King George III – John Malcolm

I Oppose Barack Obama Because He’s Black

June 19, 2012 by John Malcolm 1 Comment

By Andrew Klavan | June 18, 2012 | PJ Media

Sam Donaldson, who regularly treated President Ronald Reagan with disrespect, feels he knows exactly why Neil Munro of the right-leaning Daily Caller treated Barack Obama with disrespect. During the president’s recent announcement that he had decided to make up laws by himself from now on, effectively granting immunity to some illegal aliens with a wave of his almighty hand, Munro shouted out a question rather than waiting for the president to leave the podium without taking any questions.

Donaldson’s reaction in part: “Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!”

Drones in America: Where’s the Outrage?

June 7, 2012 by John Malcolm 3 Comments

By Andrew Napolitano | June 6, 2012 | WND

Andrew Napolitano rips government notion ‘balance’ is required between safety, liberty

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if – had drones existed at the time – King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Harvard Law, the Commerce Clause, and the Obamacare Mandate

May 14, 2012 by John Malcolm 5 Comments

By Jim Byrd | May 11, 2012 | Canada Free Press

Harvard Law School Professor Einer Elhauge published an article in The New Republic titled, “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” The foundation of his argument is the belief that the Militia Act of 1792 was a mandate to purchase a firearm, and the 1790 and 1798 acts by Congress requiring that ship owners purchase medical insurance for seamen, was a mandate forcing the citizens of the states to make a commercial purchase under the Commerce Clause.

Professor Elhauge presents as fact that these two mandates required engagement in commerce, thus setting 200+ years of precedent by the first Congress, “which was packed with framers,” as per his depiction. He then states, “Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.” The professor appears to subscribe to the oft employed licentious theorem of the Left that if it is not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, then Congress can presume it has unfettered authority to mandate, tax, legislate, control, and dictate wantonly. But, plausibly, historically, and factually, that is neither the intent nor the spirit of Article 1, Section 8, as it was not an enumeration of what the government should or could do, but rather a very narrow set of limitations constraining what the government can do. What the government cannot do is mandate commercial purchases under the Commerce Clause, as that power was not enumerated, intended, nor would it have survived ratification. Perhaps a perfunctory history lesson of why the Constitution was created, and the purpose of the Commerce Clause, may be the antidote to apocryphal balderdash.

Liberals, progressives, and a particular genus of law professors are wringing their hands in animated intoxication regarding these two particular mandates cited by Professor Elhauge. And reinforcing Professor Elhauge’s theorem of mandated purchases under the Commerce Clause, the Left are evidencing case law functioning as unsanctioned amendments to the Constitution, or as unsanctioned legislation fabricated by American jurisprudence. This benighted infatuation with stare decisis, this judicial inbreeding of the Supreme Court assigning dominion of past Supreme Court rulings as surrogates for the Constitution, has resulted in the passing of deleterious and recessive traits to each Supreme Court progenitor. As with genetics, if the Supreme Court reaches a faulty decision, or flagrant political or agenda driven decision, this trait is passed down to each successive Supreme Court that is indentured by the judicial genetics of stare decisis. Professor Elhauge appears to be erroneously attesting that the first Congress, “which was packed with framers,” mandated that the citizens of sovereign states, states that ceded very few enumerated powers to the newly created federal government, were forced to engage in commerce ad libitum.

Before brandishing adulterate case law and phantom mandates, one question must first be answered: What was the purpose of adding the Commerce Clause to the Constitution?

One must delve much deeper than the burlesque Supreme Court assembled by FDR and its league of handpicked ideologues parading around as judiciously inclined justices. These robe wearing sycophants infected American constitutional jurisprudence with the New Deal, and especially Wickard v. Filburn. Wickard v. Filburn breached the boundaries of the Constitution by affording the federal government an almost immeasurable expansion of powers via the Commerce Clause. And if this unburdened scope of power was the original intent of the Commerce Clause, what was the point of the founders penning the remainder of the Constitution if it is subordinate to the Commerce Clause? Indeed, it is necessary to delve beyond FDR’s reign, beyond Professor Elhauge’s imaginary mandates of commerce, back to the Articles of Confederation and the commercial dysfunction between the states.

Prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution, the governing document of the United States was the Articles of Confederation. Of the myriad weaknesses of this document, the focus will be commerce and the militia, as these two areas are what Professor Elhauge perhaps employed in some fashion of palmistry to arrive at his supposition.

Prior to the American Revolution, colonial commerce was regulated by Great Britain, and to a greater extent in the years just preceding the Declaration of Independence. After independence was declared, the framework of colonial commerce changed, immediately going from regulated to unregulated. Without a structured and enforceable set of regulations to ensure the equitable and uninterrupted flow of the transportation of goods between the states, counterproductive trade barriers between the states arose and jeopardized the necessary commercial alliances of the states essential for sustainability of the nation. The states having the advantage of ports charged exploitative tariffs on goods that passed through their ports en route to and from the states without ports. This started a series of trade wars pitting states with ports against states without ports, with both sides charging counterproductive tariffs.

To compound the problems created by discordant commerce, the Articles of Confederation lacked the mechanism to provide and enforce a uniform monetary policy to protect commerce as well. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had the authority to setup their own monetary systems and print their own currency.

Article III of the Articles of Confederation addresses the states entering into a “firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense,” while Article VII addresses the appointing of officers of the land forces raised by the states, and Article VIII addresses the expenses and funding of “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare.” The government did not have to power to raise an army for defense, and the government did not have to funds to honor Article VIII regarding paying expenses of defense, as the government was unable to even collect the taxes due to pay off the debt from the Revolutionary War. The states generally ignored the federal government regarding taxes, and the Articles left the government powerless to collect taxes.

Even though the states maintained their militias after the end of the war, the inability of the federal government to raise an army left the newly sovereign states vulnerable without a united military front. Even after the Treaty of Paris was signed, the forts in Northwest Territory remained under British control and occupation. The states were not enforcing nor abiding by the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, and the government lacked the power to compel them to do so.

Read the full article here.

McConnell: Commerce Clause ‘meaningless’ if Obamacare ruled constitutional [VIDEO] (dailycaller.com)
The individual mandate case is an opportunity to begin restoring the framers’ vision (dailycaller.com)
Death knell for Obamacare may be near (dailycaller.com)
Obamacare: The President’s Wooden-headed Interpretation of Our Constitution (biggovernment.com)
Judicial Watch Files Brief with U.S. Supreme Court Challenging Constitutionality of Obamacare (biggovernment.com)
Limit this, Jack! (dailycaller.com)
Wickard v. Filburn: Time for It to Go! (spectator.org)
GUNS, SEAMEN, AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE: Columbia Lawprof Phil Hamburger responds to Einer Elhauge. … (pjmedia.com)
Uphold Healthcare Reform, Narrow the Commerce Clause (tightwind.net)

Filed Under: American History, Progressivism Tagged With: Case Law, Charter of Negative Liberties, Commerce, Commerce Clause, Common Defense, Congress, Constitutional Amendments, Constitutional Convention, Constitutional Law, Currency, Declaration of Independence, Democratic Party, Despotism, Dictatorship, Einer Elhauge, Enumerated Powers, FDR, Federal Government, Firearms, Founding Fathers, Franklin Roosevelt, General Welfare Clause, Government, Great Britain, Harvard Law School, Health Care, Health Insurance, Ideologues, Interstate Commerce, Intrastate Commerce, James Madison, Judges, Judicial Activism, Jurisprudence, King George III, Law School, Leftist Ideology, Legislation, Limited Government, Mandate, Mandates, Manufacturing, Militia, Militia Act of 1792, Monetary Policy, New Deal, New Republic, Northwest Territory, Nullification, Obamacare, Occupation, Precedent, Production, Professors, Ratification, Regulated Economy, Regulations, Republic, Revolutionary War, Seamen, Ships, Sovereign States, Stare Decisis, States, Subversion, Supreme Court, Sycophants, Tariffs, Tax, Tenth Amendment, Thomas Jefferson, Totalitarianism, Trade Barriers, Trade Wars, Treaty of Paris, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, Virginia Plan, War, Wickard v. Filburn

A New Declaration of Independence

May 10, 2012 by John Malcolm 4 Comments

By Eileen F. Toplansky | April 28, 2012 | American Thinker

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary to ensure that a President, who has led the country to near ruin and who is working to discard the basic principles upon which this Great Country rests, be peaceably removed it is incumbent upon us that we submit the reasons to the people.

