Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Supreme Court Delivers Huge Blow To Obama EPA’s Ability To Control Private Property.

The U.S. Supreme Court just made it easier for individuals and companies to challenge federal agencies’ authority to regulate private property under federal law — a decision with huge implications for a major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with Hawkes Co., a family-owned business in North Dakota, that wanted to extract peat from wetlands they owned in northern Minnesota. The court said Hawkes could immediately challenge a federal agency’s decision to prevent them from using their private property.

Today’s ruling marks a long-awaited victory for individual liberty, property rights, and the rule of law,” M. Reed Hopper, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represented the Hawkes.

“The Supreme Court ruled that wetlands ‘jurisdictional determinations’ can be immediately challenged in court,” Hopper said. “Everyone who values property rights and access to justice should welcome this historic victory.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/31/supreme-court-delivered-huge-blow-to-epas-ability-to-control-private-property/#ixzz4AGBO9w1x

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Illinois bill forcing pro-lifers to refer for abortion sent to governor’s desk

Illinois came one step closer to forcing its pro-life medical community to choose between violating state law and violating deeply held religious conscience Wednesday, as the state’s House approved Senate Bill 1564 and set the legislation on the governor’s desk.
The bill, which would introduce decisive changes to Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act, passed by a 61-54 margin and now awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.
Originally put forward in the summer of 2015, the legislation would require pro-life medical providers, including 51 Illinois nonprofit pregnancy centers offering free services including ultrasound and STI testing, to take action the bill’s opponents say amounts to participating in an abortion.
Particularly at issue is the bill’s requirement that every Illinois pro-life medical provider of any kind who chooses not to perform a procedure such as abortion or a prescription for birth control has one of three options: Either they must “refer the patient” to another provider, “transfer the patient” to another provider, or provide a list of “other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer the health care service.”
One way or another, the law would compel pro-life medical providers in Illinois to participate in abortions.
Stripping pro-life medical providers of their freedom to hold to life-affirming beliefs and refuse to participate in abortion would have a far-reaching effect on Illinois women, Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said.
“This Amendment takes away the rights of Illinois women to be treated by a pro-life doctor, because it would force medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to performing abortions (and other procedures) to refer for, make arrangements for someone else to perform, or arrange referral information that lists willing providers, for abortions,” Bowman said.
“By violating the pro-life principles of pro-life physicians and medical organizations, the Amendment would deprive Illinois women of their choice of a medical provider that does not refer or arrange for abortions in any way.”
Bowman, who urged the pro-life community to contact Gov. Rauner’s office immediately (click here to contact Gov. Rauner) and ask him to veto the legislation, has helped spearhead the opposition to SB 1564 since 2015, drafting a letter to the state Senate, in which he stated ADF’s intention to oppose the law in court, if needed.
Co-signatories on the letter included pregnancy help organization affiliate organizations Heartbeat International and Care Net, as well as American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, six Illinois physicians—four of whom are OB/GYNs—and 11 Illinois pregnancy medical centers.
Wednesday’s vote in the Illinois House comes just two days after Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer vowed to enforce California’s so-called “Reproductive FACT Act,” which Bowman and ADF are currently scheduled to challenge at a June 14 hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We’re seeing a renewed sense of vigor and vitriol directed at life-affirming professionals, practices and pregnancy centers,” Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, said. “No woman should ever be compelled by her state to consider abortion as her only option in an unexpected pregnancy, and that is exactly who will suffer because of this legislation.”
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE
While pregnancy help organizations counsel clients and patients on such facts as the baby's development, and the physical and psychological dangers of abortion, the proposed legislation's inclusion of a requirement to counsel on the "benefits" of abortion has also raised concern among pro-life opponents to the bill.
Although the bill requires pro-life healthcare providers and organizations to participate in abortion, it does not include stipulations that healthcare professionals, institutions, or organizations counsel patients on alternatives to abortion such as parenting or placing for adoption. 
Similar government-sponsored speech for pregnancy centers has been struck down as unconstitutional in Austin (TX), Baltimore and Montgomery County (MD) and New York City.
"We have over 100 pregnancy help centers for women in Illinois that are supported by private donations and run by people who selflessly give their time to help women in an unplanned pregnancy," Emily Zender, executive director of Illinois Right to Life, said. "This bill would destroy the pregnancy centers forcing them to violate their own mission and jeopardize women's health. We strongly urge the Governor to veto this bill." 
In addition to contacting the governor's office directly, Illinois Right to Life is building a petition at www.ProtectMyConscience.org.

Impeach Bath Room Barry Over Confused Gender Rules, Oklahoma legislators urge

OKLAHOMA CITY, May 27, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Lawmakers in Oklahoma have introduced a measure that would urge Congress to impeach Barack Obama over hiscontroversial federal transgender guidance for public schools and universities.
State Senator Anthony Sykes and State Rep. John Bennett introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, which says that the threat to withhold federal funding if schools do not open their restrooms, lockers, and showers to members of the opposite biological sex “exceeds the authority of the federal government.”
The non-binding resolution asks the state's delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives “to file articles of impeachment against the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Education and any other federal official liable to impeachment who has exceeded his or her constitutional authority” by participating in the guidance.
“The Constitution of the United States does not grant the executive branch of the federal government any authority whatsoever over the public education system, nor over the use of restrooms or other facilities thereof,” according to the motion, which currently has the support of 15 state legislators.
The non-binding resolution also asks the Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt “to defend, by any means necessary, the interests of this state against the overreach” of the Obama administration.
If the measure passes, Oklahoma legislators would join millions of U.S. citizens who have petitioned Congress to impeach Obama over the course of his presidency.
The impeachment motion is but one of several bills pending before the state legislature in response to the federal government's transgender posture. Another bill would have established that students have the right to claim a religious exemption to sharing an intimate public facility with a member of the opposite sex.
However, that bill died when it deadlocked in committee, 10-10.
The impeachment measure had not come up for a vote as of this writing.

William Lendrum "Billy" Mitchell Believed That Japan Was The Dominant Nation In Asia And Was Preparing To Do Battle With The United States And Obama Ever Told Us About This?

