Your Rights Do NOT Come From The Constitution Either. The Constitution exists to PROTECT Them FROM the government
As the country heads into the abyss of complete totalitarianism under the color of law, the following two wallpapers are provided as a public service to the truth most Americans are now willfully ignorant and willfully blind to.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. – John 3:19
We have no Constitution. We have no rule of law.
We only have a Dictatorship – supported by an Oligarchy of Ruling Class nobles who see us as rabble needing to be subjugated and/or exterminated.
As the Dissent points out: “Words no longer have meaning”- and if words have no meaning in the law, then LAW itself has no meaning outside of whatever the Dictator-In-Chief and his Ruling Class says it means.
As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” – Roberts said the wording of ObamaCare was ambiguous but decided the intent of Congress was clear and therefore he rewrote the law because,”[Congress] always had the intention of subsidies being provided nationwide”.
So we now have incontrovertible proof that the Supreme Court has made itself the final arbiter of what decrees and “laws” are ‘law’ and have inserted themselves into being the Confirmers of what politics are “Lawful” and what politics and ideologies are ‘UnConstitutional” meaning – unlawful.
So we have a dictatorship that confirms The Fuhrer’s and the Politburo’s political agendas.
Justice Antonin Scalia made evident what these rulings actually mean in his scathing dissent:
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
“Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
“And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
So, if you are honest and brave enough to accept the truth: have a Dictatorship – run by a Marxist and Socialist Oligarchy in all 3 branches – who have ceded power to a destructive America-hating madman in the Executive who is stoking a race war while ‘fundamentally transforming the nation into a Communist hell-hole.
Since todays ‘laws’ are written in massive thousand page behemoths and passed in secret with no one in the American public knowing what the Oligarchy is crafting, it is self-evident that the Constitution no longer exists in practicality beyond lip service.
When challenged on the Constitutional merits, we now see that diktat from the Oligarchy will now be upheld over the rule of law. Today it’s government-run healthcare. By Monday, it will be Homosexuality rammed down all our throats with no difference between civil unions and traditional marriage while sacred institutions who refuse to marry same sex couples will be charged with crimes.
Every institution that was American and cultural is being dismantled, banned, shunned and destroyed before our eyes.
During Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, the Chinese were encouraged to destroy the “Four Olds”—old customs, old habits, old culture, and old thinking. Given the Ruling Class insane push to remove all symbols of the Confederacy and Southern Culture from the country in the last week – the fact is what we see playing out before is the removal of our foundations and heritage so that removing the Constitution is accepted and applauded by the masses.
So what do we do now?
Here is the solution – which our Forebears implemented when they too found themselves under tyrannical dictatorship:
DO NOT COMPLY.
Yes, this will make you a target.
Yes, you will be punished.
Yes, they will make an example out of you.
Yes, they will impoverish you, seize you, imprison you and even KILL YOU.
So the question you have to ask yourself is this: Do you love liberty enough to risk your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor? Or will going along to keep ourselves fed and sheltered and provided for by a Beast be more important to us?
Please re-read our duty as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It is become beyond dispute that we are being subjugated by a lawless Federal tyranny that we seem powerless to stop.
Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. – Declaration of Independence
Part 1: Federal Lawlessness Gives Rise To A Beast
Lawless. That is what the U.S. Government has officially become under the Obama regime. That is not to say that there has not been lawlessness in government until Obama, there has been plenty. The difference is that until 2009 – lawlessness and corruption was never institutionalized. Today it is standard practice at all levels of the federal government, making it the status quo in the highest offices in the land.
This is the core of what Obama really intended with “Fundamental Transformation”
Under his direction and with the assistance of the Ruling Class of both parties, the Federal Government is now a law and power unto itself. The Executive makes laws by decree and empowered unaccountable bureaucrats with law-making ability that according the Constitution is reserved for Congress alone. Such bureaucrats and ‘czars’ now make policy designed to punish, rob and enslave peoples and their property to the whims and dictates of the state without public recourse. Lawlessness that is ignored, excused and said to be ‘necessary’, given lawful legal status via ‘precedent’.
The Congress itself has surrendered almost all it’s power via the Ruling Class in both parties to the Executive Branch, refusing to hold Obama’s regime accountable for clear violations of the Constitution while granting the Executive authority ascribed for Congress alone. From declaring and waging war to ceding it’s taxing and spending power to Obama – the Ruling Class in Congress have abdicated their Constitutional duty. This has enabled a defacto dictatorship that most Americans pretend does not exist.
The 10th Amendment is wholly ignored while courts tell states they have no standing in Federal matters to enforce laws the Obama regime has made policy to ignore. Precedent is now the mechanism upon which rulings are handed down, and policies enacted rather than examination of each through the prism of the Constitution.
