Internet Articles (2017)
o you remember Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus? He was actually born Lucius Domitius Athenobarbus. His mother was a niece of Claudius. That was a couple years before your time—and mine. He was the emperor of the Roman Empire from 54 AD to 68 AD. He was adopted by his great-uncle Claudius, who needed an heir. In other words, Nero, who became Caesar at 17 years of age, was actually not eligible to serve in the office he held from his 17th birthday until his death at age 30 since he did not directly carry the bloodline of the Caesars. Rumor has it that Claudius was murdered by his niece, Agrippina the Younger, who caught the eye of Claudius. She fed her husband, Crispus, a meal of poisoned mushrooms so she could marry the Emperor. Ancient historians claim she also fed her next husband, Claudius, the same delicacy in 54 AD, opening the way for Nero to be proclaimed Caesar by the Senate in Rome.
Although carrying the bloodline of the Caesars, Claudius never aspired for greatness. Because he suffered from a limp from childhood, and partial deafness, he was ostracized from polite society. He was the invisible Caesar. Since Caligula, who succeeded Tiberius (after being named Caesar by the Praetorian Guard) was only 25, Claudius expected that Nero would never become Emperor because Caligula was young enough to sire an heir. In the end, the Praetorian Guard assassinated him, his wife and their infant daughter and proclaimed Claudius Caesar.
Upon the death of Claudius (whom both the Senate and the Praetorian Guard respected) Nero had to make several concessions to the Senate to win their endorsement. Nero, of course, lied to them. To secure power, in 54 AD, Nero promised the Senate the same type of power they enjoyed when Rome was a Republic. (Sound familiar?) By 65 AD Nero had completely erased their authority. The Senators, complaining they had absolutely no power left, devised a series of schemes to rid themselves of Nero. Accusations of treason by Nero were being leveled by members of the Senate and the Praetorian Guards. The accusations were true. But, Nero escape retribution.
Attempts to kill Nero were instigated by Gaius Calpurnius Piso, an extremely well-liked Senator—and a masterful orator who could hold the Senate spellbound. (The same thing the free press said about Obama when he gave the keynote address at John Kerry's nomination in 2004.) We know the social progressive media and the social progressive talking heads lied when they made those statements about Obama in 2004. Take away Obama's teleprompter and he's functionally illiterate.
While Nero was afraid to kill Gaius, between 62 and 63 AD he executed scores of lesser people for treason—including several members of the Senate. Nero was able to aid the Senators' fall from grace by framing them for crimes they did not commit—and, in many cases, for crimes that simply didn't exist. That made getting rid of them much simpler since it's virtually impossible to have an alibi for something that never happened. According to the Roman historian Suetonius, Nero "...showed neither discrimination nor moderation in putting to death whomsoever he pleased." By 64 AD Nero had officially assumed the role of "administrator of the State." Like Barack Obama today, Nero changed the laws of the Senate by decree. The laws he did not want to enforce, he simply erased. Laws he needed altered to fit his needs, he changed by decree.
When word of the revolt of Christian slaves against their Roman masters in Judea in 66 AD reached Rome, the patrician class began to fear their own slaves. Even more, the patricians feared the freedmen (many, loyal servants of the patricians who owned them, were freed by the terms of the wills of their masters] others gained their freedom through battle in the arenas). The patricians demanded that the Senate enact a measure allowing the patricians to revoke the freedom of outspoken freedmen and return them to bondage. Nero stood up for the freedmen only because most of them were in the praetorian guard who opposed the patron class. He denied the Senate the right to enact provisions to allow the patricians to reinstate the bondage of freed men who had either won or bought their freedom.
During the night of July 18, 64 AD fire erupted in the market area of Rome. Fanned by summer winds, the flames quickly devoured almost every common, wooden structure in the Imperial City. When the fire was extinguished six days later, over 70% of the city lay in ashes. Nero was blamed for the fire by his detractors in the Senate and in the Praetorian Guard, who claimed he ordered the city torched and stood on the summit of Palatine (one of the ten hills upon which Rome was built), playing his lyre while Rome burned. In reality, when the fire broke out Nero was in his palace in Antium (Anzio). When word of the fire reached him, he rushed to Rome and, without any of his guards present to protect him, he directed efforts to quench the fire. When allegations arose in the Senate that Nero had ordered the burning of the city, Nero found a more acceptable scapegoat—Christians. Scores of them were rounded up, and before they faced the Senate, each was sufficiently tortured to confess to the crime.
