Eating the State [Video]

By Daniel Greenfield | June 16, 2012 | Sultan Knish

In Gotham, Michael the First, King of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and the rebellious province of Staten Island, has returned from celebrating his successful campaign against large sodas, to consider expanding the ban to large popcorn and milkshakes. Los Angeles has voted to ban the plastic bag and add a 10 cent fine for paper bags.

Where does the future of the Nanny State lead? In Sweden, the Left Party is calling for men to be banned from urinating standing up. And why not? If the government should have a say in what food you eat and what you carry the groceries you buy in, why not have it complete the cycle and tell you how to eliminate them?

We have laws that strictly control every aspect of the production, packaging, distribution and sale of food. From there we moved on to laws controlling the consumption and consumer transportation of it. Once every step in the process from planting the seed in the earth to actually putting it in your mouth has been legislated and regulated; all that’s left is a government mandated bathroom experience.

‘This is What a Dictator Does’- Beck Savages Obama’s Fiat on Illegal Immigrants [Video]

Read the full article here.

Obama Amnesty Plan: Catch, Release, Vote

By Rush Limbaugh | June 15, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I have a name for this new Obama immigration policy. In case you haven’t heard, folks, very quickly. The regime today told the border agents: “If you catch young illegals, let ’em go and grant ’em work permits.”  No more deportation of illegal immigrants.  They are to be given work permits and they can stay in the country.  So what this is is “Catch, Release, Vote.”

JOHNNY DONOVAN:  And now, from sunny south Florida, it’s Open Line Friday!

RUSH:  That is exactly what this is: Catch, Release, Vote.

CFR & U.S. Army Chief of Staff: Use Army for Domestic Enforcement

By Joe Wolverton, II | June 4, 2012 | The New American

 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) proposes that the U.S. Army be used to plan, command, and carry out (with the help of civilian law enforcement) domestic police missions. So says a story appearing in the May/June issue of the influential organization’s official journal,Foreign Affairs. The article lacks a single reference to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits such actions.

In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters, including terrorist attacks. Odierno writes:

Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.

Legislative Lowdown: The secret plan to raise your taxes

By Brian Darling | June 8, 2012 | The Daily Caller

Republicans are secretly negotiating with Democrats to raise your taxes after the election.

“A dozen senators ranging from Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn to Delaware Democrat Chris Coons have begun to organize closed-door briefings with leading economic experts to prod Congress into action,” Politico reports.

Evidently these leading experts include Robert Zoellick of the World Bank and William Dudley, president of the New York Fed. These guys are experts in fear-mongering. Unfortunately, members of Congress, motivated by fear, will likely cut a terrible deal for the taxpayer.

Congress is taking action to address “the year-end fiscal cliff” set up by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, cuts to defense spending, a possible debt ceiling hike and a scheduled Obamacare tax increase. Details are scarce, but we know these squishy members want a deal after the elections so they can feel free to violate Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge not to vote for tax hikes.

Ed Klein on Clinton, Kenya, Wright–and Obama

By Joel B. Pollak | June 8, 2012 | Breitbart News

On Tuesday, against the backdrop of the Wisconsin recall election, Breitbart News interviewed Ed Klein, author of the #1 New York Times bestseller The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House. We discussed Klein’s own politics, his methods in researching his subject, and the reasons the mainstream media failed to vet the president when it first had the opportunity during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Drones in America: Where’s the Outrage?

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.

The Secret Kill List

By Andrew Napolitano | May 31, 2012 | Townhall.com

The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.

This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world — and some of his killers have killed Americans.

Rush Limbaugh: Obama to Wage Campaign Based on Fear

By Rush Limbaugh | May 29, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: New York Magazine, John Heilemann.  This is the coauthor of the book Game Change, that made the movie, Sarah Palin, the absolute worst thing that happened to America. Sarah Palin, the absolute worst thing that ever happened to John McCain.  Sarah Palin, the absolute worst thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.  Those guys.  It’s a long piece.  And his point is that for Obama and company this time around, it’s all about fear.  There’s no hope and change.  There’s no bringing people together.  There’s no unity.  There’s no postracial, no postmodernism, no post anything.  We’re not unified.  The world is not in love with us.  All of the stuff that was promised or alluded to in 2008, down the tubes now. But this guy, the author, John Heilemann, gets it right this time around.  It’s all about fear.  Obama’s got nothing to run on.  So he’s gonna try to scare the public with clever ads and half-truths, 100% lies, anything that he can use.  Here, let me read one sentence.  This is a long piece.  I’m not gonna bore you with the whole thing, but I think I can get to the nub of this with the sentence here that’s near the end of this long story.  “For all their brio, Obama’s people know their campaign could be derailed by myriad events outside their control.”  That’s the key.  For all of their brio, for all their confidence, it’s their time.