This is a candid fact: law in America now is arbitrary, determined to be whatever those in power decree it to be while exempting themselves from those very same laws.
And don’t look to the courts for protection and sanction against a corrupt and totalitarian state – they are part and parcel of foisting it upon us all.
Consider, actual laws passed by the majority of the people in the States are being decreed null and void by an Activist Judiciary and Just-Us Department pushing various agendas from homosexuality, Racial minority preference policies to South American insurgent amnesty. What the voters overwhelming pass via referendum and ballot is overturned and declared a ‘violation of the Constitution’ usually via pretzel twists of logic to justify.
There is a mountain of evidence in our faces that the current federal government is corrupt beyond measure and no longer bound by the rule of law in a civil society as established by our Founders. Indeed it is a doctrine on the Left and often cited by the MarxoFascist politicians in power – that a document written by dead people should have no bearing on the living. This is the actual intent they mean by the term ‘Living Constitution”. It should be ignored, changed or abolished on whatever whim is decided by those in power when it is decreed to be a benefit to “the people” because government should not be “held hostage by a bunch of dead white racist slave-owners”.
And such is the blueprint for totalitarian tyranny and oppression. The kind one finds in Socialist utopias like North Korea and Cuba,
Such is not a Republic. Such is a vile meddlesome “progressive” tyranny of the likes not even the Founders suffered.
The fact is friend, we are a society no longer governed by moral law, but ruled by the tyranny of wicked, unprincipled men that mirrors the basest of society that affords them their seats of power for a promise and a bribe.
The reason for this is that a majority of the American people are no longer governed by God. They pay Him lip service at best and perhaps warm a seat for an hour or two once-a-week, but no longer are living by and promoting His Moral Laws and Authority as Supreme. Churches are shrinking and a growing majority of Americans now claim they are ‘spiritual’ rather than beholden to biblical foundations. The zeitgeist promoted by the media and entertainment is that Government is now god; the arbiter of morality and fairness. In this devolution of society, the federal beast became self-aware of it’s need to dominate all life and behavior in the country and is acting on that inherent desire to rule.
Such a government is a blasphemy to a Biblically-adherent people, and it’s institutionalized corruption and promotion of wickedness renders it illegitimate.
There are many candid facts in recent news that make the illegitimacy of this government self-evident. I’ll cite just two, but I am certain you would be able to find myriad such examples to illustrate the fact that the current federal government in Washington D.C. has no legitimate moral authority over a people it now rules rather than represents.
The greatest illustration of the fact the federal government is now lawless, can be seen by the IRS scandal whereby the Executive and his party used the agency to intimidate, harass and punish Americans who are considered to be political opponents of Obama and his party.
The most feared federal agency in the United States is the IRS, which has the power to seize everything you own and every thing your posterity will ever own, including rendering you to prison – where you are guilty until proving your innocence in tax court. Most Americans comply with the IRS out of fear, not out of respect. A real and present danger is that we are growing complacent by the precedent of the IRS being used as a political weapon at the same time it absolves itself from the same requirements mandated upon the citizenry.
In a Congressional investigation of the abuses at the IRS, the agency’s heads not only asserted that they are above the law, but insinuated that the law is not applicable to them. When hard drives were demanded, they asserted the drives were ‘damaged’ and the e-mail evidence sought by Investigators, “lost”, negating to report the “loss” in violation of the Federal Records Act since that evidence was under subpoena.
You would think that such a government agency would maintain it’s integrity to the law so as to affect voluntary compliance with the law. We might say that if the IRS no longer follows the law and instead follows a policy to punish political enemies of Obama and the Democrats, why should you or I follow the law they are in charge of enforcing???
The answer to that is because ‘voluntary’ is no longer a consideration. ‘FORCED COMPLIANCE’ is the intent and as such, laws are arbitrary and irrelevant in carrying out an agenda.
According to the IRS director himself, the IRS is no longer bound by the laws that bind you and I. He stated before a Congressional hearing that “Wherever [they] can, we follow the law” in reference to the fact it had violated the law and inferring the IRS can choose not to follow the law if it deems it imprudent.
The implication is that it is simply impossible for a federal agency to follow the law, yet the IRS is authorized to punish any citizen who violates tax law, knowingly or unknowingly.
Now perhaps you might begin to understand why a lawless regime and party put the IRS in charge of mandating compliance with ObamaCare.
This is just the IRS scandal. What about federal agencies that are now tasked with implementing Obama’s ideological agenda rather than upholding the law?
EPA Abolishment of your rights.