Billy Mitchell.jpg

As the U.S. Air Force celebrated its 50th anniversary in September 1997, it is fitting that the man who did much to help bring the Air Force into being should be remembered. William ‘Billy’ Mitchell was a crusader who had the vision to understand the potential of air power long before his contemporaries.

The name Billy Mitchell brings different images to mind. To most, he was a hero, without whose dire warning the United States might never have been able to field the world’s largest air force in time to fight World War II. To others, he was an ambitious egotist and zealot who ran roughshod over anyone who opposed his views on air power, especially his military and civilian superiors.
In a sense, the barnstorming era of the 1920s was also the Billy Mitchell era, because it was his voice that first loudly proclaimed the need for strong air defenses. Long before anyone else, he vigorously advanced the theory that the airplane would replace the fleet as America’s first line of defense. He also saw the flying machine as a strategic weapon that could take a war to an enemy’s industrial resources.

Mitchell was born in Nice, France, in 1879, the son of a U.S. senator. At age 18, he enlisted in the Army as a private when the Spanish-American War broke out. He was commissioned and served in the Army Signal Corps in Cuba, the Philippines and Alaska before becoming interested in aviation. As early as 1906, however, he prophesied in the Cavalry Journal that ‘conflicts, no doubt, will be carried out in the future in the air.’ After the first aircraft was purchased by the Army, he wrote several more articles pointing out that airplanes would be useful for reconnaissance, for preventing enemy forces from conducting reconnaissance and for offensive action against enemy submarines and ships.

Mitchell was assigned to the Army General Staff in Washington in 1912 as a captain; at age 32, he was the youngest officer ever assigned to that important post. He prepared a report on the needs of American aviation and argued that, with the advances then being made in aeronautics, the United States was being drawn ever closer to its potential enemies and that distance would soon have to be measured in time, not miles.

Promoted to major, Mitchell was considered too old and held too high a rank for flight training. Convinced that his future lay in aviation, however, he paid for his own flying lessons at a civilian flying school at Newport News, Va., and later received a rating as a junior military aviator.
In April 1917, by then a lieutenant colonel, he was assigned to the American Expeditionary Forces in France and became one of the first Americans on the scene after the United States declared war on Germany. He immediately fought for the creation of American air units in France but was frustrated by the delay in getting American planes and pilots into the war. It galled him that the French had to provide air protection over the American lines, resulting in what Mitchell viewed as a lack of control and effectiveness. Mitchell met British General Hugh ‘Boom’ Trenchard and quickly adopted his thesis that military air power could and should be used in a ‘relentless and incessant offensive’ in wartime and, if so used, would one day become much more important in military strategy than sea power.

Slowly, American pilots arrived, were assigned to squadrons and were put in the air in French planes. In March 1918 the Germans began a desperate push against the Allies, and Mitchell was placed in charge of all American aviation units at the front. On Sunday, April 14, 1918, a year after the United States entered the war, Mitchell declared that America had finally put its first squadron into combat. His flair for combat leadership was subsequently proved at the Battle of Saint-Mihiel when he coordinated a force of 1,481 British, French and Italian planes to support American ground forces. He was promoted to brigadier general and became more vocal about the importance of a strong military air arm. He quickly earned the enmity of his nonflying contemporaries for his aggressiveness in building airfields, hangars and other facilities. His flamboyance, ability to gain the attention of the press and willingness to proceed unhampered by precedent made him the best-known American in Europe.

Mitchell returned to the States as a hero in 1919 and was appointed assistant chief of the U.S. Army Air Service. He was appalled at how quickly the organization he had helped to build in war had disintegrated in peacetime. He decided that the nation must not be deluded into the belief that ‘the war to end all wars’ had really accomplished that end. ‘If a nation ambitious for universal conquest gets off to a flying start in a war of the future,’ he said, ‘it may be able to control the whole world more easily than a nation has controlled a continent in the past.’ Such statements embarrassed his superiors. He soon provoked the Navy admirals into open hostility through his tirades against their super-dreadnought concepts.

Mitchell the hero soon became known as Mitchell the agitator as he tried to prove that airplanes could actually accomplish the things he forecast. He proposed a number of daring innovations for the Air Service that stunned the nonflying Army generals–a special corps of mechanics, troop-carrying aircraft, a civilian pilot pool for wartime availability, long-range bombers capable of flying the Atlantic and armor-piercing bombs. He encouraged the development of bombsights, ski-equipped aircraft, engine superchargers and aerial torpedoes. He ordered the establishment of aerial forest-fire and border patrols, and followed that with a mass flight to Alaska, a transcontinental air race and a flight around the perimeter of the United States. He encouraged Army pilots to set speed, endurance and altitude records in order to keep aviation in the news.

With each success, Mitchell became more determined that the nation’s money should be spent on aircraft and not expensive battleships. He stepped on the egos of the ground generals and the battleship admirals–especially the latter–with his fiery rhetoric and boasted that Army planes could sink any battleship afloat under any conditions of war. Dynamic and impetuous, he sought out the American press and announced that if he were given permission to bomb captured German battleships, he would prove his assertions.

Newspaper reporters and editors, sensing open interservice warfare that would make headlines and sell papers, thought he should be given the opportunity to conduct tests against actual warships that were going to be scuttled or scrapped anyway. The New York Times summarized the general feeling by saying that the country could not afford to ignore Mitchell’s claims.

The Navy’s ironclad die-hards fought the idea of actual tests and preferred that their word be taken that aircraft could never sink the super-safe, first-class fighting ships of any nation. Strong pressure was brought to bear on President Warren G. Harding and Congress to withhold permission to use the German ships as targets. An angry Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels offered to stand bareheaded on the bridge of any ship Mitchell chose to bomb.

Not all of the admirals disagreed with Mitchell, however. Admiral William S. Sims, commander of U.S. naval forces in European waters during World War I, remarked: ‘The average man suffers very severely from the pain of a new idea….It is my belief that the future will show that the fleet that has 20 airplane carriers instead of 16 battleships and 4 airplanes will inevitably knock the other fleet out.’ Admiral W.F. Fullam, author of an exhaustive study of the use of air power, concluded that with the progress then being made in aviation, ‘Sea power will be subordinated to or dependent upon air power.’