Without any in-depth research or vetting about his background, Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44^th president of the United States. There were voices of caution who early on exposed Obama’s connections to former terrorist Bill Ayers, anti-American vilifier Reverend Wright, crook Tony Rezko, and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi, but they were laughed at as the people allowed themselves to be demagogued on hope and change. Evidence continues to suggest that Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate is, indeed, a forgery. This would make his presidential eligibility suspect.

Thus, the American people are at a critical watershed moment in our history. The facts are in; Obama’s ideology and core principles are now public and exist for all to see. We can no longer claim ignorance; we can no longer be naïve; we can no longer deny what is patently before us. The record of this current president is a “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Mr. Obama has “given himself the powers to declare martial law[.] It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American.” Thus, “Barack Obama is very dangerous, the apotheosis of an insidious strain of authoritarianism that destroys from within.” In a statement published on December 31, 2011, Mr. Obama states that “[t]oday I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.” Though he claims that he has “signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” it was Mr. Obama who “demanded the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents.”

And like King George III, Obama has now established the distinct possibility of placing “[s]tanding armies without the Consent of our legislatures” — although sadly, in this case, the Senate passed this unwholesome disgrace. King George III would be pleased.

In fact, Mr. Obama sees fit to bypass the “pesky” Constitution whenever it suits him, thus ignoring limited-government tenets which were at the core of the Founding Fathers’ belief system. Thus, the NDAA detention mandate allows indefinite military detention not just to foreigners; now “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

In fact, should Mr. Obama be re-elected to a second term, “our rights to speech, religion and property, and to privacy in our persons and homes, will be transformed.” Mr. Obama has already “hectored Christianity on matters of conscience.” Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, Mr. Obama is forcing Catholic institutions to pay for insurance covering contraceptives. Why, when “religious liberty was weighed against access to birth control, did freedom lose?” — a clear intrusion into the first of the five protections of the First Amendment. Bishop Daniel Jenky has likened President Obama’s health care policies to the attacks on the Catholic church by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin of yesteryear. Dare we go down that totalitarian road again?

The onslaught against free speech has been heightened because of the “cooperation between [Mr. Obama] and the OIC or Organization of Islamic Cooperation.” The “Obama administration stands ‘united’ with the OIC on speech issues,” thus silencing Arab reformers and anyone who makes any allegedly negative remarks about Islam. The “repressive practices” of the OIC member-nations speak volumes about their restrictions on free speech. Hence, “the encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas.” That an American president would threaten this most fundamental right is yet another resounding reason why he needs to be removed from office.

In December of 2009, Nat Hentoff, a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, asserted that “[i]f congressional Democrats succeed in passing their health-care ‘reform’ measure to send to the White House for President Obama’s signature, then they and he are determining your health decisions[.]” Thus, “these functionaries making decisions about your treatment and, in some cases, about the extent of your life span, have never met you[.] Is this America?” Hentoff concludes his piece with the revelation “I’m scared and I do mean to scare you. We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be.”

Thus, we still hold “these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles … as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” We do not declare violent revolution but do demand the secure right to change the government through the ballot box.

But even this fundamental right is being seriously eroded as the Department of Justice openly and arrogantly dismisses genuine cases of voter intimidation with nary a word of concern by Barack Obama. Although there is visual proof and evidence of threats to the voting public as well as exhortations of death threats to a man on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder turns a blind eye.

By his selective indifference, Mr. Obama has created a racially divisive atmosphere in America. He continues to promote this hateful attitude wherein the civil rights progress made in this country for all its citizens is ignored. Surely, Mr. Obama has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” as he engages in racial division, class warfare, and phony gender wars. If Mr. Obama is, indeed, so interested in the rights of women, then why does he support Islamic sharia law, which demands second-class status for women? These diversions serve to stir up resentments; unfortunately, they are successful in obfuscating the shameless actions of this 44^th president.