The NDAA: Just one more link in the chain of tyranny [Video]

By James Corbett | January 15, 2012 | Corbett Report

Each year, the United States Department of Defense budget and expenditures are approved by Congress, which must pass a National Defense Authorization Act in order to fund the DoD.

Harvard Law, the Commerce Clause, and the Obamacare Mandate

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.

Related Articles

• 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)

Chief of Obama’s Atrocities Board Believes in Redistribution of Sovereignty

By  Joe Wolverton, II | April 30, 2012 | The New American

As reported last week, President Obama has created a new government agency tasked with identifying and combatting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other such atrocities.

Appropriately, this new committee is called the White House Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) and it will be headed by President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Samantha Power (pictured).

Exercising the powers he created for himself in Executive Order 13606, President Barack Obama established the Atrocities Prevention Board, whose formation was announced by the President during his remarks at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum marking Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The goal of the APB is to first formally recognize that genocide and other mass atrocities committed by foreign powers are a “core national security interest and core moral responsibility.”

The APB, will be comprised of senior government officials across nearly a dozen government agencies, and will conduct regular meetings in the White House to identify and combat these atrocities occurring overseas that pose a significant threat to America’s national security.

According to a statement issued by the White House, the APB will also be charged with coordinating the actions of other agencies and departments with similar mandates so as to prevent ineffective and untimely responses to the various actions it highlights as threats. That is to say, President Obama has created a new government agency to make sure the work of existing government agencies is efficient and not duplicated.

Apart from the unconstitutionality of this use of the executive order, there is something sinister in the selection of Samantha Power to spearhead the search for atrocities.

One source claims that the very existence of the APB is due to Power’s own persistence in convincing the White House that discovering atrocities should be a “core national-security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” The statement released concomitant with the issuing of the executive order evinces Power’s remarkable power of persuasion.

Samantha Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote a doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect. Notably, this philosophy was also espoused by Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian lawmaker who has publicly questioned the reality of the Holocaust and who was a dedicated lictor of the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization — Yasser Arafat.

Responsibility to Protect (also known as Responsibility to Act) is a doctrine advanced by the United Nations and is predicated on the proposition that sovereignty is a privilege not a right and that if any regime in any nation violates the prevailing precepts of acceptable governance, then the international community is morally obligated to revoke that nation’s sovereignty and assume command and control of the offending country.

There are three pillars of the United Nations’ backed Responsibility to Protect are:

• A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities,
• The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.
• If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

Records indicate that the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, of which Samantha Power is a co-founder, participated in the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that was established by the Canadian government in September 2000 to address the growing problem of “mass atrocities.”

It was this “independent” commission that coined the term “responsibility to protect.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• I Guess Staffing Isn’t Obama’s Expertise Either… Or Is It? (askmarion.wordpress.com)
• Not kidding: Obama has new ‘atrocities czar’ (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Samantha Power to head Obama’s “Atrocities Prevention Board” (bellalu0.wordpress.com)
• Sri Lanka: Samantha Power to chair US genocide prevention effort (tamilnet.com)
• Obama Misses the Mark on Military Interventionism (spectator.org)
• Krauthammer castigates Obama on ’embarrassing’ Syria policy: ‘Be quiet’ (dailycaller.com)
• Not kidding: Obama has new ‘atrocities czar’ (wnd.com)
• The Atrocities Prevention Board Badly Needs a New Name (businessweek.com)
• For Holocaust Day This Year, Obama Puts Jew-Bashing Crackpot On Atrocities Board (Video) (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

Who gets immunity from lawsuits for acts violating the Constitution? Really?

“A prosecutor … may receive absolute immunity from suit for acts violating the Constitution in order to advance important societal values.” ~Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, 2009

Related Articles

• Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department for More Kagan Docs (biggovernment.com)
• The Kagan Deception (usapartisan.com)
• Elena Kagan, how could this Socialist in black pass confirmation? (icanbeatobama.com)
• Does Elena Kagen have a $20 million commitment to destroying the American Republic? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Supremely Confused – America’s Supreme Court (inquisitr.com)

Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare

By Sher Zieve  | May 3, 2012 | Canada Free Press

In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.

Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.”  Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly.  The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.

As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders.  The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution.  Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen.  In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Brit Hume: Obama’s SCOTUS fight ’embarrassing,’ ‘exceedingly ineffective’ [VIDEO] (dailycaller.com)
• Obama Demands SCOTUS become Rubber Stamp for his Policies (gulagbound.com)
• Here are the 5 possible outcomes for ObamaCare (theblaze.com)
• Unprecedented: Obama Begins Pre-Emptive Political Attack on Supreme Court’s Possible Overturning of ObamaCare, Branding That an “Unprecedented Extraordinary Event” (minx.cc)
• ObamaCare debate boosts approval ratings… (theblaze.com)
• Will SCOTUS punt to 2014 on ObamaCare? (hotair.com)
• Has NO ONE Read the ObamaCare Manifesto? (canadafreepress.com)
• And Now the Supreme Court Must Decide (canadafreepress.com)
• Good God: Supreme Court May Not Decide Constitutionality of ObamaCare Mandate Until… 2016 (minx.cc)
• Video: ObamaCare at the Supreme Court, Day One (theblaze.com)

How Liberals Successfully Silence Dissent

By Phil Elmore | May 3, 2012 | WND

Exclusive: Phil Elmore challenges conservatives to start fighting for keeps

Liberals adore the idea of silencing dissent. To this end, and because they believe they hold the moral high ground when contending with heartless, selfish, benighted conservatives, liberals will use a combination of intimidation, threats and dishonesty to destroy or remove any and all critics.

The Obama administration has tried several times to exploit this tendency among its more ardent followers. There was the White House email hotline, flag@whitehouse.gov; there was the running joke that was “AttackWatch” and its Twitter account; more recently, Obama’s flacks have been pushing the Orwellian “Truth Team.” Liberals are also abusing Twitter’s spam-reporting system to trigger automatic blocking of conservative Twitter accounts.

The goal, in every case, is to respond to the outrage that is political dissent in Obama’s America. The means is to threaten, to shout down and to shut up. Dare to express an opinion counter to Dear Leader’s Democratic Party line? Obama demands his violent and foul-smelling Occupy Wall Street rabble “get in your face” and yell at you until you stop talking. This is the “Coming Obama Thugocracy” Michael Barone predicted almost four years ago.

There was a time when liberals told us that criticizing judges for their extra-constitutional interpretations of the law was tantamount to agitating for those judges’ assassination. Today, those same liberals attack the United States Supreme Court if they suspect there exists even the possibility some of Obama’s unconstitutional legislation may be found so. When Democrats did not hold the White House, no less a lib luminary than Hillary Clinton famously screeched that we are Americans, and we have the right to disagree with any administration. Today, if you disagree with Obama, Democrat thugs are supposed to “get in your face” and explain to you the error of your ways.

There is no room for debate; there is no opportunity for discussion; there is no way even to argue, no matter how passionately. No, if you are a conservative, you are supposed to close your mouth-hole, and if you don’t like it, Obama voters can find some union thugs, some club-wielding racists, or some mob of whining communists to beat you until you can’t speak.

Conservatives and libertarians are in part to blame for this wretched state of affairs. We don’t fight well. We don’t stand up for ourselves, nor protect our own. We harrumph and we cluck and we shake our heads, refusing to challenge the logically flawed premises the libs foist on us. We agree with liberal useful idiots that Rush Limbaugh should not call a slut a slut, that what Mitt Romney does with his money is a greater outrage than what Barack Hussein Obama does with your money. We let the enemy frame the “debate.” We let our opposition set the terms. We never simply stand up and say, “I reject your flawed premise … and if you don’t get ‘out of my face,’ I will drop you where you stand.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Bill Maher adjusts himself (dailycaller.com)
• Liberal Website Looking To Get Out The ‘Slut’ Vote In November (washington.cbslocal.com)
• Liberal Silence: We Don’t Need To Talk About That Despicable Idiot Who Almost Became Vice President Anymore (minx.cc)
• With ‘Tyranny of Clichés,’ Jonah Goldberg Delivers a Second Triumph (johnmalcolm.me)
• Mark Steyn: The Liberal Enforcers (minx.cc)
• Rock The Slut Vote mobilizes for liberals (dailycaller.com)
• Huffington Vs. Obama? The Five Co-Hosts Ponder: ‘Trouble In Liberal Paradise?’ (mediaite.com)
• Derrick Bell, Critical Race Theory Pioneer, Remains a Hero to His Students (johnmalcolm.me)
• Civil Unrest: Liberals Most at Risk (johnmalcolm.me)
• This season of SNL won’t feature Mitt Romney (theblaze.com)
• Pointless quote of the day, 05.03.12 (theblaze.com)
• This shirt with a bird graphic cost Ann Romney $1K (theblaze.com)
• Everyone Booze Up and Riot (canadafreepress.com)

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

By Peter Ferrara | April 5, 2012 | Forbes

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added).