Mitchell continued to expound his views in speeches and articles for national publications. With the press strongly behind him and despite Navy foot-dragging, permission to demonstrate his theories was finally granted. The tests were scheduled for June and July 1921. While the ships were being assembled off the Virginia coast, Mitchell amassed an armada of airplanes as the 1st Provisional Air Brigade and ordered exhaustive bombing practice against mock ships near Langley Field. Army ordnance personnel produced the new 2,000-pound bombs that would be needed to sink a battleship.
The tests began as scheduled, and the careful preparations paid off. The bombers sank a German destroyer first, followed by an armored light cruiser and then one of the world’s largest war vessels, the German battleship Ostfriesland, followed by the U.S. battleship Alabama–and later the battleships New Jersey and Virginia. As far as Mitchell and the press were concerned, the assertion that air power should be the nation’s first line of defense had been proved. ‘No surface vessels can exist wherever air forces acting from land bases are able to attack them,’ Mitchell declared.

Mitchell’s subsequent writings and pronouncements–all duly carried by the nation’s press–continually fanned the flames of interservice rivalry. He proposed that the U.S. Army Air Service should take over all control of defense responsibilities for 200 miles out to sea. In view of the bickering over the tests that had taken place, he asserted that fundamental changes in defense policy were necessary and called for a ‘Department of National Defense…with a staff common to all the services’ and with’subsecretaries for the Army, Navy and the Air Force.’ Mitchell staged a simulated bombing attack on New York City and mock bomb runs over other eastern cities, and he let the press carry the message to the public.

To quell the resultant fury of the battleship admirals and get Mitchell off the front pages, his superiors sent him to Hawaii. However, he returned with a scathing report on the inadequate defenses he saw there. He also went to Europe and the Far East to study the advances being made in aviation. After returning from the latter trip in 1924, he wrote a shocking 323-page report–probably the most prophetic document of his career–that stressed that, when making estimates of Japanese air power, ‘care must be taken that it is not underestimated.’

Mitchell believed that Japan was the dominant nation in Asia and was preparing to do battle with the United States. He predicted that air attacks would be made by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines and described how they would be conducted.

His report was received with all the enthusiasm of ‘a green demolition team approaching an unexploded bomb,’ according to one writer. The report was ignored; it is said that even his boss did not read it for two years.

In the following months, Mitchell wrote many articles expounding his theories and demanding national awareness of the new dimension of warfare that he perceived. Despite his efforts, large appropriations for new aircraft were not forthcoming. The Air Service was still flying aging de Havillands. Crashes occurred frequently, and with each one, Mitchell lambasted the shortsightedness of the War Department and Congress for allowing them to happen.

Mitchell’s attacks became more vitriolic and were embarrassing to his superiors as well as to Capitol Hill and the White House. When his term with the Air Service expired in April 1925, he was not reappointed. He reverted to his permanent rank of colonel and was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, as air officer for the VIII Corps.

On September 1, 1925, a naval seaplane was lost on a nonstop flight from San Francisco to Hawaii. Two days later, the U.S. Navy dirigible Shenandoah was destroyed while on a goodwill flight. Mitchell’s reaction was prompt. From his post in ‘exile,’ he released a scathing denunciation of the Navy and War Department and dropped the heaviest bomb of his career. He released a 6,000-word statement saying that these and other accidents were ‘the result of incompetency, criminal negligence, and the almost treasonable negligence of our national defense by the War and Navy departments.’
Mitchell added that ‘all aviation policies, schemes and systems are dictated by the non-flying officers of the Army and Navy, who know practically nothing about it.’ He ended his denunciation by saying that ‘I can stand by no longer and see these disgusting performances…at the expense of the lives of our people, and the delusions of the American public.’

Reaction in Washington was immediate. Secretary of War Dwight F. Davis announced that Mitchell would be disciplined and implied that it would be by court-martial. Mitchell said he would welcome a court-martial if it’stung the conscience’ of the public. Press reaction was mixed. The New York Times charged Mitchell with ‘insubordination and folly.’ The Herald Tribune called him ‘opinionative, arrogant and intolerant.’ However, the Kansas City Star editorialized that although he was ‘a zealot, a fanatic, a one-idea man,’ someday his dream might come true.

Mitchell was put under technical arrest, and a court-martial began in Washington on October 28, 1925, for insubordination under the catch-all 96th Article of War. Twelve generals (two of whom were later dismissed) and a colonel were appointed to sit in judgment, the highest ranking court ever convened to try an officer. None of them was a flier.

The court-martial dragged on for seven weeks. When it was over, the board deliberated for about half an hour and rendered its verdict–guilty of the charge and all eight specifications. The sentence was suspension from rank, command and duty with forfeiture of pay and allowances for five years.
The verdict was widely debated on Capitol Hill, and veterans groups passed resolutions condemning the outcome. President Calvin Coolidge approved the sentence handed down by the court, but altered the court’s verdict by granting him full subsistence and half pay because Mitchell would not be able to accept private employment while still in uniform. Mitchell said he would not accept the modified sentence because it would make him ‘an object of government charity.’

Mitchell resigned effective February 1, 1926. He immediately embarked on a four-month, coast-to-coast lecture tour, showing films of the ship bombings and continually expressing his by now familiar theme of the necessity for military preparedness in the air. His sweeping charges appeared in major American magazines and aviation journals. He continually called attention to the rapid strides being made in aviation in Europe and Asia and warned of Japanese plans to seize the Hawaii, Alaska and the Philippines. He also predicted, accurately, that the Japanese would not bother to declare war formally. ‘We not only do nothing in the face of all this,’ he said, ‘but we leave our future in the air to incompetents.’

