickly followed up with a new statement condemning the regime’s “calls to combat.”

She also retweeted President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan after he said the U.S. “would strongly condemn any violence or targeting of peaceful protestors who are exercising their universal rights.”

While COVID-19 did play a role in the outrage, some contend the country’s medical shortcomings were the “straw that broke the camel’s back” atop a host of deeper concerns.

So now a little history of Cuba:

The native Amerindian population of Cuba began to decline after the European discovery of the island by Christopher COLUMBUS in 1492 and following its development as a Spanish colony during the next several centuries.

Large numbers of African slaves were imported to work the coffee and sugar plantations, and Havana became the launching point for the annual treasure fleets bound for Spain from Mexico and Peru.

Spanish rule eventually provoked an independence movement and occasional rebellions were harshly suppressed. US intervention during the Spanish-American War in 1898 assisted the Cubans in overthrowing Spanish rule.

The Treaty of Paris established Cuban independence from Spain in 1898 and, following three-and-a-half years of subsequent US military rule, Cuba became an independent republic in 1902 after which the island experienced a string of governments mostly dominated by the military and corrupt politicians.

Fidel CASTRO led a rebel army to victory in 1959; his authoritarian rule held the subsequent regime together for nearly five decades. He stepped down as president in February 2008 in favor of his younger brother Raul CASTRO.

Cuba’s communist revolution, with Soviet support, was exported throughout Latin America and Africa during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

Miguel DIAZ-CANEL Bermudez, hand-picked by Raul CASTRO to succeed him, was approved as president by the National Assembly and took office on 19 April 19 2018. DIAZ-CANEL was appointed First Secretary of the Communist Party on 19 April 2021 following the resignation of Raul CASTRO.

The country faced a severe economic downturn in 1990 following the withdrawal of former Soviet subsidies worth $4-6 billion annually.

Cuba traditionally and consistently portrays the US embargo, in place since 1961, as the source of its difficulties.

As a result of efforts begun in December 2014 to re-establish diplomatic relations with the Cuban Government, which were severed in January 1961, the US and Cuba reopened embassies in their respective countries in July 2015. The embargo remains in place, and the relationship between the US and Cuba remains tense. 

Illicit migration of Cuban nationals to the US via maritime and overland routes has been a longstanding challenge.

On 12 January 2017, the US and Cuba signed a Joint Statement ending the so-called “wet-foot, dry-foot” policy – by which Cuban nationals who reached US soil were permitted to stay. Illicit Cuban migration by sea has since dropped significantly, but land border crossings continue.

Population

11,032,343 (July 2021 est.)

Languages

Spanish (official)

Religions

Christian 59.2%, folk 17.4%, other 0.4%, none 23%

note: folk religions include religions of African origin, spiritualism, and others intermingled with Catholicism or Protestantism

Government type

communist state

Capital

name: Havana

So folks, There you have it. Turmoil in two counties not very far from our borders. Cuba (90 miles) Haiti to Key West (600 miles)

Think about it. It is only 90 miles from Florida to Cuba. It is 100 miles from Bagnell Dam to Warsaw by water.

Should we help the people of these two island nations?

Should we deny them the opportunity to emigrate to America to flee persecution while allowing thousands of people from Mexico and Central America to cross our southern borders on a daily basis? Is military intervention an option?

Do you remember Higgins from the old TV show Magnum PI? He was the British fellow who played the man Friday to Magnum.

One of his famous lines was…..It was during the Burma campaign, we were hopelessly outnumbered, and everyone would roll their eyes know they were going to get a long story.

Well folks, I am here to tell you the story since we are now seeing a lot in the news about a coup taking place in Burma.

So lets start with a little WWII history.

https://www.pacificatrocities.org/

The Burma Campaign 1/8/2019  by Jessica Leung

From January 1st, 1886 to January 4th, 1948 Burma was a territory held by the British, who seized it for its tremendous wealth. Burma was wealthy due to the Silk Trade route and its agriculture.

Burma’s precious resources such as rubies and gems, gas, oil, tin, and rubber made it a prime target for many countries seeking profitable commodities for the war effort.