President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority. But he figures you’re so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight. The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.

The law also barely squeaked past a Senate filibuster despite an overwhelming 60 Senate Democrats, and even then humiliating buyoffs were necessary. Public opposition was so strong that the ultraliberal Democrat controlled Massachusetts, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972, elected a Republican in a special election for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, to terminate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. That required final passage of the law improperly in violation of Congressional rules as a reconciliation measure, which is only to be used to clean up the budget and so cannot be filibustered.

And given that Obama is so certain you can’t remember what happened just two years ago, he is more than certain that you have never heard of the ancient history of Marbury v. Madison, where the 14-year old Supreme Court in 1803 took the then unprecedented step of overturning a provision of law adopted by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That case was where the Supreme Court first recognized its power of judicial review, under which it is empowered to strike down laws found unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Tuesday:

“In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of these laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities….probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act.”

As a former constitutional law professor and President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama no doubt knows all about Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. But he figures he can safely assume a majority of you know nothing about it, and his party controlled media will not tell you anything concerning it at this inopportune moment. Hence, another classic example of what I have called Calculated Deception.

President Obama further assailed any Supreme Court decision ruling his Obamacare health care takeover unconstitutional as “judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Alexander Hamilton disagreed over 200 years ago in Federalist 78, writing, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .”

Or, as the Wall Street Journal explained on Monday:

“Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.”

The Journal added, “Far from seeking an activist ruling, the Obamacare plaintiffs aren’t asking the Court to overturn even a single commerce clause precedent.”

In my role as General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, I filed 3 amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in the Obamacare litigation. I also filed amicus briefs in the lower federal courts in the cases in Virginia and Florida.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Obama to the Court: I’m Following FDR’s Playbook (johnmalcolm.me)
• Judicial Review v. Judicial Activism (johnmalcolm.me)
• What’s Obama Thinking? Wickard, not Marbury (johnmalcolm.me)
• The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
• Marbury v. Madison Debate Sparked by Obama’s Supreme Court Health Law Remarks (blippitt.com)
• Overturning ObamaCare Isn’t ‘Judicial Activism’ – WSJ.com (libertyorequality.wordpress.com)
• 5th Circuit Lays the Smackdown on Obama (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Supreme Court moves to center of presidential race (wcnc.com)
• The Supremes may strike down ObamaCare but it will remain constitutional in Obama Bizzaro World (fishygov.wordpress.com)
• Obamacare and the Relevance of Marbury v. Madison (coppellpianoshop.wordpress.com)

Obama Ban on Youth Farm Chores Part of Larger Power Grab [Updated]

By Kurt Nimmo | April 25, 2012 | Infowars.com

Dredging up Dickensian horrors of child labor, the Obama administration has ordered the Labor Department to apply child labor laws to family farms. The new rules would make it illegal for children to perform a large number of labor tasks that have been performed by farm families for centuries. Traditionally, adults and children alike helped with planting and harvesting in the spring and fall, but the federal government is now determined not only to make this a historical footnote, but a criminal offense.

Under the rules, children under 18 would be prevented by the federal government from working “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials” and prohibited “places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

In addition to making it far more difficult for families to work their farms, the new rules will revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA and replace them with a 90-hour federal government training course, the Daily Caller reports.

In other words, the federal government will forcibly insert itself in the business of teaching animal husbandry and crop management, disciplines traditionally passed on by families and local communities.

Government apparatchiks will now oversee the business of local farming the same way Stalin did when he collectivized farms and “socialized” production at gunpoint in the Soviet Union. Resistance by farmers and peasants to Stalin’s efforts resulted in the government cutting off food rations, which resulted in widespread famine (the “terror-famine in Ukraine” killed around 12 million people) and millions were sent to forced labor camps.