Mr. Obama is not content with taking the country down the path to “European socialism.” His centralized control of the health care industry, his increases in entitlement programs, his redistribution of capital — in fact, his sweeping regulations that give the government new authority to control the entire financial sector — are reminiscent of Karl Marx’s 10-Point Agenda, and although communism was unknown in 1775, the signatories of the Declaration knew of the absolute power of the monarchy and would see through the oligarchic nature of this “ism.”

Amazingly, Mr. Obama has assured Russian leaders (who have gained their power through rigged elections) that American concessions are coming their way, but they [the Russian leaders] must wait because he is seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people of his true intentions. What credible reason would a loyal American president have for weakening American and allies’ defense systems? During the open microphone conversation between Obama and Medvedev, a puppet of KGB Putin, the world learned whose interests Obama was truly serving. Surely, this is “enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.”

Furthermore, Obama has “obstructed the Administration of Justice[,]” instead pitting one group against the other through “waivers.” If ObamaCare is so laudable, why extend waivers in the first place? In fact, it is yet another example of how manipulative Mr. Obama is when he tries to make the people “dependent on his will alone.”

Mr. Obama has ignored the laws of our country to impose an arbitrary and capricious rule of law by outside forces. He finds it more expedient to pit the federal government against an American state which is trying only to enforce federal immigration law. To this end, Mr. Obama has seen fit to “subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution[,]” which was so clearly enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as reason to reject King George III. By issuing a Universal Period Review (UPR), the first of its kind, Mr. Obama has given the United Nations the right to dictate to Arizona. Thus, the “stakes for our national sovereignty have just been raised.” Despotic countries of the United Nations have now been empowered to dictate how Americans should conduct themselves. Is this not reminiscent of King George III “waging war against us”?

Moreover, the Obama State Department ordered the “suspension of routine border inspection procedures in order to whisk (Muslim Brotherhood) Islamists into our country. Thus, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party did not have to go through the normal procedures of inspection. Recall that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission statement is “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!” Negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood is akin to negotiating with the dictator Hitler. It is appeasement all the way. Why does the Obama administration cavort with such people? Does this not make him unfit to defend the interests of America?

Read the full article here.

Romney Silent As Woman Says Obama Should Be Tried For Treason (buzzfeed.com)
Obama: ‘2012 is Make or Break for American Marxism’ (gulagbound.com)
Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare (johnmalcolm.me)
Barack Obama speaks out and declares support for same-sex marriage – The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Decision on ObamaCare (johnmalcolm.me)
Lawmaker’s ‘How to Slap Washington’ Strategy (johnmalcolm.me)
Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (mb50.wordpress.com)
#NDAA: This is happening in America? (alexanderhiggins.com)
Obama Mentor Wanted Americans Put In Re-Education Camps (musicians4freedom.com)
From Communism Day to Government Loyalty Day (musicians4freedom.com)
In my humble opinion (100wnayelli.wordpress.com)
Tennessee Sheriffs Cracks Down On Obama Federal Agents Gone WIld: NDAA Nullified And Kidnapping Charges Against Feds.. (12160.info)
Nat Hentoff: I’ll vote for Romney … (wnd.com)
A long way from ‘hope’ and ‘change’ (wnd.com)
Virginia State Senate Passes Bill Forbidding Indefinite Detention of Americans: ‘Council of Governors’ member McDonnell could try to sabotage anti-NDAA law (destructionist.wordpress.com)
Impeach Obama 2012! Join the National Campaign! (musicians4freedom.com)
Chicago: the cesspool that gave us Barack Obama (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
ObamaCare Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics + More (papundits.wordpress.com)
Judicial Watch’s ‘Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians’ for 2011: Executive Edition – Big Government (politicalvelcraft.org)
Obama Gives Coal Miners the Shaft (gulagbound.com)
Obama: More Flexibility After Elections (myfoxphoenix.com)
The NDAA Provision for Detaining Citizens is Waived! Spread! (disclose.tv)
The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress (mb50.wordpress.com)
Virginia lawmakers agree to reject NDAA (12160.info)
Obama Sets NDAA Detention Guidelines (todaysnews4you.wordpress.com)
Corporate Media Silent On Lawuit Over NDAA Being Used To Silence Journalists (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
‘Obama signed US into Police State’ [Voltaire Network] (powersthatbeat.wordpress.com)
Obama Worse than Bush on Civil Liberties – Romney No Different From Obama (ronpaulnews.net)
Pulitzer Prize journalist Chris Hedges suing Barack Obama for NDAA (vaticproject.blogspot.com)
Piracy vs Privacy: Obama may ‘oppose’ CISPA but still sign it like NDAA (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
Romney & Obama, the NDAA & Ron Paul (revolutionarypolitics.tv)
NDAA lawsuit – update from RT (video) (occupyblogosphere.wordpress.com)