Few historians paint Nero in a favorable light. Most depict him as a lunatic. Only a handful of authors today depict Nero as an emperor popular with the common masses. Those historians question the reliability of reports that Nero was a tyrannical lunatic. As an administrator, a fair amount of historians rank Nero as able; a few, proficient. When complaints rose that the poor were over taxed, Nero attempted to repeal all indirect taxes (which would have bankrupted the treasury). Instead, Nero reduced all indirect taxes by half. In addition, to get back at the Senate, Nero made all of their secret tax records public.
When Rome burned, Nero initiated a public relief effort on a scale never seen in the world before FDR's communist New Deal in the 1930s. A number of very expensive public works projects were initiated by Nero and Rome was transformed from a city of wooden buildings to one of marble and stone. The rubble from the destroyed city was hauled to the mosquito-infested marshes of Ostgia, obliterating them by completely filling them in with the rubble and ashes from Rome. Nero ordered the building of gymnasiums, theatres, gladiator arenas and scores of public buildings. You might say, Nero's "shovel ready" jobs.
In the center of Rome he constructed a large villa, Domus Aurea, the Emperor's home. These were Nero's "shovel-ready" jobs. Built by slaves. In 67 AD Nero tried to dig a canal across the Isthmus of Corinth to save the Roman Navy the time required to sail around Peloponnese. The Greek tyrant Periander tried the same thing in the 7th century, BC. Like Nero, he failed.
The cost for Nero's public works projects were treasury-crippling. By 67 AD, the benevolent Nero became obsessed with creating a legacy befitting a god—which Nero now believed he was. In addition to reversing his tax policies of 64 AD, Nero devalued the monetary system of Rome by reducing the amount of gold and silver in its coinage. Once again, does this sound familiar?
As the Federal Reserve System today goes through the sham of buying its own debt bonds with its own debt, it has embarked on a historic devaluation of our fiat monetary system. Which is why commodity prices in the United States are spiraling out of control. We live in an economy where our monetary system is not pegged to gold and silver, but on the raw cost of commodities (whose worth is pegged on the inherent value of those commodities in 1935. Commodity prices rise as the worth of the dollar diminishes because the greenback has become far too elastic to have value as the world's reserve currency).
(Can you see the similarities between Nero and Barack Obama?) Nero was arrogantly corrupt—like Obama. In 59 AD Nero had own his mother, Agrippina, executed for attempting to depose him in favor of his stepbrother Britannicus—also her son. Her death was made to look like a suicide because in 59 AD Nero was still trying to fool the citizens of Rome into believing he was a sane and rational tyrant who would not throw them to the lions in the Flavian Amphitheater, which consisted of 10 coliseums where the gladiators fought and died to amuse the attendees.
In 62 AD, Nero was accused of treason by members of the Praetorian Guard. The Senate retaliated by placing a ranking member of the Praetorian Guard on trial and executing him. Fearful of the Praetorians, Nero began thinning their ranks based on any perceived disloyalty to the throne could conjure up. Sound familiar? Over the last five years Barack Obama has covertly thinned the ranks of some of the most brilliant generals in the United States military for their perceived disloyalties to him—and for questioning his unconstitutional edicts.
One of the best examples of this was Obama's firing Africom's four-star commanding officer, Carter Ham for attempting to do his job during the Benghazi Mission attack. All of the players in the nation's capital, from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to the Joint Chiefs and from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the community organizer in the Oval Office knew precisely, and exactly, what was going on in Benghazi—and why.
The attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with a spoof video about Mohammad. It was all about the Obama State Dept. having a major a cache of weapons destined for Syria stored in Benghazi. The video story was needed because it would not have bode well for the Obama Administration if the American people learned that Obama was running guns to al Qaeda rebels linked to al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood). If the American people knew that Obama had covertly planned to arm the Muslim Brotherhood-linked al Qaeda rebels in Syria, Barack Obama could not have stolen enough fake electronic voting machine votes to win reelection, nor would that knowledge work well for Hillary Clinton's run for the roses in 2016. The American people don't want the US government arming our deadliest enemies.
Whether the idea to store the arms and munitions for the Syrian rebels in Benghazi was Obama's or Hillary's makes no difference. They are two peas from the same globalist social progressive pod. Add to that, the Clintons' past was, and still is, as opaque as Obama's.