The Labor Department’s effort to further erode the family farm falls on the heels of an unconstitutional executive order Obama issued last year establishing so-called rural councils.

“According to this new executive order, the Obama administration plans to stick its itchy little fingers into just about every aspect of rural life,” the Economic Collapse Blog noted at the time. “One of the stated goals of the White House Rural Council is to do the following….”

Coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.

Obama’s plan to make life miserable for family farmers coincides with an effort by the United Nations under Agenda 21. Section one of the executive order mentions “sustainable rural communities,” language right out of Agenda 21. (For more on the draconian aspects of Agenda 21 and the plan to roll back modern civilization under the aegis of “sustainability,” see Rosa Koire’s Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21.)

The federal government has recently moved to clamp down on family farms. For instance, last year the Department of Transportation proposed new burdensome rules for farmers. Incidentally, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council.

“In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment, and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business,” writes Mike Opelka. “The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).”

Late last year, House Republicans moved to prevent the EPA from further burdening farmers with a rule that would ban “farm dust.” Outrage in response to the proposed regulation came fast and furious and EPA boss Lisa Jackson was forced to back down as Democrats complained that the government was not targeting small family farms with the proposed regulation.

A concerted effort by the federal government to attack small family farms cannot be denied. Infowars.com has covered dozens of efforts, including the attack on Rawesome Foods in California, numerous efforts by the feds to attack raw milk and dairy farmers (including attacks by the FDA on Amish farmers), and a recent effort by the Department of Natural Resources in Michigan to destroy open-range pig farms.

In addition to attempting to micromanage – and run out of business – family farms through federal labor regulations, the government is trying to insert itself in the relationship between parents and their children.

The ongoing attacks on family farming are not merely misguided efforts by control freak bureaucrats. They are part of a larger “comprehensive plan of action” to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations to institute “sustainable development,” a philosophy designed to bring humanity under tight control of the global elite.

As George H. W. Bush said on September 11, 1990, the plan is “based entirely on social control mechanisms.” For the elite, controlling food – especially healthy and natural food produced by family farms – is a primary objective in their plan for global conquest.

Update:

Govt backs off new limits on child labor on farms

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under heavy pressure from farm groups, the Obama administration said Thursday it would drop an unpopular plan to prevent children from doing hazardous work on farms owned by anyone other than their parents.

The Labor Department said it is withdrawing proposed rules that would ban children younger than 16 from using most power-driven farm equipment, including tractors. The rules also would prevent those younger than 18 from working in feed lots, grain bins and stockyards.

While labor officials said their goal was to reduce the fatality rate for child farm workers, the proposal had become a popular political target for Republicans who called it an impractical, heavy-handed regulation that ignored the reality of small farms.

Related Articles

• Feds Want to Require License to Drive Farm Vehicles
• Farm Aid Letter to Congress on Banker Bailout
• Farm Aid’s Nelson, Mellencamp, Young and Matthews Urge Congress to Redirect Bailout to Working Men and Women, Farmers
• US Wind Farm Being Paid NOT to Produce Power
• Martial Law? Rep. Sandy Adams fears Obama power grab
• Family Farm Ordered to Destroy 50,000 Pounds of Cheese
• Ron Paul: Obama’s Libya War Power Grab Impeachable
• Federal Reserve Power Grab Bill Moves to Senate
• FDA & federal judge shut down Amish farm for selling raw milk
• Obama’s NDAA Power Grab vs. Bill of Rights: Infowars Nightly News
• Hedge Farm! Hedge Funds Buying Up Farms for Doomsday Food Price Scenario
• Nation’s food system nearly broke

Shady Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA

By James Bamford | April 3, 2012 | Wired Magazine

The NSA's new super-secret 1-million-square-foot data center in Utah. Photo: Name Withheld

Army General Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, is having a busy year — hopping around the country, cutting ribbons at secret bases and bringing to life the agency’s greatly expanded eavesdropping network.

In January he dedicated the new $358 million CAPT Joseph J. Rochefort Building at NSA Hawaii, and in March he unveiled the 604,000-square-foot John Whitelaw Building at NSA Georgia.

Designed to house about 4,000 earphone-clad intercept operators, analysts and other specialists, many of them employed by private contractors, it will have a 2,800-square-foot fitness center open 24/7, 47 conference rooms and VTCs, and “22 caves,” according to an NSA brochure from the event. No television news cameras were allowed within two miles of the ceremony.