The IRS is not the only Federal agency run by the Executive that has been used by Obama as a weapon.
Here’s another Federal agency, unaccountable to the American people, defying laws and being used as a weapon to harass and intimidate political opponents, chosen objects for policy implementation and a vehicle to strip away your right to property without compensation or recourse.
In a move lawmakers and farmers are calling “the biggest land grab in the history of the world,” the Environmental Protection Agency is requesting jurisdiction over all public and private streams in the United States that are “intermittent, seasonal and rain-dependent.” Control all the water, you control all life. That it seems is the agenda and the intent under the guise of ‘environmental justice’.
Your Constitutional Right to be secure in your property, or to be fairly compensated monetarily for it – no longer applies, because EPA policy trumps the Constitution. I’m not even listing all the recent news about the EPA following Obama’s dictates to shut down electricity plants and coal mines with regulations and requirements so ridiculous that it is obvious to any honest observer that the intent is to destroy the people’s access to affordable electricity. But a mechanism without public oversight or recourse to strip from you, your property and it’s use over ‘water rights’ is no different than if your property was just seized from you at gunpoint because the government decided the tax revenue of your property in the hands of developers is worth more money to them. Oh wait, that’s a real deal too.
These are just two citations of two federal government entities that do not respect or follow the Supreme Law of the Land, and are being used to impose overt tyranny upon us. I could write a blog that would encompass a volume of such instances – but these two illustrate with perfect clarity – that the federal government is completely and totally lawless, implementing tyranny disguised as law. Imposing it in such a way as to be accepted without resistance by a people they seek to rule, and not represent.
Obama has said strategically: “The government is us”. For all the claims of Obama being inept, this statement alone reveals the ingenious mindset of imposing a tyranny.
The insidious purpose of this statement is to equate liberty with government. On one side of his face Obama says tyranny of government is impossible because the government “is us”. Creating the illusion that your neighbors support what is being done to you and it is for your own good. The statement is intended for all to accept the belief that the bigger and more intrusive the government (defined as ‘success’), the more liberty you will have. Any failings or misery are because of the people who will not support the government’s rule and imposition of it’s will, not that government itself is ever to blame. History teaches that despotic leaders use this technique to great effect; creating the illusion that all powerful government is freedom and that the majority WANTS the tyranny being imposed. The acceptance of that mindset is how Beasts of oppression are able to operate without fear of those they intend to subjugate.
The technique is to get the people to believe is that what is being done by government is of the people and therefore everything they do, legitimate.
Even when the government trods upon the Laws of God, of nature and the Constitution.
Since the Federal Government has made it policy to trod upon those things, I declare they no longer have any legitimate moral authority over a people who are beholden to the Laws of God, of nature and the Constitution.
So what to do? What is our recourse? Do we submit and kneel to this? Do we do as Europeans and accept tyranny and corruption as the ‘new normal’? Do we throw up our hands and say “Oh well” consigning our posterity to a lifetime of misery? Do we embrace it and hope to get a parcel of redistributed wealth, property and provision? Do we revolt? How do we revolt? Do we just take to the streets and sow mayhem like we saw in Ferguson, MO??
No. None of the above.
The amazing thing is that most Americans have become totally ignorant of their history and the answer to what we should do now is contained there.
Scripture tells us in Hosea 4:6 –
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”
First we must understand out history and the mindset our Founders once had; a mindset they possessed because their main source of knowledge was the bible, followed by the understanding of history and human nature.
The first battle to be won in any war is of and for the mind. We have to come to an understanding and consensus of agreement that leads directly into courses of action We The People are able and willing and justified to take if we want any hope of holding onto what is left of our liberty.
Former Supreme Court Justice advocates changing Six Amendments in the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment in new book.
As with all MarxoFascists (i.e.: liberals, progressives, Democrats et al.) there is consensus among their arguments that the Constitution is flawed because it restricts government’s power over the people and the states, and focuses too much on individual rather than ‘collective’ rights. In other words, it’s not Communist enough for them.
While we would normally laugh off the insanity coming from screwball MarxoFascists like you would find on MSNBC – the reality is that such ideologues hold the highest positions of power in our nation. As such – the advancement of their total transformation agenda of a Republic into a Communist State is the only focus and goal.
One such Amendment he advocates changing is the Second Amendment. His proposed treason is to change the text of the Second Amendment so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”
Essentially what Stevens is advocating is that ONLY those serving in the military should have a right to arms. Notwithstanding the history of every single genocidal regime ever come to power in mankind’s history, limits weapons to be in the hands of the military, loyal to it’s leader. That is a history Stevens and his MarxoFascist traitors never seem to note.