Presidents should never be allowed to use executive power to shield the crimes of their past. Nor should their financial backers be allowed to use their money and influence to do the same on their behalf. And the media executives who are handsomely rewarded career-wise by the princes of industry and the barons of banking to conceal the sins of the lackeys whom the elite place on the pinnacle of power, should be required to serve prison time with the lackeys of the kingmakers for violating the trust of the People.
The Constitution of the United States provides the American media—both print and electronic, and by clarification of the US Supreme Court, the blogsphere as well—with unbridled freedom from government interference or regulation to expose the transgression of those in power.
Until, that is, Barack Obama was placed in the White House by money and political muscle provided by George Soros and David Rockefeller—both of whom knew Obama's pedigree and believed they could profit from it. Obama had one attribute the money barons needed in the Oval Office—a total lack of moral character. He is a man with a new lie in every sentence he speaks. Thirty-five million of the 59 plus million votes credited to Obama in 2008, and 36,302,841 of the 65 million votes credited to Obama in 2012 were votes for which there were no actual registered voters voting. What's left, 33,869,936 Obama votes in 2008 and 23,612,955 Obama votes in 2012 who actually appear to have voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012—now knows that every promise Obama made on the campaign trail in both election cycles were bald-faced lies. In the real world of honest votes, Obama lost overwhelmingly in both 2008 and 2012.
(Note that in 2012, the actual cast ballots [ballots with real voters attached to them] totaled 29,613,955, but since we know the Democrats datamined Republican voters in the battle ground states in 2012 and early-voted six million registered voters who always vote on Election Day and early-voted those ballots in battleground States where they did not have to produce photo IDs to prove they were who they claimed to be. Six million Romney voters were denied the right to vote. In 2012, the Democratic National Committee [DNC] used data-mining in the battleground States to determine precisely when registered Democrats and Republicans voted, and particularly if they early-voted. While the DNC should never have had access to GOP voting information, in the battleground States, the Obama Campaign, gained access to that information and criminally early voted 6 million registered GOP voters who always vote on Election Day—denying those citizens their sacrosanct right to vote—casting the GOP voters ballots for Barack Obama and every Democrat on those States' ballots. The Constitutionally protected free press, by the way, failed to mention that story. Only Fox News reported it)
And, if Hillary can steal the same 35 to 36 million fraudulent e.votes that Obama stole to win the White House in 2008 and 2012, it won't be enough for the most despicable social progressive in the United States. Since electronic votes do not require voters, the only way to tell that a fraud has been perpetuated is to compare the number of registered voters who show up to vote—either as an early voter or on election day—with the number of verified votes cast. When you have 35 or 36 million more votes than voters, then you know without seeking a confessions from suspected wrongdoers that a fraud has been committed against the American people. And, it's up to the American people to take their government back by whatever constitutional means are required to achieve that goal. (Among those remedies to tyranny, according to the Declaration of Independence, is force. in the second paragraph of that Founding document we are admonished "...[t]hat whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it and institute a a new government...[but not for] light and transcient causes."
When the United States of America was born from the ashes of the Revolutionary War, the 18th century world was not comprised of democracies and republics. Kings, queens, emperors, dictators and despots ruled—Men like Nero and Nero clones. They had the arbitrary power of life or death over their subjects.
The Founding Fathers were determined to create a society of equals—a nation ruled by the People and not the despots or tyrants of the world. Very deliberately, using the tenets expounded by Emer deVattel in The Law of Nations as the basis of the rule of law in America, the Founding Fathers crafted a document in which the bedrock of law in the new nation was embedded. They called it The Constitution of the United States. It was designed to guarantee that a tyrant or despot could never rule America by mandating that only a natural born male citizen is eligible to seek, and hold, the office of President of the United States. To guarantee personal freedom in America, the Founding Fathers attached a Bill of Rights to the Constitution which would assure that liberty
Helped by the bigoted left in both Houses of Congress, Barack Hussein Obama now believes he's omnipotent. His authority, in his mind, is limitless. Sadly, Obama, who calls himself a constitutional expert, is actually clueless about what constitutional prerogatives the man at the helm of the USS United States actually possesses, and those he does not. His powers are specifically enumerated. Those not enumerated in the Constitution do not exist—nor can Congress arbitrarily make them up and allow the Executive to assume authority which the 10th Amendment has delegated solely to the States and to the People.
Obama does not have the magic eraser he uses so freely today to capriciously change provisions of law he doesn't like, nor does he possess a dictatorial right to create laws out-of-thin-air that he believes should be on the books, but which Congress can't or won't enact because they will lose their jobs.