Mitchell wrote more than 60 articles, several newspaper series and five books, never deviating from his appeal for public understanding of the promise and potential of air power. He made his last public appearance on February 11, 1935, when he addressed the House Military Affairs Committee.
Weakened by his struggle, the old campaigner died in a New York hospital on February 19, 1936, at the age of 56. He had elected to be buried in Milwaukee, his hometown, where he enlisted in 1898, rather than at Arlington National Cemetery.

In 1955, the Air Force Association passed a resolution to void Billy Mitchell’s court-martial. In 1957, Mitchell’s youngest child, William, Jr., petitioned the Air Force to set aside the court-martial verdict. Secretary of the Air Force James H. Douglas unhappily denied the request, saying, ‘It is tragic that an officer who contributed so much to his country’s welfare should have terminated his military career under such circumstances.’

Although the conviction was not removed, Billy Mitchell had already received a measure of official recognition from a grateful nation when President Harry S. Truman signed legislation in 1946 bestowing a special medal posthumously on Mitchell ‘in recognition of his outstanding pioneer service and foresight in the field of American military aviation.’
Should Billy Mitchell be remembered today? The answer is a definite and strong affirmative. He not only foresaw that an air force was essential for national survival but also educated the public and its leaders on the role that the airplane would eventually play in national life. For his foresight and willingness to sacrifice his career for his beliefs, the nation owes to this unorthodox visionary a debt of gratitude it can never repay.

Hideki Tojo Judged to be a class-A war criminal at the Tokyo Tribunal of War Criminals, And Obama Ever Told Us About This?


This 1940's file picture shows Japanese general and former prime minister Hideki Tojo, judged to be a class-A war criminal at the Tokyo Tribunal of War Criminals after Japan surrendered in defeat to mark the end of World War II. Sixty years after the start of the Tokyo war crimes tribunal, the event remains at the heart of controversy in Asia about Japan's guilt and whether it has atoned sufficiently for its past atrocities.
Although Tojo did not become Prime Minister until October 1941, his appointment as Army Minister was significant. His influence in the Cabinet took the Japanese in a new direction. His political appointment effectively marked the end of the argument from those within the Japanese establishment who wanted a withdrawal from China. General Tojo was a strong supporter of the Tripartite Alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan and his militaristic and aggressive outlook hardened the Japanese position towards a wider war. The U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull was later to describe him as:
… a typical Japanese officer, with a small-bore, straight-laced, one-track mind. He was stubborn and self-willed, rather stupid, hard-working, and possessed a quantity of drive.
- See more at: http://ww2today.com/22nd-july-1940-hideki-tojo-appointed-army-minister-in-japan#sthash.97dih5hm.dpuf
Although Tojo did not become Prime Minister until October 1941, his appointment as Army Minister was significant. His influence in the Cabinet took the Japanese in a new direction. His political appointment effectively marked the end of the argument from those within the Japanese establishment who wanted a withdrawal from China. General Tojo was a strong supporter of the Tripartite Alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan and his militaristic and aggressive outlook hardened the Japanese position towards a wider war. The U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull was later to describe him as:
… a typical Japanese officer, with a small-bore, straight-laced, one-track mind. He was stubborn and self-willed, rather stupid, hard-working, and possessed a quantity of drive.
- See more at: http://ww2today.com/22nd-july-1940-hideki-tojo-appointed-army-minister-in-japan#sthash.97dih5hm.dpuf
Although Tojo did not become Prime Minister until October 1941, his appointment as Army Minister was significant. His influence in the Cabinet took the Japanese in a new direction. His political appointment effectively marked the end of the argument from those within the Japanese establishment who wanted a withdrawal from China. General Tojo was a strong supporter of the Tripartite Alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan and his militaristic and aggressive outlook hardened the Japanese position towards a wider war. The U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull was later to describe him as:
… a typical Japanese officer, with a small-bore, straight-laced, one-track mind. He was stubborn and self-willed, rather stupid, hard-working, and possessed a quantity of drive.
- See more at: http://ww2today.com/22nd-july-1940-hideki-tojo-appointed-army-minister-in-japan#sthash.97dih5hm.dpuf

Although Tojo did not become Prime Minister until October 1941, his appointment as Army Minister was significant. His influence in the Cabinet took the Japanese in a new direction. His political appointment effectively marked the end of the argument from those within the Japanese establishment who wanted a withdrawal from China. General Tojo was a strong supporter of the Tripartite Alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan and his militaristic and aggressive outlook hardened the Japanese position towards a wider war. The U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull was later to describe him as:
… a typical Japanese officer, with a small-bore, straight-laced, one-track mind. He was stubborn and self-willed, rather stupid, hard-working, and possessed a quantity of drive.
- See more at: http://ww2today.com/22nd-july-1940-hideki-tojo-appointed-army-minister-in-japan#sthash.97dih5hm.dpuf

Although Tojo did not become Prime Minister until October 1941, his appointment as Army Minister was significant. His influence in the Cabinet took the Japanese in a new direction. His political appointment effectively marked the end of the argument from those within the Japanese establishment who wanted a withdrawal from China. General Tojo was a strong supporter of the Tripartite Alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan and his militaristic and aggressive outlook hardened the Japanese position towards a wider war. The U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull was later to describe him as:
… a typical Japanese officer, with a small-bore, straight-laced, one-track mind. He was stubborn and self-willed, rather stupid, hard-working, and possessed a quantity of drive.
- See more at: http://ww2today.com/22nd-july-1940-hideki-tojo-appointed-army-minister-in-japan#sthash.97dih5hm.dpuf

THE GREATER EAST ASIA CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE The Official Statement of the Japanese Government, August 1, 1940 And Obama Ever Told Us About This?