The Constitution explicitly states “the right of the people”, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says NOTHING about WHEN they are ‘allowed’ to keep and bear arms as Stevens’ proposal demands.
But even in regards to the MarxoFascist argument that only the militia should have arms, let us look at who the Founding Fathers considered the militia. George Mason, called the ‘Father’ of the Constitution, wrote this:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution
But in the world of the MarxoFascists and the tyrants they seek to empower – ‘the militia’ is the National Guard or the military – under the direct authority of the President to command.
A people stripped of arms are much easier to subjugate and eradicate by a tyrannical regime such as the one in power right now. Our arms are the only thing that is preventing what is going on in Venezuela fro happening here.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has released a new book focused, in part, on “improving” the Constitution through amending the Second Amendment–by making the rights protected therein applicable only to a militia instead of the citizenry at large.
As written, the text of the Second Amendment is: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Stevens believes recent court decisions–notablyDistrict of Columbia v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010)–placed too much emphasis on individual rights, rather than on what he believes was the Founding Fathers’ primary goal: namely, to answer “the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states.”
His solution is to amend the text of the Second Amendment so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”
In other words, the protection of the right becomes collective and is only protected for those serving in the militia.
Among the many problems with Stevens’ idea is the often overlooked fact that the Second Amendment did not create a right when it was ratified in 1791. Rather, the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment to protect a portion of the “certain unalienable Rights” with which man was “endowed by [his] Creator.”
The rights protected by the Second Amendment are individual rights, as are the rights that are protected, but not created, by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, among others.
It will go-down as ‘the Day We Officially Lost the Country’ to an Imperial President if SCOTUS allows dubious Obama recess appointments
In the early 1930’s, a crumbling republic suffered a series of incremental “legal” actions that doomed it to collapse and dissolution. A lawless minority party had it’s actions legalized and legitimized by the institutions the should have prevented the installation of a dictator. But in 1933 Paul Von Bismark, under pressure from business in collusion with Nazi politicians succumbed to the demand that he appoint Hitler as legitimate leader of a government “independent from parliamentary parties“, which could turn into a movement that would “enrapture millions of people”. In short, a lawless madman was made a dictator by “legal means”.
Yesterday in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. A lawless imperial president has declared that he has the power to decide times and seasons in the order he proclaims them, in this case; when the Senate is out of session. That may sound like a benign case of pettiness and of little importance – but it will in actuality be the most important case it decides since it made the pretzel logic ruling that ObamaCare was legal. This decision will have even greater national impact than the debacle of 2010. This decision will decide whether or not there is a Constitutional Separation of powers, or whether Obama can act as dictator – legally. As in 1933, arguments are being made that Obama must ‘act independent’ of the political squabbles that he asserts cripple government from doing it’s business.
Justice Antonin Scalia ripped Obama‘s use of recess appointments to staff government agencies when the Senate is unofficially on recess. During oral arguments, Scalia shot back at an argument by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that the Constitution’s recess appointments clause is ambiguous enough to validate Obama’s temporary appointments.
“It’s been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents,” Scalia said, to “oohs” and laughs in the court room.
As Mark Levin noted in his show, the stakes for this case are no less than whether or not America is still a Republic, or whether SCOTUS will confirm his actions as a dictator are legal. According to Levin, “even if we win this case, we will simply be going back to the way things were in 2009” – whereby decades of judicial activism had shoved the nation to the Left. The stopgap in this case is reigning in a true imperial president and re-asserting that the Constitution still matters. The life of the Republic is on the line on this one. Depending on what is announced in June will determine if America is still a Republic or if we are now under a dictatorial oligarchy.
Remember what history teaches; genocidal and oppressive tyranny is always declared to be ‘legal’.
Well, today’s the day we have to worry if the wobbly US Supreme Court will uphold what should seem obviously sensible rulings from three lower courts: that the Obama Administration had no business whatsoever claiming short-term congressional breaks to be ‘in recess’ and then exploiting them to ram-through constitutionally questionable ‘recess appointments’.
When questioned, the Obama WH’s only response has been ‘sue me’, which soon became a reality. Since then, a U.S. appeals court in DC -and two others- said that indeed President Obama had violated the Constitution when he used the recess-appointment power to fill seats on the National Labor Relations Board two years ago, back in January 2012.
The Senate was not meeting then, but it was holding brief “pro-forma sessions”- these sessions are specifically intended to prevent such recess appointments. Alas, the Obama administration claimed that the Senate is ‘generally not available’ to conduct business during such sessions, and went ahead and did as they pleased anyway, appointing three positions at the NLRB while making a complete end-run around Congress.