Overseas, Menwith Hill, the NSA’s giant satellite listening post in Yorkshire, England that sports 33 giant dome-covered eavesdropping dishes, is also undergoing a multi-million-dollar expansion, with $68 million alone being spent on a generator plant to provide power for new supercomputers. And the number of people employed on the base, many of them employees of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, is due to increase from 1,800 to 2,500 in 2015, according to a study done in Britain. Closer to home, in May, Fort Meade will close its 27-hole golf course to make room for a massive $2 billion, 1.8-million-square-foot expansion of the NSA’s headquarters, including a cybercommand complex and a new supercomputer center expected to cost nearly $1 billion.

The climax, however, will be the opening next year of the NSA’s mammoth 1-million-square-foot, $2 billion Utah Data Center. The centerpiece in the agency’s decade-long building boom, it will be the “cloud” where the trillions of millions of intercepted phone calls, e-mails, and data trails will reside, to be scrutinized by distant analysts over highly encrypted fiber-optic links.

Despite the post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping of Americans, the NSA says that citizens should trust it not to abuse its growing power and that it takes the Constitution and the nation’s privacy laws seriously.

But one of the agency’s biggest secrets is just how careless it is with that ocean of very private and very personal communications, much of it to and from Americans. Increasingly, obscure and questionable contractors — not government employees — install the taps, run the agency’s eavesdropping infrastructure, and do the listening and analysis.

And with some of the key companies building the U.S.’s surveillance infrastructure for the digital age employing unstable employees, crooked executives, and having troubling ties to foreign intelligence services, it’s not clear that Americans should trust the secretive agency, even if its current agency chief claims he doesn’t approve of extrajudicial spying on Americans. His predecessor, General Michael V. Hayden, made similar claims while secretly conducting the warrantless wiretapping program.

Until now, the actual mechanics of how the agency constructed its highly secret U.S. eavesdropping net, code-named Stellar Wind, has never been revealed. But in the weeks following 9/11, as the agency and the White House agreed to secretly ignore U.S. privacy laws and bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, J. Kirk Wiebe noticed something odd. A senior analyst, he was serving as chief of staff for the agency’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (SARC), a sort of skunkworks within the agency where bureaucratic rules were broken, red tape was cut, and innovation was expected.

“One day I notice out in the hallway, stacks and stacks of new servers in boxes just lined up,” he said.

Passing by the piles of new Dell 1750 servers, Wiebe, as he often did, headed for the Situation Room, which dealt with threat warnings. It was located within the SARC’s Lab, on the third floor of Operations Building 2B, a few floors directly below the director’s office. “I walk in and I almost get thrown out by a guy that we knew named Ben Gunn,” he said. It was the launch of Stellar Wind and only a handful of agency officials were let in on the secret.

“He was the one who organized it,” said Bill Binney of Gunn. A former founder and co-director of SARC, Binney was the agency official responsible for automating much of the NSA’s worldwide monitoring networks. Troubled by the unconstitutional nature of tapping into the vast domestic communications system without a warrant, he decided to quit the agency in late 2001 after nearly forty years.

Gunn, said Binney, was a Scotsman and naturalized U.S. citizen who had formerly worked for GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent of the NSA, and later become a senior analyst at the NSA. The NSA declined Wired’s request to interview Gunn, saying that, as policy, it doesn’t confirm or deny if a person is employed by the agency.

Shortly after the secret meeting, the racks of Dell servers were moved to a room down the hall, behind a door with a red seal indicating only those specially cleared for the highly compartmented project could enter. But rather than having NSA employees putting the hardware and software together and setting up walls of monitors showing suspected terrorism threats and their U.S. communications, the spying room was filled with a half-dozen employees of a tiny mom-and-pop company with a bizarre and troubling history.

“It was Technology Development Corporation,” said Binney.

The agency went to TDC, he says, because the company had helped him set up a similar network in SARC — albeit one that was focused on foreign and international communications — the kind of spying the NSA is chartered to undertake.

“They needed to have somebody who knew how the code works to set it up,” he said. “And then it was just a matter of feeding in the attributes [U.S. phone numbers, e-mail addresses and personal data] and any of the content you want.” Those “attributes” came from secret rooms established in large telecom switches around the country. “I think there’s 10 to 20 of them,” Binney says.