The benefits of having these raw materials contributed to the economic production of other countries that helped them in creating great national wealth.

Rubber could be used to produce tires as well a resource that was extremely valuable to the war effort. Nearly all war-related efforts needed rubber. To achieve victory without rubber would have been impossible for Allied success in WWII.
                              
For the same reason, the Japanese came to occupy Burma for the same raw materials.

It was the primary reason why the Japanese came to Burma but there were also other reasons militarily and politically.

The Burma road was used by the Allies to transport troops and supplies to the Chinese nationalists fighting against Japan.  

The Japanese came to shut down that supply line. Once they achieved that the Japanese would be able to isolate the Chinese Nationalists from receiving necessary supplies to survive combat.

The Route started from Lashio and ended in the Chinese province of Yunnan. Their campaign was the most successful in Burma outside of the Chinese regions during WWII when Chiang Kai Sheik was effectively forced out of the region and ended in a Japanese victory.

There were many reasons for the victory as the British forces were weak, the Burmese were in an uprising against the Empire for independence, and the overwhelming manpower of the Japanese forces.

In addition to these factors, the British were not prepared for a Japanese invasion.

In addition to poor equipment and training, internal conflict between the allied forces caused issues between Chinese, English, and American forces.

China was a valuable member to the cause, but the British forces had their doubts about the alliance due to centuries of political struggles between the two nations.

A fear the British had was that the Burmese people would uprise against them if the example was set for Chinese troops to become successful in combat.

Americans respected the Chinese as a valuable part of the Alliance despite their poor training and being ill-equipped.

American General Joseph Stilwell reorganized their formations while outfitting them for battle when he was assigned to his post in January 1942 believing that the Chinese troops did not have proper supplies or training from their own government. ​

Morale was low on the Burma road when the Japanese occupation closed off all access the Chinese troops would have for supplies and back up. 

To make the situation more difficult the Fall of the Burma road in 1942 caused the British to stop supplying troops to reopen the roads as the British no longer saw any reason to help the Chinese.

Despite the loss of the road Stilwell negotiated to train Chinese troops with Chiang Kai Sheik.  They turned out to be a valuable source of victory for the allied forces after a 6-week retraining with American commanders. 

In October 1943, the Allies steadily began the offense to recapture Burma.

Despite several attacks in an attempt to destroy the Chinese troops, the Japanese General Shizuichi Tanaka was not able to break their formations or put a dent in their morale. The outcome was an astounding victory for the Chinese battalion. 

On April 7th the 1st Battalion pushed back Japanese troops in southern Burma, setting up a post to block them from entering at the Village of Setan.

By May 18th the Japanese attempted an attack on the 150th Battalion but failed and the Chinese offensive came to a halt.

By late June of 1945, the Japanese withdrew from the battle and Burma’s Railroad was open once again in allied hands. (Bridge on the River Kwai) 
​
After the campaign ended for the Allies and NATO agreements were signed Burma became an independent country on January 4th, 1948.

The last of the Allied troops left Burma and Burma is now officially renamed Myanmar.

Now to our current situation.

By Alice Cuddy
BBC News

Myanmar hit headlines around the world on February 1, 2021, when its military seized control of the government.

The country’s leader, Aung San Suu Kyi (own san sue chee), and members of her party were detained.

So where is Myanmar?

Myanmar, also known as Burma, is in South East Asia and neighbors Thailand, Laos, Bangladesh, China and India.

It has a population of about 54 million, most of whom speak Burmese, although other languages are also spoken. The biggest city is Yangon (Rangoon) but the capital is Nay Pyi Taw (Nay Pee Daw).

The main religion is Buddhism. There are many ethnic groups in the country, including  Muslims.

The country gained independence from Britain in 1948 and was ruled by its military from 1962 until 2011, when a new government began ushering in a return to civilian rule.

So why is it also known as Burma? This is confusing in the national news.

The country was called Burma for generations, after its largest ethnic group, the Burmese.

The ruling military changed its name in English to Myanmar (Mee Yen Mar) in 1989, a year after thousands of people were killed in a crackdown on a popular uprising.