The case has now worked it’s way up to the SCOTUS, but nothing is an obvious slam-dunk in the bizarre Obama era. Sadly, the last time we expected the highest-court-in-the-land to save us from this lawless regime, constitutionalists were left scratching our heads while Justice Roberts moved Heaven and Earth to basically re-write both Obamacare and the Commerce Clause… all to stick us with the clearly unconstitutional ACA individual mandate.
Everybody can see that Obama was not acting in good faith nor the spirit of the law, except libs and MSM hacks in bed with them. But ‘everybody’ could see the government has no business forcing citizens to buy a good or service, either… yet here we are, with Obamacare being slowly implemented, relentlessly.
A lot rides on this ruling today- call it an indicator of whether Barack Obama isever going to be called-upon to obey the laws of this country… or not. What’s to stop this power-drunk, one man wrecking ball when the SCOTUS won’t defend the Constitution? As a lame-duck, he surely won’t care what you think -if he ever did- after this November’s elections, and once Obama’s been told he doesn’t have to follow any rules, either- then it’s time to really be scared.
What’s John Roberts going to do when Dear Leader finally succeeds in crashing the dollar, puts DHS troops in the streets, and cancels the 2016 elections? Same thing the MSM would do… nothing. Let’s just hope for the best today-some think the White House is unlikely to win this case, and it’s long past time somebody told Barack Obama ‘NO!’, isn’t it, Justice Roberts? On top of that,you owe us one…
The Obama regime and Holder’s InJustice Department again decides it will ignore laws and rulings it does not like – and enforce their own.
Every day – it’s yet another incredible upheaval into dictatorship from what was a Republic. Obama cannot have his machine of corruption not have any claws into how a state decides to carry out it’s elections. Such would limit the amount of fraud Obama and his MarxoFascist Democrats need in order to “win” elections. Can’t have any of that, even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the states.
As always with Holder and Obama – they will enforce only those “laws” and rulings they agree with that furthers their agenda – and ignore or punish those laws and rulings they disagree or halt their agenda.
It will be interesting to see whether or not Texas folds or fights on this issue – and it has the portent to illustrate the kind of tyranny that most Americans do not yet understand they have been subjugated to.
Perhaps it will take armed troops and combat squads from DHS to impose Obama’s decision. Then perhaps, Texas might see need to secede from the county – which I would hope opens the floodgates for other states in the country to turn their backs on Washington D.C. and declare it the enemy that it truly is.
And how has the Attorney General decided to “transcend partisanship” and “work together”? By filing a “Statement of Interest” in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, claiming the state has displayed a “history of pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities” and demanding the federal court impose a preclearance requirement against the state for the next 10 years. In short, the Attorney General hopes to effectively rescind the Supreme Court ruling by demanding the voters of Texas are once again placed under the fair and equitable scrutiny of his own Department of Justice–the most thoroughly political and scrupulously biased Department in the nation’s history.
Can the Attorney General do this…legally, that is? Yes. Left untouched by the Supreme Court is Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Under Section 3 rules, suit may be brought against states or jurisdictions alleged to be actively discriminating against minority voters. Should the court agree, the defendant jurisdiction may be “bailed in,” that is, subject to the same preclearance rules effectively vacated last month by the Court.
However, in order to succeed the Justice Department or any plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination on the part of the defendant. The burden of proof switches around completely and states are no longer required to prove their innocence, as was the case under Section 5 rules. Obviously this represents a major difference as “offending” jurisdictions are no longer presumed guilty.
New York University professor Richard Pildes sums up Holder’s scheme: “If this strategy works, it will become a way of partially updating the Voting Rights Act through the courts.” “The Justice Department is trying to get the courts to step into the role the Justice Department played before the Shelby County decision. The Voting Rights Act has always permitted this, in some circumstances, but this strategy wasn’t used much. If this approach works, it will help update the Voting Rights Act even without Congressional action.”
So as usual, the Obama Administration is in search of a judge who will see things their way regardless of the law or the facts. Good vibrations, amity and simpatico in order that yet another issue may be legislated from a left-leaning bench.
Texas will be the Regime’s test case. If successful, the DOJ will also file against North and South Carolina–every state covered during the past 50 years by the now defunct preclearance rules of the Voting Rights Act. Courts will continue to be the new Congress. What a way to transcend partisanship.
Tyrants often reveal what their intents and plans of action to impose tyranny and oppression upon their targets are, by writing or speaking about them well in advance.
If one wanted to know What Hitler planned to do to the Jews and to Europe , all one had to do was read his little autobiography “Mein Kampf” and listen to his speeches through the late 1920’s and early 1930’s to understand what he intended to do. The Munich Post understood what he was up to and tried for over a decade to warn Germany what kind of a monster he was going to be.