The world stands at a great historic turning point, and it is about to witness the creation of new forms of government, economy, and culture, based upon the growth and development of sundry groups of states. Japan, too, is confronted by a great trial such as she has never experienced in history. In order to carry out fully at this juncture our national policy in accordance with the lofty spirit in which the country was founded, it is an important task of urgent necessity to us that we should grasp the inevitable trends in the developments of world history, effect speedily fundamental renovations along all lines of government, and strive for the perfection of a state structure for national defense. Accordingly, the general lines of the country's fundamental national policies have been' formulated as follows:
Summary of Fundamental National Policies

1. Basic Policy

The basic aim of Japan's national policy lies in the firm establish­ment of world peace in accordance with the lofty spirit of Hakko Ichiu, in which the country was founded, and in the construction, as the first step, of a new order in Greater East Asia, having for its foundation the solidarity of Japan, Manchoukou and China. 
Japan will, therefore, devote the total strength of the nation to the fulfillment of the above policy by setting up swiftly an unshakable national structure of her own adapted to meet the requirements of new developments both at home and abroad.

2. National Defense and Foreign Policy

The Government will strive for the repletion of armaments adequate for the execution of the national policies, by taking into consideration the new developments both at home and abroad, and constructing a state structure for national defense, capable of bringing into full play the total strength of the nation. 
Japan's foreign policy, which aims ultimately at the construction of a new order in Greater East Asia, will be directed, first: of all, toward a complete settlement of the China Affair, and the advancement of the national fortune by taking a far-sighted view of the drastic changes in the international situation and formulating both constructive and flexible measures. 
What is urgently required in internal administration is the laying of the foundation for a state structure for national defense through a complete renovation of the domestic administration in general, for which purpose the Government expects the realization of the following points:
A. Renovation of education thoroughly in harmony with the fun­damental principles of the national polity, and also the establishment of ethical principles of the nation stressing, above all, service to the state and eradicating all selfish and materialistic thoughts.

B. Establishment of a powerful new political structure and a unified control of government affairs.

a. Establishment of a new national structure, of which the keynote lies in the service to the state through the co-operation between gov­ernment and people, every man according to his sphere of profession or business.
b. Renovation of the Diet as an organ for assisting the Throne, so as to adapt it to the new national structure.
c Fundamental renovation in the operation of administrative organs, and the reformation of the bureaucracy, aimed at the unity and efficiency of those organs.

C. Laying the foundation of national defense economy, of which the keynote is to lie in the autonomous development of the economy of Japan, Manchoukuo and China with Japan as the center.

a.Establishment of a sphere of co-operative economies, with the Japan-Manchoukuo-China group as one of the units.
b. Inauguration of a planned economy through the co-operation between government and people, and especially the perfection of a unitary control system covering the production, distribution and con­sumption of important commodities.
c. Establishment of a financial scheme and reinforcement of bank­ing control, directed toward the development of the nation's total economic power.
d. Renovation of the foreign trade policy so as to adapt it to the new world situation.
e. Establishment of the measures for self-sufficiency in the people's daily necessities especially in the principal foodstuffs.
f. An epoch-making expansion of the vital industries-especially heavy, chemical and machine industries.
g. An epoch-making promotion of science, and rationalization of production.
h. Perfection and extension of the communication and transporta­tion facilities so as to adapt them to the new developments at home and abroad.
i. Establishment of land development plans. aiming at the enhancement of the total national strength.
j. Inauguration of permanent measures concerning the promotion of the stamina and physical strength of the nation, and especially the fundamental measures concerning the security and development of agriculture and agricultural communities.
k. Rectification of the inequality in individual sacrifices incident to the execution of national policies; full operation of various welfare measures, and renovation of the living mode of the nation, and the maintenance of such standard of living as will enable the nation to lead a plain, solid and vigorous life and to surmount the national crisis by persevering truly through years of hardship.


Japanese Conquest of Asia And Obama For Got To Tell All About This? Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor In World War 2


Japanese Conquest of Asia And Obama For Got To Tell All About This? Japanese Invasion Burma of In World War 2


Japanese Conquest of Asia And Obama For Got To Tell All About This? Japanese Invasion of Malaya and Singapore In World War 2


Japanese Conquest of Asia And Obama For Got To Tell All About This? Japanese Invasion of Thailand? In World War 2


Japanese Conquest of Asia And Obama For Got To Tell All About this?

Truman's Obvious Choice Using the atomic bomb on Japan was the fastest way to produce a victory with the lowest cost in American lives?


in the summer of 1945, the most important and troubling problem that President Harry Truman faced was how to end the war against Japan on satisfactory terms as quickly as possible. It was clear to American – and Japanese – leaders that Japan could not win the war. But Truman and his advisers still faced the formidable task of forcing a Japanese surrender, and the prospects for an early victory were grimly uncertain, even against a badly weakened enemy.

The Japanese government was sharply divided. One faction favored surrendering on the sole condition that the emperor, Hirohito, be allowed to remain on his throne. A competing faction of militants insisted not only that the status of the emperor be affirmed but also that Japan should fight on in hopes of securing better surrender terms, even at a loss of tens of millions of Japanese lives. Hirohito vacillated between the opposing views without taking a clear position.

With the Japanese government paralyzed by indecision, policy makers in Washington weighed their options for achieving final victory. They considered several approaches that might persuade the Japanese to surrender. The options included modifying the U.S. policy of demanding an unconditional surrender, waiting for the Soviet Union to launch an attack on Japanese-controlled Manchuria, and continuing the naval blockade and massive conventional bombing of Japanese cities that had killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and imposed immense hardships on the survivors. Those methods were burdened by the potential drawbacks of prolonging the war, undermining domestic support for a complete victory, encouraging the Japanese militants or expanding Soviet power in east Asia.

The least desirable means of forcing a surrender was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. At a meeting with high-ranking military leaders on June 18, Truman authorized a landing on the Japanese island of Kyushu in November 1945. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall argued convincingly that an invasion would end the war more surely and more quickly than other alternatives. But an invasion was a dreaded contingency because military experts estimated that the price would be tens of thousands of deaths among American soldiers and sailors (though, contrary to later claims, they did not tell Truman that an invasion would cause hundreds of thousands of American fatalities).