Filed Under: Agenda 21, Progressivism Tagged With: Catholic Bishop, Catholic Church, Centralized Government Planning, China, Christianity, Citizens, Civil Rights, Class Warfare, Coastal Zone Management Act, Communism, Communist Manifesto, Concessions, Confirmation Hearings, Conflict of Interest, Congress, Consent of the Governed, Contraception, contraceptives, Core Principles, Core Values, Corporate-Financier Oligarchy, Czars, Daniel R. Jenky, Death, Death Threats, Debt Slavery, Deceit, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Despotism, Distortion, Divide and Conquer, Dmitry Medvedev, Document Dump, Domestic Insurrection, Domestic Oil, Due Process, Egypt, Elena Kagan, Eligibility, Energy Production, Energy Sector, Engineering, Entitlement Programs, Eric Holder, Europe, Executive Order 13547, Fabian Socialism, Fairness, Fairness Doctrine, Federal Government, Financial Sector, First Amendment, First Principles, FOIA, Forgery, Fossil Fuels, Founders, Founding Fathers, Fourth Amendment, Fraud, Free Speech, Freedom, Freedom and Justice Party, Freedom of Information Act, Freedom of Religion, Global Governance, Government, Green Energy, Habeas Corpus, Health Care, Health Insurance, Ideology, Immigration Law, Indefinite Detention, Internal Revenue Service, International Space Station, Interrogation, IRS, Islam, Jeremiah Wright, Jihad, Jobs, Joseph Stalin, Judicial Watch, Karl Marx, KGB, King George III, Koran, Laws, Legal Residents, Liberty, Life, Life Span, Long-Form Birth Certificate, Martial Law, Marxism, Mathematics, Middle-Class, Mohammed, Monarchy, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, NASA, Nat Hentoff, National Debt, National Ocean Council, National Sovereignty, Natural Law, Natural Rights, NDAA, Obama Administration, Obamacare, Oligarchy, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Outer Space, Pathological Liars, Political Dissidents, Power Corrupts, Power Grab, Private Property, Prophet, Proven Oil Reserves, Pursuit of Happiness, Racism, Rashid Khalidi, Ratification, Re-election, Recuse, Redistribution of Wealth, Reform, Regulations, Republic, Republicans, Revolution, Rigged Elections, Royalties, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Russia, Science, Self-Evident, Semantic Deception, Senate, Sharia, Socialism, Solicitor General, Space Exploration, Standing Army, State Department, State Legislatures, Supreme Court, Tax Increases, Tax Levy, Terrorism, Threat, Tony Rezko, Totalitarian State, Totalitarianism, Transparency, Treaty, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Territory, Unalienable Rights, Unemployment, United Nations, Universal Period Review, USGS, Usurpation, Vetting, Vladimir Putin, Voter Intimidation, Waivers, War on Women

The Monetary Axis of Evil [Video]

April 29, 2012 by John Malcolm Leave a Comment

Obama The Genghis Khan Of The Rothschild Banking Cabal! (politicalvelcraft.org)
Rothschild Attempts To Implement A New Form Of Governance To Brace From Hostile Takeover! (politicalvelcraft.org)
World War 3 ~ Rothschild To Strike The Anvil While The Metal Is Still Hot! (politicalvelcraft.org)
Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks: Rothschild Obtained Iraq’s Central Bank, Rothschild Obtained Muammar Gaddafi Gold ~ Syria & Iran Next Co-Opting U.S. Military Machine! (politicalvelcraft.org)
Weekend Reflections The Bilderbergs: Sociopath’s Mutual Appreciation Society! (politicalvelcraft.org)