No one listened and eventually, once Hitler secured total power for himself, went to war to control all information – and executed the editors and writers of the Munich Post in 1933.
Tyrants tend to follow similar blueprints, because they work.
Obama is a Marxist ideologue. Much of what he has already done he wrote and spoke about in clever subtle language during his campaign and in his two “autobiographies”. Obama has surrounded himself with Marxist ideologues, Maoists, Communists and Socialists. Everything he does, is to advance his Marxist agenda of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America.
And he has already largely succeeded.
His nationalization and takeover of the banks, GM and Chrysler, Student Loans, the Health Care industry and soon energy and the Cap and Trade scheme – is all part of the game of chess he is playing to transform the nation into a Soviet-style dictatorship.
What does this have to do with the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens?
Simple. She shares Obama’s radical ideology and will help him implement it at the Highest court level in the land.
Like all tyrants, controlling information is vital to keep and sustain a totalitarian regime, because of the lies it lives on to keep their people enslaved, fearful and desperate. Free speech is a poison to a tyrannical regime. It is said that one of the main tools used to collapse the Soviet Union was the Fax machine. For the Communist Dictatorship – it was a death mechanism of their rule because the winds of free speech and ideas broke out of their iron grip.
For Obama, the Internet, Talk Radio and various mass communication networks and devices are a huge problem he seeks to control and regulate. In his mind, technology – like speech should only be allowed if it serves the State, and disallowed if it is a risk to the State.
I find it interesting that Obama’s commencement address to graduates at Virginia’s Hampton University on Sunday – bemoaned technology and information that he felt was wasteful and not being used for proper political purposes. In short, ultimately – what Obama was talking about, was free speech and the ability to disseminate information that he does not like and does not contain value he respects.
“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,” Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.
He bemoaned the fact that “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,” in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.
“All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”
Of course, we can be sure that the Soviet masters thought the same thing of Fax machines and free speech in the Soviet Union.
You see, Obama does not see value in free speech unless it serves the greater values of the State. He chides us for using technology and information to entertain ourselves, rather than use it as a political tool to further the values of the state. Values such as Social Justice and Minority Empowerment. Obama’s civilian security force if you will.
Which brings me back to Obama’s nomination of Kagan to SCOTUS.
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
Isn’t that peachy?
Considering that Obama is nothing more than an academic with no practical experience – it’s elementary he would nominate another academic with little practical experience. Because experience is not what counts in the eyes of an ideologue. It’s the ideological agenda that matters.
And controlling information and speech by deciding the cost benefit to society versus the value the State assigns to any speech is the ultimate goal here. I think Obama’s remarks at Hampton with the nomination of Kagen are quite revealing in what his intentions are regarding speech and information.
Notwithstanding how Kagen will vote when the various state lawsuits against ObamaCare come to SCOTUS for challenge.
I’m sure in that case, the societal costs will be deemed to outweigh the Constitution. The smooth-as-Ken-doll Republicans in the Senate would be wise if during confirmation they asked Kagen what her view was concerning whether or not it is Constitutional for the state to demand private citizens purchase insurance they may not want in order to live without penalty.
But I’m not holding my breath for the Senate GOP to turn tables and do what the Democrats did with the Court Nominees of the previous administration.
And this is how societies succumb to tyrants and maniacs. They do not consider what the intentions of the tyrant are based on what they have said, what they wrote or what they do.
America is in the hands of a dangerous pathological narcissist who is letting the veneer of statesman slip to reveal his true nature; that of a dictator.
Obama’s first State of the Union speech revealed that Obama was not going to waver from his Left-tilt bent into Marxism even after the trouncing Democrats have received in the last several elections culminating in Scott Brown’s election to the seat held for decades by Ted Kennedy. Obama proved that he truly is a pathological narcissist that is angered over his loss of popularity in the polls. What we saw on Wednesday night was an angry petulant child lashing out at his perceived enemies while touting himself as savior by his non-achievements. His bold-faced lies began nearly the moment he started speaking and did not let up until he got to his Mussolini-esque defiance at “I don’t quit!”.
What stood out in the speech, were two things that revealed his dictatorial nature: his slam of the Supreme Court; and his decree that he will issue an executive order to seat a debt commission that the Senate voted him down on.
He has spent the last year actively pitting one group of Americans against another. After the failed Jihadist terror attack on Christmas day, he pitted one federal agency against the other to absolve himself of blame. Last night he began to pit each branch of government against the other.
Despots do this, not presidents.