Formed in April 1984, TDC was owned by two brothers, Randall and Paul Jacobson, and largely run out of Randall’s Clarkesville, Maryland house, with his wife acting as bookkeeper. But its listed address is a post office box in Annapolis Junction, across the Baltimore-Washington Parkway from the NSA, and the company’s phone number in various business directories is actually an NSA number in Binney’s old office.

The company’s troubles began in June 1992 when Paul lost his security clearance. “If you ever met this guy, you would know he’s a really strange guy,” Binney said of Paul. “He did crazy stuff. I think they thought he was unstable.” At the time, Paul was working on a contract at the NSA alongside a rival contractor, Unisys Corporation. He later blamed Unisys for his security problems and sued it, claiming that Unisys employees complained about him to his NSA supervisors. According to the suit, Unisys employees referred to him as “weird” and that he “acted like a robot,” “never wore decent clothes,” and was mentally and emotionally unstable. About that time, he also began changing his name, first to Jimmy Carter, and later to Alfred Olympus von Ronsdorf.

With “von Ronsdorf’s” clearance gone and no longer able to work at the NSA, Randy Jacobson ran the company alone, though he kept his brother and fellow shareholder employed in the company, which led to additional problems.

“What happened was Randy still let him have access to the funds of the company and he squandered them,” according to Binney. “It was so bad, Randy couldn’t pay the people who were working for him.” According to court records, Ronsdorf allegedly withdrew about $100,000 in unauthorized payments. But Jacobson had troubles of his own, having failed to file any income tax statements for three years in the 1990s, according to tax court records. Then in March 2002, around the time the company was completing Stellar Wind, Jacobson fired his brother for improper billing and conversion of company funds. That led to years of suits and countersuits over mismanagement and company ownership.

Despite that drama, Jacobson and his people appeared to have serious misgivings about the NSA’s program once they discovered its true nature, according to Binney. “They came and said, ‘Do you realize what these people are doing?’” he said. “‘They’re feeding us other stuff [U.S.] in there.’ I mean they knew it was unconstitutional right away.” Binney added that once the job was finished, the NSA turned to still another contractor to run the tapping operation. “They made it pretty well known, so after they got it up and running they [the NSA] brought in the SAIC people to run it after that.” Jacobsen was then shifted to other work at the NSA, where he and his company are still employed.

Randall Jacobsen answered his phone inside the NSA but asked for time to respond. He never called back.

In addition to constructing the Stellar Wind center, and then running the operation, secretive contractors with questionable histories and little oversight were also used to do the actual bugging of the entire U.S. telecommunications network.

According to a former Verizon employee briefed on the program, Verint, owned by Comverse Technology, taps the communication lines at Verizon, which I first reported in my book The Shadow Factory in 2008. Verint did not return a call seeking comment, while Verizon said it does not comment on such matters.

At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are powered by software and hardware from Narus, now owned by Boeing, a discovery made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein in 2004. Narus did not return a call seeking comment.

What is especially troubling is that both companies have had extensive ties to Israel, as well as links to that country’s intelligence service, a country with a long and aggressive history of spying on the U.S.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Shady Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA (powersthatbeat.wordpress.com)
• Senator Church’s Prophetic Warning (ritholtz.com)
• Influential Senator Warned in 1975: “Th[e National Security Agency’s] Capability At Any Time Could Be Turned Around On The American People, And No American Would Have Any Privacy Left …There Would Be No Place To Hide. [If A Dictator Ever Took Over, The N. (washingtonsblog.com)
• Shady Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA (blacklistednews.com)
• REAL NEWS April 04 (danimartextras.wordpress.com)
• National Security Agency Whistleblower William Binney on Growing State Surveillance (12160.info)
• “The NSA Is Lying”: U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails Says NSA Whistleblower (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• The government wants to know what it doesn’t know (networkworld.com)
• Whistleblower: The NSA is Lying – US Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails (12160.info)

Evidence Broadens Obama Natural Born Conspiracy [Video]

By J.B. Williams | June 8, 2011 | News With Views

Evidence that we have a fraud and a usurper currently residing in the people’s White House is overwhelming, despite the overt lack of journalistic investigating on the part of the American press. But now new evidence indicates that the conspiracy to carry out that fraud was much broader than originally thought.

The story of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama II really is – is a forty-year story that requires a book, not a column, to tell. Strong evidence suggests that he was being groomed from a very young age for the moment in history that would end American supremacy in the world, and usher in a new era of Global Marxist Governance.