Another possible means of ending the war – the atomic bomb – was known to only a few top officials. By July 1945, it was apparent that two bombs of different designs would soon be available for deployment against Japan. The advantages of the new weapon made its use an easy and obvious decision for Truman. The bomb might speed the end of the war without an invasion and without taking the risks the other options presented. Truman's guiding motive was to force a surrender at the earliest possible moment to save American lives. The precise number of lives was not a concern; he wanted to reduce American casualties to zero. The Japanese had given no indication that they were ready to stop fighting, and Truman authorized the bomb because it appeared to offer the most likely way to produce an American victory on American terms with the lowest cost in American lives.
The atomic bomb accomplished Truman's primary objective. The attack on Hiroshima finally convinced Hirohito that the war must end, and his long-delayed conclusion was the decisive step in bringing about a Japanese surrender. Without the atomic bomb, the war would have continued at a cost in American lives that Truman and the public he served would have found unacceptable.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Ted Cruz Challenges Obama to Debate ‘Insult Me To My Face You Can do it in Turkey, You Can Do It In Foreign Countries, ,: Now Obama Insults Trump Overseas?

Obama: The World ‘Rattled’ by Donald Trump

 “I think it’s fair to say that they are surprised by the Republican nominee. They are not sure how seriously to take some of his pronouncements, but they’re rattled by him, and for good reason,
Obama said world leaders were right to be "rattled" by Donald Trump. Obama said foreign leaders at the conference were u Wingate Wire http://wingatewire.com/2016/05/26/obama-insults-trump-overseas/
Barack Obama's statement that world leaders are "rattled" by Donald Trump and said she had not heard the billionaire's insults against her. President Obama said world leaders were right to be "rattled" by Donald Trump. Obama said foreign leaders at the conference were unsure how seriously to take his pronouncements. Obama said the world is watching the campaign. Obama spoke to reporters in Japan, where he later Thursday will become the first sitting US president to visit the Hiroshima Peace Park Memorial. Wingate Wire http://wingatewire.com/2016/05/26/obama-insults-trump-overseas/
Obama said world leaders were right to be "rattled" by Donald Trump. Obama said foreign leaders at the conference were unsure how seriously to take his pronouncements. Wingate Wire http://wingatewire.com/2016/05/26/obama-insults-trump-overseas/
Obama said world leaders were right to be "rattled" by Donald Trump. Obama said foreign leaders at the conference were unsure how seriously to take his pronouncements. Wingate Wire http://wingatewire.com/2016/05/26/obama-insults-trump-overseas/


Said Cruz, staring down the lens:
“It is utterly unbefitting of the president to be engaging in those kind of personal insults and attacks…He talked about how he was belittling the Republican field as scared. Well let me suggest something: Mr. President, if you want to insult me, you can do it overseas, you can do it in Turkey, you can do it in foreign countries, but I would encourage you, mister president, come back and insult me to my face. Let’s have a debate on Syrian refugees, RIGHT NOW. We can do it wherever you want http://www.towleroad.com/2015/11/insult-me-to-my-face-watch/

Thursday, May 26, 2016

This About Size It Up!

Stop Common Core!

Stop Common Core!

Common Less Core Math

4th Grade Common Core Aligned Math Using Letters, not Numbers?

Is Common Core Math,, Like Lost In Space?

Common Math? What In The Hell?

Michigan on the Verge of Repealing Common Core


The Michigan Legislature is on the verge of passing what is poised to be the strongest anti-Common Core bill to date. The legislation SB 826 is sponsored by State Senator Pat Colebeck (R-Canton) in the Michigan Senate. A companion bill, HB 5444, sponsored State Representative Gary Glenn (R-Midland) in the Michigan House of Representatives.
The legislation would:
  • Michigan’s math, ELA, science and Social studies standards (math and ELA standards are Common Core) and testing would be eliminated in their entirety, replaced by the standards that were in place in Massachusetts prior to Common Core.
  • Local school boards would be free to adjust the standards, and after five years, the state Board of Education would be authorized to do the same. New standards shall not be implemented until both the Senate and House approve the new standards in concurrent resolutions.
  • Parents would be free to opt their child out of any class, instruction, or testing.
  • The state and local schools would be prohibited from collecting data regarding an individual student’s values, attitudes, beliefs, and personality traits, or the student’s family’s political or religious affiliations or views.
  • Test questions used by public schools would be made easily available to the public.
If the sponsor(s) can keep it from being gutted by the usual suspects who elevate their own agendas over genuine education, it will be a very strong bill. I look forward to seeing how the education-establishment and corporate types argue that replacing the Common Core standards with the indisputably better pre-Common Core Massachusetts standards will harm Michigan education,” Jane Robbins, Senior Fellow at American Principles Project, said to Truth in American Education in an email.

SB 826, that has six cosponsors, passed the Michigan Senate Education Committee, but has not yet been brought to the Senate floor for a full vote. HB 5444 has 32 co-sponsors and has not yet moved out of the Michigan House Education Committee.

One of the possible delays Melanie Kurdys, co-founder of Stop Common Core in Michigan, opined was the attached fiscal note that said the bill would have a negative impact. They disagree:
First, the House Appropriations Bill calls for the current state assessment, M-Step to be dropped and replaced with a computer-adaptive assessment.  THIS strategy would be extremely costly to the MDE as well as local districts.  Building a brand new assessment is expensive. Computer-adaptive state-wide assessments are an experiment prone to significant start-up problems and REQUIRE every school district in the state to have current and adequate computer technology and internet access.

SB 826 calls for the adoption of the Massachusetts pre-Common Core assessment, a proven, paper and pencil assessment.  Years of actual questions, answers, cut scores and disaggregated student achievement are available FOR FREE online.  All Michigan needs to do is modify Social Studies questions to reflect MI history instead of MA.  The cost and administration of a paper and pencil assessment is far less than a computer based assessment.  And based on our experience with M-Step, the results will be available to the schools in a much more timely manner!

Second, local districts do not have to change their curriculum.  Local districts and importantly, teachers, will have the freedom to teach using best practice, rather than an experimental cookie-cutter approach.  They can change if they choose, but change is not required.

Finally, the cost of the failed Common Core experiment is profound.  A failed first attempt at a Common Core aligned assessment, M-Step, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Colebeck told Truth in American Education that the bill is waiting for Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof (R-West Olive) to authorize a vote.