What does his own party say? After the midterm election in 2012, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] suggested that Obama should have the dictatorial right to bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling without the need to ask the People. And Congressman Raul Grijalva [D-AZ] said that Obama has the right to arbitrarily raise the minimum wage on employees of private companies who win federal contracts.
Interviewed by BizPac Review on Nov. 23, 2013 after praising Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] for arbitrarily killing with the right of Republicans to filibuster, Congressman Charlie Rangel [D-NY] said Obama should drop the charade of democracy and rule by executive orders, commenting that Obama should simply rule by Executive Orders, adding that he had "...already established a precedent for making his own laws without regard to Congress." Democrats, particularly social progressive Democrats, believe dictatorships are just fine because they expedite the process of governing. Need something done? Decree it.
The GOP can't stop Obama because they need a super majority in the Senate to remove him. The social progressive left is content to throw the Constitution out the window by granting Obama de facto dictatorial power to advance their communist agenda by Obama's use of Executive Orders to increase the minimum wage to $12.50 per hour and, of course, to grant provisional citizenship to illegal aliens. Obama has already granted himself the power to vacate any law, or any provision of law, with which he disagrees.
For example, although in the Reno v ACLU high court decision (521 US 844, 1997), the US Supreme Court ruled that 1st Amendment free speech rights extends to the Internet, and that "Internet speech" enjoys the same free speech protection as newspapers, radio and TV, books, magazines, films, short wave, and even street corner advocacy. In 1995 the Democratically-controlled Senate enacted the Communications Decency Act as an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1995 to regulate Internet content.
The Republican-controlled House refused to vote on the Communications Decency Act until 1996 when it finally became part of the Telecommunications Act of 1995. Like all social progressive legislation that appears to be enacted to right a wrong or perform a social good, the Communications Decency Act was, in reality, created to regulate and ultimately silence the militant, patriot right—or any political group or organization with whom the administration disagreed.
Remember that commercial access to the world wide web did not happen until 1992 through an amendment to the National Science Foundation Act which resulted in a virtually overnight explosion of public spirited patriots who did not like Bill and Hillary Clinton nor their unconstitutional Chinese campaign fund money connections.
Under the guise of protecting America's youth from the purveyors of pornography, Bill Clinton used an executive order to place Internet regulation under the control of the Federal Communications Commission, which already regulated TV and radio content, making it a criminal act punishable by imprisonment for anyone to knowingly promote pornography to persons under the age of 18. The bill would have required anyone wanting to create a print or video blog on the Internet to apply for a "broadcast license" from the FCC which, of course, would also possess the power to revoke that privilege if the administration in power did not like the content displayed on those websites—whether pornographic, political or social.
On June 12, 1996 a panel of federal judges blocked the implementation of the Communications Decency Act in a decision in Reno v American Civil Liberties Union. In July, a federal court in New York struck down the same provisions. On June 26, 1997 the US Supreme Court overturned the Communications Decency Act and ruled that the Internet and internet speech enjoyed the same constitutional protections granted the free press in the 1st Amendment since, in their view, the news blogs on the Internet performed the same task as the printed newspaper—exposing the wrongdoings of government (the precise reason newspapers were protected from government regulation from the inception of this nation). Does it surprise you that the Founding Fathers did not trust the government which they, themselves, created?
In society today, the person you need to trust the least is the one who assures you in a soft, serene voice, "you can trust me." A majority of Americans were quick to discover they couldn't trust Barack Obama. Most learned that lesson long before they found out just they couldn't keep the hospital plan they liked, or the primary care physician they've been seeing for the past decade or two. The "gimme society" still doggedly supports Obama only because, in the end, they believe they will still get the "free stuff." They still haven't figure out that Obamacare is not really a healthcare system, its an economic penal system controlled by Big Brother to enslave mankind.
In 2009, the community organizer, who campaigned for the top job in the nation on a pledge that he would have the most transparent administration in history, proceeded immediately to conceal every facet, dot and tittle of his life from the American public—right down to his elementary school records and grades. Secrecy, not transparency, is the order of the day.
On March 31, 2009, Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, nephew of global political overlord David Rockefeller proffered S.773, The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 to the Senate. Co-sponsoring the bill were Senators Olympia Snowe [R-ME] and Bill Nelson [D-FL]. This bill would have put into motion the regulation of the Internet under the auspices of the FCC through the Dept. of Homeland Security.