Obama’s demagoguery of the Supreme Court was unprecedented. He first lied and misconstrued the facts of the case, which given the fact he was supposedly a Constitutional lawyer, cannot be simply chalked up to ignorance. Obama claimed during his speech that the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC,
“opened the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections”.
He then raised the demagoguery by stating:
“Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”
The president’s statement is patently false and deliberately misleading.
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Period.
And rightfully so.
Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.
Foreign corporations are expressly prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”
Of course it is now major news that Justice Samuel Alito dared to defy the wannabe-king by mouthing the words ‘That’s not true” while shaking his head.
In true Pravda fashion, the State-run sycophantic media lapdogs of Obama – instead of checking into WHY Justice Alito would be shaking his head at Obama’s remarks, attacked Justice Alito for daring to disagree with Der Fuhrer. Shaking your head, yelling “You lie!” or refusing to stand and applaud Obama is grounds for complaint from both the White House and his media. In nations that have already gone down the path Obama is taking us – such insolence is met with a gunshot to the head, followed by burial in a mass grave.
The bashing of this decision by SCOTUS demonstrates either blithering ignorance or willful loathing of the law. I’m going to assume the latter given Obama’s tenure as a Constitutional lawyer. He then went on and directed Congress to circumvent the Court’s decision in the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commision decision and “right that wrong”.
Such is hubris of a kind not seen in the Oval Office.
But Obama did not stop there in revealing his true self.
He then chided the U.S. Senate for blocking his proposal to create a ‘debt reduction commission’. Because of their blocking, Obama will simply create the commission by decree.
“Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans”
Because HE refuses. The Monarch refuses to allow the pesky Separation of Powers and the Constitution to get in his way of destroying the country. With such open and deliberate defiance, one has to wonder that if his Health Care Takeover plan meets a similar fate in the Senate – will he will do the same thing – and simply enact his desires by decree?
This is what tinpot Marxist dictators like Hugo Chavez do.
We are in mortal danger here as Obama lets the veil slip – and we see the dragon’s skin underneath his thin veneer of coolness.
FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich. — Sen. Barack Obama delivered an impassioned defense of the Constitution and the rights of terrorism suspects tonight, striking back at one of the biggest applause lines in Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech to the GOP convention.
It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: “Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”
Obama had a few problems with that.
“First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ‘em,” Obama said here, drawing laughs from 1,500 supporters in a high school gymnasium. “They should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later.”
If the plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks are in the government’s sights, Obama went on, they should be targeted and killed.
“My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out,” Obama said. “Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”
But Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus.
Calling it “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” he said the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’”
The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, “because we don’t always have the right person.”
“We don’t always catch the right person,” he said. “We may think it’s Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it’s Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president.”
Obama turned back to Palin’s comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.
“The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting,” Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. “Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years.”
He finished with a dismissive comment about his opponents.
Senator Barrack Obama is talking constitutionality – which sends the short hairs on the back of my neck to attention and awakens the restless butterflies in my gut. He launched an attack against Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her position on the so-called rights of terrorist suspects, referencing Palin’s comments in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last week. She said (referring to Senator Obama):
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?
First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ’em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ’em out.”
Obama sees himself as defending the Constitution as he goes after Governor Palin, supporting the issuance of rights to terrorist suspects because, as he puts is, “we don’t always have the right person.”
Hold on a moment.
Is Senator Obama then assuming here that Osama bin Ladin is a terrorist? What criteria is he using to make that determination? How can he reach that conclusion without affording bin Ladin fair representation as outlined in the Constitution? How could he want to “take out” bin Ladin without granting him his Constituional rights?
And if I am being obtuse here, then allow to me ask the question the other way. Wasn’t Sadam Hussein a terrorist? Or, at the very least, the leader of a state that sponsored terrorists? Didn’t we “take him out?”
So, where’s the problem?
Of course, it would have been interesting for someone to point out that Senator Obama supported the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which is unconstitutional.
I’ve had the pleasure to meet Larry Pratt at a Restoring Our Heritage event in Evansville, and there’s no finer warrior to stand for our gun rights.
We face treason from the usual suspects, and even from among those who we might consider ‘on our side’. The Founders warned us about human nature and what happens to men when they get into positions of power. Once in power, the elite’s fear losing that power and as such – an armed populace is a threat that they will work tirelessly to eliminate. Thus the last 70 years has seen the erosion of our rights, the last secure bastion being our Second Amendment Rights that again hang in the balance of men in black robes who are unaccountable for their rulings.
Many might roll their eyes at the prospect of the Second Amendment being banned or abolished as nothing but the rantings of conspiracy theorists, but the same could have been said a decade ago over the notion of banning smoking, which has today all but become abolished and virtually criminalized. The same could have been said about private property rights – but the KELO decision by SCOTUS has relegated that right to the government. The same may hold true of the Second Amendment when the High Court rules in May on whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals or if the States can regulate and even abolish that Right.