“We’re pressing to get a floor vote. I’ve whipped my caucus, and we have the vote. Just need the the Majority Leader to authorize it,” Colebeck told Truth in American Education during a phone interview.

Colebeck said there is a lot of enthusiasm to get the bill “across the finish line.”

Several groups have called for the repeal of Common Core in the state. Stop Common Core in Michigan has led grassroots activism in pushing out the standards.  The Michigan 13th Congressional District Republican Committee passed a resolution in favor of the bills. The Michigan Republican Party and Michigan 9th Congressional District Republican Executive Committee, Republican Women’s Federation of Michigan have offered resolutions calling for the repeal of the standards.  Add those to national voices and local groups who have called for an end to the standards marking a groundswell of support.

Colebeck said that they will have to offer a substitute bill in order to see it pass. This has prompted concern among activists leery of a potential Common Core rebrand that has been seen in several states.

Colebeck said he is aware of the concern stating that the substitute bill will not be a rebrand, but will be a repeal and replace bill. “It will have a repeal component, and it will include the Massachusetts standards as a replacement. It will make it very difficult for the Common Core to eek its way back in,” Colebeck said.

When pressed about what would be taken out of the current bill if a substitute bill is offered, Colebeck pointed to the language in the bill that requires new standards having to pass through the House and Senate in concurrent resolutions. He indicated they would receive pushback and likely a legal challenge over that.

“I just don’t want this thing challenged once it is out,” Colebeck explained.

Colebeck was optimistic that the bill would see a vote within the next couple of weeks. He said if a vote is not held by then the next opportunity would be in the fall.
Stop Common Core in Michigan launched a petition that Michigan residents can sign.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Keep the Bath-Room Barry Out of Your Children's Bathrooms

Keep the Bath-Room Barry Out of Your Children's Bathrooms

 Image result for Bath Room Barry Obama

Obama has asserted, by pure fiat, on no legal, medical, scientific, or commonsense grounds whatsoever, that he can dictate how children use school bathrooms around the country.  This is an obnoxious and dangerous abuse of federal power, and it looks suspicious.  What is Obama's motivation? 

Adults may not remember the deep shame and embarrassment children often feel, as early as age four, around toilet training.  Sibling rivalry can get pretty intense.  Being called a "poopy kid" by your brother or sister might look pretty harmless to parents, but young children can experience it as a sink-through-the-floor feeling of overwhelming shame.  Getting bowel control is a learning process, and losing bowel control feels like a world-shaking catastrophe to a young child. 

Bathrooms are built for privacy because they are surrounded by fear and shame, even after a hundred years of "progressive" theories.  Childhood shame around potty training occurs long before the even bigger ups and downs of puberty, another enormously sensitive time "down there."  

Sexuality is an enormous psychic force, not some parlor game.  Sexual politics has reshaped generations of young people in Western schools, and from there sexual politics has swept the culture.  You can see the results with your own eyes. 

Liberals have a long, long history of trivializing the emotional tempests of childhood and adolescence via the myth of "progressive parenting." 

But human biology wins that battle every single time they try to fiddle with the facts of life. 
Wise parents just don't interfere with a child's turbulent emotional growth; nature is much, much wiser than we are.  We can protect children by giving them privacy and emotional support when they ask for it.  The growing child is the only judge of what feels comfortable during the most vulnerable years.  Leave it to nature. 

And here come Obama's feds, stomping through the most delicate moments in a child's life. 
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. 

This is relevant to Obama's Federal Bathroom Edict, decreeing that children who believe they are not their biological sex should be free to use any bathroom, boys' or girls'.  Nobody seems to care about the other occupants of those bathrooms, who may have their own feelings about their space being invaded by sexually confused kids.  Or adults. 

Nobody knows at what age children can make thoughtful judgments about such things.  At a time in life when kids honestly believe in Santa Claus, the idea that they can make wise choices about questions that have adults deeply confused is unbelievably bizarre. 

Obama's Bathroom Edict is a dangerous brainstorm, a typical product of this dangerously reckless White House. 

We know where the left's obsession with sexual shaping comes from: it's the Frankfurt School of Marxism, imported into the United States as a social pathogen in places like the University of California at Santa Cruz, where Herbert Marcuse presided over "progressive" thought for a number of years. 
Marcuse "regarded the realization of man's erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity."  Bottom line: act like a Bonobo chimp, who rub their genitals against each other to make peace. 
(Bonobos also engage in the usual range of chimp violence, including bachelor raids on neighboring clans to rape and steal females.  Male chimps may also kill the babies of females to gain a reproductive advantage.  These facts are never talked about in liberal circles.) 

I can't imagine what it must be like for a child to grow up in a sex fantasy-obsessed culture, including adults who are themselves deeply confused about their own sexuality.  Puberty is a  "critical period" when kids are most vulnerable, trying to decide who they are going to be as adults. 
In college I had a gay friend, part of a loose network of friends who would meet in the cafeteria to talk and waste time.  My friend – let's call him Raymond, to protect the guilty – was a spectacular homosexual. I later realized that our favorite table in the cafeteria was the perfect observation point for Raymond to watch through the glass doors, to see who was going into the men's bathroom.  Once or twice a day Raymond would get up to venture over there and come out literally dancing.  His friends were tolerantly amused by it all. 

Later on, it turned out that Raymond had engaged in sodomy with his younger brother for years, starting very early.  HIV was incubating and being spread mainly through male-to-male anal penetration.  Nobody knew anything about AIDS at that time, before the epidemic exploded and people started dying.  I've lost contact with Raymond, who was a brilliant guy, but I've heard that he and his younger brother died from the plague. 

Biologically, deadly epidemics break out when an immunized population comes into contact with a group that hasn't developed immunity to a pathogenic bug.  AIDS is believed to originate from an animal reservoir of HIV and to have been transferred by an animal biting a person who had no immunity.  It was then transmitted by blood-to-blood contact, exploding successively into new, unprotected groups of people. 