A key provision in this legislation was the creation of a Internet kill switch that will allow government, in times of emergencies (declared as such by the government with its finger on the kill switch), to place a roadblock up on all of the onramps to the Internet, thereby terminating that nation's citizens access to the information superhighway. Theoretically, the "spin" from the leftwing talking heads was that the kill switch could be used by the FCC only when an aggressive nation launched a cyberattack which threatened our nation's Internet security—and then, only with authorization from Homeland Security. You can't trust one Obama department from abrogating your rights, but when you add a second one, those fears are suddenly gone?
On March 18, 2009 Wikileaks published a list of 2,300 Australian websites which the Australian Labor Party had on its cyberwatch list for quite some time, and which they arbitrarily prevented from broadcasting by blocking or filtering the signals of the blacklisted websites. (Some were able to get back on the cybernet by installing censorship circumvention software that allowed them to bypass the filters and blocking mechanisms.) The social progressives down-under don't like politically-conservative, tell the "unvarnished truth" websites anymore than the Islamofascist and Stalinist social progressives in the United States government.
The Aussie socialists shut down what they said were a couple thousand problematic anti-labor, anti-global warming and anti-abortion website, but concealed the nature of those legal websites in a much-publicized crack-down on a cluster of porn sites and ponzi-scheme network marketing schemes touted as criminal by the Australian media. The government responded to the Wikileaks report by admitting they had blocked some political content, but insisted they did so only because those signals originated in other countries and were "piped into Australia" specifically to inflame Aussies.
The first country to test its kill switch on its entire population was China. On June 3, 2009, one day before the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing, the Chinese government shut down the ability of their citizens to access the Internet, During the downtime, international websites like Blogger, Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress and Hotmail were blocked by the Great Firewall of China.
The second country to universally test its kill switch was Australia. They did it on Sept. 3, 2009 for one hour—from 7:50 to 8:50 am. The State-owned Telstra required all ISPs in Australia to shut down for the "test." Craig Middleton, a Telstra executive told Skye News that since roughly 95% of all Internet customers in Australia use Telstra, every Internet and cell phone user in Australia was affected. (In reality, dial-up Internet users in Australia were still able to access the Internet and did not know the "test" had been done until they read about it in the Sydney Morning Herald.) What was the Australian government testing? Whether or not they could completely shut down the Internet and cell phone usage from consumers and businesses alike in Aussieland, yet at the same time, allow the government to continue to have full access to both.
The United States already knew the answer to that question. The answer was an unequivocal "yes." Which is why Jay Rockefeller's Cybersecurity Act of 2009 was so important to Obama. And it's also the reason that the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 frightened the American people more than Obamacare would four years later. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would appear to allow Obama to censor the blogsphere and, whenever desired, selectively kill websites that would ultimately prove to be problematic for the most "transparent administration in history."
Had the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 been enacted, the Bill of Rights would have been successfully breached shortly after the Birther Movement raised the question of Obama's progeny and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio proved forensically that Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate, his Connecticut social security card and his selective service card were all fraudulent. Had Congress given the Obama Administration the legislated right to abrogate blogsphere free speech, oral free speech, then even the free press would have vanished. The problem is, since Congress itself didn't possess the authority under the Constitution to regulate the 1st Amendment, it lacked constitutional standing to bequeath that power to the Executive Branch of government. Congress cannot give what it doesn't possess. The Constitution delineates what powers are possessed by Congress, the Executive Branch, the States and the People. Enumerated powers not specifically granted to the Legislative, Judicial or Executive Branch were reserved specifically for the States and to the People respectively. Which, again, is why Obama does not have the constitutional responsibility to write his own laws, or amend existing laws to suit his needs.
That, however, did not stop the social progressives who fraudulently gained control of both houses of Congress in 2006. The left increased that lead due to voter registration fraud committed by ACORN. (In 2008 the Bush-43 FEC reported that 56.8% of the registered voters, or 96,992,000 eligible Americans voted. Unfortunately the FEC report, required by federal law, showed there were 132,618,580 votes—or 35,626,580 too many votes—in the ballot boxes.) Even with a solid majority in both chambers, the new, super transparent Obama Administration couldn't muster the votes needed to enact Rockefeller's Cybersecurity Act of 2009. Rockefeller's attempt to surrender control of the Internet to Obama's FCC failed. The following year Senators Joe Lieberman [I-CT], Susan Collins [R-ME] and Tom Carper [D-DE] introduced a revised version of Rockefeller's legislation now called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. On March 15, 2011 Congress introduced HR 1136, the Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act to amend Chapter 35 of Title 44 to allow DHS to decide which private websites and ISPs needed to be regulated. The law would force compliance with the use of fines, sanctions or loss of license.