Given the KELO decision of the Court – I’m pretty confident the Men In Black will again rule in favor of the government to strip us of our Constitutionally-protected Right under the Second Amendment.
Leave it to the Bush Administration to put forward the argument that the Constitution permits “reasonable” infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
The Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement, of the United States is the lawyer for the Justice Department. On January 11, Clement dropped a bomb designed to destroy the Second Amendment.
The bomb was a friend of the court brief that is a marvelous work of Newspeak as described by George Orwell in his novel of a horrifying future where words mean the opposite of their original definitions.
On the one hand, the brief argues that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that predated the creation of the U.S. government by the people. On the other hand, it concludes that any and all guns can be controlled or banned if a federal court finds that to be a reasonable restriction or ban.
The brief asserts, with no proof whatsoever, that there is an “unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail . . ..” It is somewhat amazing that a brief in defense of the DC gun ban would say such a preposterous thing. It is the District of Columbia, with its gun ban, that usually has the highest murder rate of all U.S. jurisdictions. In high-gun-ownership jurisdictions such as neighboring Fairfax County, VA (with nearly twice the D.C. population), the murder rates are much lower. In Fairfax County it is more than 100 times less than the D.C. murder rate.
In some thirty pages of flip-flopping arguments, the Justice Department brief never once considered what the founders of the American republic might have meant by the phrase “shall not be infringed.” But the Clement brief did criticize the idea that the Second Amendment was a categorical prohibition on banning guns.
The opinion of the DC Court of Appeals (DCCA) overthrew the DC handgun ban (and ban-by-trigger lock of long guns) on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This categorical view of the Amendment should be sent back to the Appeals Court for another look, according to Bush’s brief. The Appeals Court should be told to look at the District’s gun ban in terms of what is “reasonable.”
Nary a thought about what the founders meant, and thus what the Second Amendment requires. The law should be “developed incrementally” according to Clement – the living Constitution assertion that has been put forth to justify legislation by judges (i.e., lawlessness).
Clement’s language is the language of tyrants throughout history. He claims for the government the right to change the meaning of the law and the Constitution on a continuing basis – on a whim. This avoids the messy business of proposing and debating constitutional amendments. It is so much tidier to have a small group of rulers emerge from behind closed doors to announce what the law is today, and what is illegal now that was legal a few minutes ago.
Clement, and most judges, have bought into an unconstitutional way of interpreting the Constitution that permits judges to consider various levels of scrutiny that are appropriate. Thus, they might decide (for reasons best known to themselves) that a higher level of scrutiny is required for interpreting a particular section of the Constitution. On the other hand, they might decide that a lesser standard of rational or reasonable scrutiny is all that is needed.
When we hear judges talk about which level of scrutiny is appropriate in a particular case, the proper translation of the legal jargon is: “How far from the meaning of the Constitution can we get away with going?”
It is worth noting that the Second Amendment was written with the level of scrutiny appropriate for interpreting it, i.e., “shall not be infringed.” That means that a discussion of the proper level of scrutiny, which is found in the Bush brief, and all other anti-gun briefs, is simply a coded discussion of the question: “What can we get away with this time?”
The Bush brief submitted by the Solicitor General was co-authored by Stephen Rubenstein, the head lawyer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Not surprisingly, the brief expresses alarm that federal gun bans, licensing requirements, registration laws, import restrictions and other unconstitutional federal laws and regulations might topple if “shall not be infringed” is the required level of scrutiny.
In the Clement-Bush brief, the phrase “shall not be infringed” is never used. That is not surprising, since the game would be over if they did. It is so hard to say gun ban or licensing requirement in the same breath with “shall not be infringed.”
D.C. v. Heller would not immediately result in such a happy situation. The case was designed to ease weak-kneed judges in a slow walk back to the Constitution. All that would happen if the decision of the DCCA were simply left standing is that DC would return to its pre-1976 law. And that law is about as bad as what one finds in New York City today. Heller does not present the judges with keeping a gun ban or erasing all the unconstitutional gun laws on the books. Of course, the Court could do that, but such an outcome would be quite surprising in view of the lowest common denominator that would be necessary for any kind of a favorable decision.
Unhappily, the Bush brief makes it more likely than not that the Second Amendment will be gutted (unconstitutionally) by the Supreme Court. No wonder Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) is seeking to get his colleagues to co-sign his letter urging Bush to pull his brief. Those wishing to so urge their Representatives can go to http://gunowners.org/a012308.htm to send an email with that request.