The two words, Burma and Myanmar, mean the same thing but Myanmar is the more formal version.

Some, including the United Kingdom, initially refused to use the new name as a way of denying the military regime’s legitimacy.

But as the country moved towards democracy, the use of “Myanmar” became increasingly common.

The US still officially calls the country Burma. Thus, the confusion in reporting the news.

So what has happened now, and why?

The military is now back in charge and has declared a year-long state of emergency.

It seized control following a general election which President Suu Kyi’s (Sue Chee’s) National League for Democracy (NLD) party won by a landslide.

The armed forces had backed the opposition, who were demanding a rerun of the vote, claiming widespread fraud.

The election commission said there was no evidence to support these claims.

The coup was staged as a new session of parliament was set to open.

Ms Suu Kyi is thought to be under house arrest. Several charges have been filed against her, including breaching import and export laws and possession of unlawful communication devices.

Many other government officials have also been detained.

As a result, power has been handed over to commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing (Min Hon Lang).

He has long wielded significant political influence, successfully maintaining the power of the Myanmar military – even as the country transitioned towards democracy.

He has received international condemnation and sanctions for his alleged role in the military’s attacks on ethnic minorities especially, the Muslim population.

The military has replaced ministers and deputies, including in the areas of finance, health, the interior, and foreign affairs.

It says it will hold a “free and fair” election once the state of emergency is over.

Aung San Suu Kyi (Own Sahn Sue Chee) became world-famous in the 1990s for campaigning to restore democracy.

She spent nearly 15 years in detention between 1989 and 2010 after organizing rallies calling for democratic reform and free elections.

She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while under house arrest in 1991.

In 2015, she led the National League for Democracy Party to victory in Myanmar’s first openly contested election in 25 years.

Ms Suu Kyi’s international reputation has suffered greatly as a result of Myanmar’s treatment of the Muslim minority.

Myanmar considers them illegal immigrants and denies them citizenship. Over decades, many have fled the country to escape persecution.

Thousands of Muslims were killed and more than 700,000 fled to Bangladesh following an army crackdown in 2017.

Ms Suu Kyi appeared before the International Court of Justice in 2019, where she denied allegations that the military had committed genocide.

Even with these allegations, the UK, EU and Australia are among those to have condemned the recent military takeover.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said it was a “serious blow to democratic reforms”.

US President Joe Biden has threatened to reinstate sanctions.

But not everyone has reacted in this way.

China blocked a UN Security Council statement condemning the coup. Uh Oh! Here we go again with the China thing!

The country, which has previously opposed international intervention in Myanmar, urged all sides to “resolve differences”. Its Xinhua news agency in China described the changes as a “cabinet reshuffle”.

Neighbors including Cambodia, Thailand and the Philippines, have said it is an “internal matter”.

Ms Suu Kyi has urged her supporters to “protest against the coup”.

Each night since the coup, residents in the main cities have been showing their dissent by banging pots and honking car horns.

Staff at dozens of hospitals and medical centers have walked out, and many others are wearing ribbons showing they oppose the coup.

Friday saw hundreds of teachers and students take to the streets of Yangon, where they displayed the three-finger salute – a sign that has been adopted by protesters in the region to show their opposition to authoritarian rule.

Large-scale demonstration are yet to be seen though.

Many have turned online to protest against the coup. The military has temporarily banned Facebook, which is widely used across the country.

Some users have switched to other social media platforms, using them to share pro-democracy statements and criticize the country’s military.

So folks, I know I sound like a broken record, but once again, you can see what happens when a country falls apart internally.

Through it’s long history, Burma has seen tremendous conflict.

It is now facing another crisis.

The question is, will this simply remain a conflict between Burma’s government and its military, or will the entire revolution be gobbled up by the all powerful Chinese?

If we see the latter scenario, what will be the position of President Biden and the US?

To step in on behalf of the pro-democracy party of President Suu Kyi  (Sue Chee) could trigger conflict with the Chinese.

Should we simply stand to the side and let the whole Burma mess play out, leaving the fate of the country in the hands of the current players, or should we come to the aid of a nation fighting for democracy?

If we stand down, what message are we sending to the rest of the world?