Filed Under: American History, Global Government, Videos Tagged With: Central Banks, Checks and Balances, Confiscation, Conflict of Interest, Congress, Congressional Oversight, Conspiracy, Corporate-Financier Oligarchy, Corporations, Currency, Debt, Economic Stimulus, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Act, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Federal Reserve Notes, Fiat Currency, Fraud, Gold, Gold Standard, Great Depression, Henry Ford, Herbert Hoover, Impeachment, Inflation, Interest, Interest Rates, International Bankers, Jekyll Island, John D. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, King George III, Knickerbocker Trust Company, Loans, Louis McFadden, Margin Loan, Military-Industrial Complex, Money Supply, Monopoly, Nelson Aldrich, Obamacare, Panic of 1907, Paul Warburg, Ponzi Scheme, Repossession, Representative Government, Roaring Twenties, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Stamp Act Rebellion, Taxation, Thomas Jefferson, War, Woodrow Wilson

The Prime Reason for the Revolutionary War

April 29, 2012 by John Malcolm Leave a Comment

“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.” ~Benjamin Franklin

U.S. Independence….equality and not colonial subjects (losthighwaytimes.com)
Causes of the American Revolution (slideshare.net)
Guest Post: American prosperity? Let’s learn from American history! (politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)
The Truth About the Federal Reserve (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
Gardening For Survival The Colonists Knew How (lilsuburbanhomestead.wordpress.com)
International Currencies Increasingly Rejected in the Face of Inflation (activistpost.com)
Slavery by Consent -The UNITED STATES CORPORATION (usapartisan.com)
How The Colonies Were Named (dmkea2011sped.wordpress.com)
HISTORY Not Now Taught in Public Schools – The Cover-Up of the Truth… (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
The Declaration of Independence (teachingfourth.wordpress.com)

Filed Under: American History, Quotes Tagged With: Colonies, Currency, England, International Bankers, King George III, Money, Revolutionary War, Tax, Tea, Unemployment

Alarms Over Obama Coup Against Constitution Surging

April 13, 2012 by John Malcolm 1 Comment

By Bob Unruh | April 13, 2012 | WND

‘2nd term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect’

There always have been those few who have launched diatribes over the dictatorial actions of any given U.S. presidential administration, over civil rights, foreign affairs, the economy, the draft or a dozen other topics – even though the Constitution was written specifically to prevent the collection of too much power by one branch of government.

Now, again, there are words like “egocentric megalomaniac” being ascribed to the White House, and warnings about detention camps and government surveillance of its citizens.

But where previous generations of warnings emanated from lone wolves with their fax machines in dusty spare rooms, the current alarms are being issued by the likes of Investors Business Daily, First Amendment authority Nat Hentoff, New York Times best-selling author Robert Ringer and their equals.

“A second term free of electoral restraints [for Obama] may be a frightening prospect,” IBD wrote in a commentary in the last week. “This is, after all, a president who has said he can’t wait for Congress to act and will govern by executive order and regulations if necessary. He has questioned the Supreme Court’s ‘unprecedented’ review of Obamacare.”

The publication pointed out that the Obama administration already is in contempt of court – in a court dispute over its ban on oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

When U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled that the Obama Interior Department unconstitutionally imposed an offshore drilling moratorium, the agency “simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.”

“Judge Feldman was not amused. ‘Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,’ Feldman said in his ruling. ‘Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second moratorium …. provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt,’” the editorial said.

The issue recently was brought into the headlines by comments from Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News analyst who said, “I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism. A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation. Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation.

“That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing,” Napolitano said.

His comments came after statements from Obama that the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t take the “unprecedented” action of actually overturning the Obamacare law, even though that is exactly what courts do when justices determine the legislation is unconstitutional.

“I think he [Obama] has some problems with understanding the Constitution, or accepting limitations on his power,” said Napolitano. “Look, they’re equal branches of government, but with respect to what the law means and what the Constitution means, the court is superior to the president.”

His comments came recently on Neil Cavuto’s program, when the discussion turned to the U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and Obama’s verbal attack on the court shortly after the oral arguments.

Here are Napolitano’s comments:

Read the full article here.