The biological basis of infection has been known since Louis Pasteur in the 19th century.  When gay men coming from vulnerable populations started traveling to New York, San Francisco, and London, the epidemic exploded.  Sex tourism to the Caribbean and Africa then infected black populations, which are still seeing a raging epidemic. 
This is why African leaders are not thrilled when Obama, in full imperialistic arrogance, demands that they adopt American and European sexual habits.  Poor nations in Africa cannot afford the expensive "AIDS cocktail" keeping men alive in the West.  They are being preyed upon by Western predators, and they know it. 

Sexuality is a force of nature, not a stick-on label.  It has its own laws, and because it is the pathway to reproduction, it is highly constrained biologically.  This is not something to meddle with. 

Obama is far and away the most arrogant and scientifically ignorant political leader we've ever had.  Other politicians may use their power to fulfill personal fantasies.  They have to bear the consequences.  But Obama is bound and determined to impose his personal ideas on children.

This is objectively insane.  In America, we do not sacrifice our children to some freaky cult.  We are not the Mayans.  But our common sense is severely impaired after a generation of media indoctrination, and many of us have been suckered good.  (Obviously the media themselves engage in dangerous practices with drugs and "alternative sex").

"Progressive parenting" is celebrated – after a century of massive "progressive" failures has dumbed our people down to pre-industrial levels.  Stupidity and ignorance, once rare and a matter of shame, have now become the norm. 

Our sophisticated media therefore act as a pathogenic agent, infecting each new generation with escalating sexual extremism, an addictive process that constantly demands bigger kicks. 

Healthy adults who are confident in themselves may be able to resist the tide of progressive delusions.  Unhealthy adults, and vulnerable children, are the most at risk.  Whenever media cult-indoctrinated adults realize that all their hopes have turned to ashes, they turn their personal rage into fodder for demagogues.  Like Obama. 
A healthy culture protects its children against bizarre sexual experiments.  Obama's Bathroom Edict is an obvious case of "progressive" experimentalism gone nuts. 

Don't let the feds tell your kids which bathroom to use.  If somebody is confused about his sexual identity – which is easy enough, given the crazed media – give him a separate bathroom of his own.  And find wise and helpful counselors, but only if the kids are comfortable with that.  Never impose your own "progressive" ideology on others. 

And keep out the predators.  The woods are full of them.  They are often the victims of sexual fantasy indoctrination themselves.  Keep them as far away as you can.

Bath Room Barry, Orders Public Schools to Allow Males and Females to Use the Same Facilities Demand State Action to Stop the Assault on our Children!


All OF Obama Friend's

Monday, May 23, 2016

Obama, Chicago Hood Valve's 4 Chicagoans Killed, 53 Wounded in Only Four Days, Thus far his year, 1,398 have been shot in Chicago?

The last four days, ending on Sunday evening, saw a terrible bloodletting in the city of Chicago–53 shootings and four deaths.

With 33 shot and four killed, the weekend itself was bloody enough, but Wednesday night into Thursday set the table with an additional 20 Chicagoans shot in a mere sixteen-hour period.
The shootings on Thursday included a 12-year-old boy who was wounded in a drive-by shooting when entering a fast food establishment on the 200 block of South Western.
Witnesses said as many as 15 shots were fired at the boy and his friends as they entered the restaurant.
Chicago police said that another incident, likely fueled by road rage, ended with a man and woman being shot by a man who was following them in a vehicle. The man was shot in the back end, but his passenger was shot in the head and was listed in critical condition on Thursday.
The shootings continued throughout the day on Thursday, most of them gang related, police said.
But the bloody Thursday was only a precursor for the bloodletting to come over the weekend.
Between Friday and Sunday evening, another 33 were shot, with four killed. One of those murdered was a city employee who was caught in the crossfire of gang warfare.
Killed was Yvonne Nelson, an operator for the city’s 311 service, caught between warring gangs on Friday afternoon near 35th and State Street.
Thus far this year, 1,398 have been shot in Chicago, with 219 shot and killed out of a total of 245 total homicides.

In years past, the mayhem has been particularly dialed up during the Memorial Day weekend in the city. In 2014, for instance, 8 were killed and 21 wounded. The next year was even worse, with 12 killed and 45 shot in 2015. But this year’s bloody pre-Memorial Day weekend may presage a shocking toll in the days ahead.

20 Times Obama Made the Case Against His Own Executive Actions on Immigration


The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas this week, the case challenging President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which would protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. But if we take a trip down memory lane, it seems President Obama has already made the case against his immigration actions on more than one occasion.

1.    May 5, 2010: “Anybody who tells you … I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.”
2.    July 1, 2010: “[T]here are those … who have argued passionately that we should … at least ignore the laws on the books... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair...This could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.”
3.    October 25, 2010“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself.”
4.    March 28, 2011: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.”
5.    April 20, 2011: “I can't solve this problem by myself. … I can't do it by myself.”
6.    April 29, 2011: “Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works”
7.    May 10, 2011: “They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”
8.    July 25, 2011: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”
9.    September 28, 2011:  "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not True. We are doing everything we can administratively.
10. September 28, 2011: “We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”
11. September 20, 2012: “What I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do.”
12. October 16, 2012: “But we're also a nation of laws. … And I've done everything that I can on my own...”
13. January 30, 2013: “I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law.”
14. January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.”
15. February 14, 2013“The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.”
16. July 16, 2013: “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.”
17. September 17, 2013“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law…”
18. November 25, 2013“If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we're also a nation of laws … The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. … That’s not our tradition.”
19. March 6, 2014: “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.”

20. August 6, 2014:“I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbot, who spearheaded the lawsuit against the government that 25 other states joined on to, said on Thursday that the case may be framed under immigration, but it’s really about presidential power.

“The lawsuit is about the fact that the president completely abandoned the Constitution, assumed power he does not have, and wrote law,” Abott said during a roundtable discussion at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. “The lawsuit is about the fact that if the president wins this lawsuit, the Constitution as we know it has been completely rewritten and Congress no longer has any authority.”

A decision in the case is expected some time before the end of June.