Like Rockefeller's bill, Lieberman's legislation contained provisions that would allow Barack Obama to use the Internet kill switch to shut down the Internet if he felt there was a cybercrisis severe enough to merit it. And, of course from what we've learned about the princes of industry's Manchurian candidate (who can no longer hide behind the wall of obscurity that was paid for by the money barons and built by the leftwing media they own), we know that when Obama is able to do so, he will throw the cyber kill switch and silence the voice of liberty.
The American people need to understand that none of the nations which created cyber-kill switch laws did so to protect their citizens from foreign or domestic cyberterrorists. Kill switch laws are enacted solely to protect government officials from the People they are attempting to subjugate. In 2011 when Obama realized his personal, political need to have Congress enact a law which would allow him to regulate the Internet was not going to happen, Obama issued his first Executive Order to take-over the Internet in the fall 0f 2010 but did not attempt to enforce it. In December, 2010 then US Justice Foundation Executive Director (now Circuit Court Judge) Gary Kreep learned that the FCC had voted 3 to 2 that they had the authority to regulate the Internet as an "electronic media," the same as radio and television. The 112th Congress disagreed. So did Kreep who used the Internet to alert the American people that Obama was preparing for another end-run around the Constitution even though the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held in American Civil Liberties Union v Reno that the Internet is a "...publishing medium [in which] personal home pages are the equivalent of individualized newsletters..." akin to traditionally published newspapers "...about that person or organization." (929F.Supp at 837).
The US Supreme Court concluded that the Internet deserves at least as much protection under the 1st Amendment as printed matter receives. The Third Circuit, in its ruling, concluded that the Supreme Court's two primary theories for government regulation of any form of broadcast communications content—NBC v United States (319 US 190 ) and FCC v Pacific Foundation (438 US 726 ) do not justify government regulation of the Internet.
Since the American people now understand that regardless what Executive Orders Barack Obama writes, they have no standing as law. The Executive Branch has no legislative authority. Executive Orders are interoffice memos between the head of the Executive Branch to his employees. No more. No less.
There have been at least three district court, appellate court and Supreme Court decisions telling the Executive Branch it cannot grant itself the right to regulate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Nor, you will recall, can Congress enact a law granting the Executive rights Congress does not constitutionally possess. But the citizens of the United States need to be increasingly aware of the limitations of the federal government, and fire any Congressman or Senator who grants the Executive Branch powers it does not possess under the Constitution.
If you don't know what enumerated powers the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch constitutionally possess, you'd better buy a copy of the Constitution and study it. It's not hard to understand until you get a roomful of social progressives lawyers trying to amend it by changing the meanings of the words contained within it. Because the transliterated words that justify regulation originally say "freedom" and "liberty."
Shortly after commentator George Will joined Fox News, he made this comment about Barack Obama that every American needs to read here if they didn't hear it on Fox News. "America has had some great presidents, many mediocre ones and a few bad ones. But, we've never had one like Barack Obama. He's the first one who thinks the job is beneath him. He's the first one who turns political give-and-take into a crisis by refusing to negotiate with [the GOP which controls the House of Representatives]. He's the first one who thinks the way to more power is to inflict pain on ordinary people...[T]here is no bottom to Obama. He's not just ruthless. He's without scruples and honor. When it comes to his countrymen, Obama always chooses conflict over cooperation."
George Will astutely observed that Barack Obama is the first occupant of the White House who thinks the job of President of the United States is beneath him. In point of fact Will is correct. The question is, does Will understand why? Obama entered the White House with only one skill set—that of a community activist. Logic suggests Obama should have been in pig heaven with the media addressing him as "president-elect." In the Muslim world, pig heaven is, of course, an infidel Hell. And, in the Muslim world, anyone who is a president, or supreme leader, is a de facto dictator. Obama feels his job is beneath only because, at the moment, except for the Obamacare Independent Advisory Board, he does not possess the power of life and death over what he believes are "his subjects." In his mind, he is Obama the Omnipotent, master of America. All he is missing is the throne of a monarch. But, in Obama's transparent world and opaque mind, he still has two more years to conquer America.