But there was a major hurdle that had to be overcome – the U.S. Constitution, in this case, Article II – Section I – Clause V specifically, which requires that “no person except a natural-born citizen of the United States” can hold the office of President. – Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States…and may not even be a legal citizen of the United States. So, how can he be President?

This column focuses upon the period 2003-2008 and the political maneuvers that took place in order to make way for America’s first unconstitutional resident of the White House.

Efforts to Eliminate the Natural Born Requirement (2003-2005)

Proving that the players involved knew the correct definition of natural born citizen borrowed from the Law of Nations by our founders – 1) those born in the country, of parents who are citizens; 2) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights; 3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; 4) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen. – that they knew Barack Hussein Obama II did not meet that definition as a foreign or dual citizen via his father’s British citizenship and that they worked feverishly to find a way around this constitutional requirement for office, as Obama was about to become president…

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution –“Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was –“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language –“Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”

The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Obama Lawyer Admits In Court Birth Certificate On White House Website Is A Forgery (johnmalcolm.me)
• General Conspiracies – Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill admits birth certificate fake (disclose.tv)
• Natural Born Citizen for Dummies (federaljack.com)
• GOP ‘superstar’ for VP faces eligibility questions (wnd.com)
• BREAKING => Two New States Massachusetts And Obama’s Very Own Illinois Challenge Barrack’s Official Ballot Eligibility. (politicalvelcraft.org)
• Obama Birth Certificate Forged! (murraymsilveresq.wordpress.com)
• Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Damage Control (tatoott1009.com)
• Obama’s Eligibility (wdednh.wordpress.com)
• Obama Born In Kenya, His Own Words (tarpon.wordpress.com)

Stand Your Ground, America

By Peter Ferrara |  April 18, 2012 | American Spectator

A sober look at the case against George Zimmerman.

How do you stand your ground if you are lying on your back getting pummeled in the face?

That one question alone shows that Stand Your Ground laws are not at issue in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin controversy. But the tragic death of young Trayvon is only seen by those on the left as a valuable media opportunity to further exploit the millions of gullible Americans to advance the left’s political interests and agenda. Indeed, we have some people in positions of influence, both leading politicians and figures in the major media, who see their interest as exploiting the death to incite race unrest across America.

There is only one solution to this budding insurrection. Enforce the damn law!! That applies most directly in Florida now, where conservatives are in power, and they have to start acting like it.

The Perfect Resolution for Zimmerman

Enforcing the damn law is exactly what is happening now in the Zimmerman case, and it’s the perfect resolution for all concerned.

This case needs to be resolved by a jury, and can only be resolved by a jury, which is the only way to satisfy the public interest in this matter. There are too many people in America today who will not listen to the evidence, and will follow only their own racial prejudice.

But the evidence needs to be laid out in a court of law, and resolved by a jury of Zimmerman’s peers. That is the only way to satisfy the fair minded that justice has been done. I will discuss those who are not fair-minded below.

Despite what I say about the evidence below, this is not too much of a burden for Zimmerman. Even staunch advocates of gun rights and self-defense need to recognize that if someone is shot and killed even in self-defense, the ensuing investigation is not going to be easy for the shooter, in any event. Indeed, it should not be. Moreover, a jury trial gives Zimmerman the opportunity he needs to clear his name.

But based on what the established evidence on the public record indisputably shows, Zimmerman is going to be easily found innocent of the charges. That is more than well proven by eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence, despite what those who think they will benefit politically or socially from race turmoil want to believe.

Zimmerman himself is from a ethnically mixed family. He has a history of positive relations with African-Americans, even voluntarily tutoring black children at his own expense. He also has a distinguished history as a neighborhood watch captain, providing evidence leading to the capture, arrest, and conviction of criminals before.

On the night of the shooting, Zimmerman going to the store himself observed a black youth, 6 foot plus, high school football player walking alone in the rain and looking around, possibly for opportunity, in a gated community that had been robbed many times before. Zimmerman knew the community’s residents, and correctly identified the youth Trayvon Martin as not one of those residents.

Zimmerman properly called 911 to report a suspicious person in the neighborhood. When Zimmerman indicated he was following the youth, the operator told him, “You don’t need to do that.”Zimmerman was not legally obligated to obey that suggestion.There is nothing illegal about following what you think is a suspicious person in your neighborhood. Based on these facts, this is not even a case of racial profiling.

But Zimmerman obeyed the suggestion anyway. The taped conversation with the operator showed he left the trail to go find an address so a cop could come by and pick up the investigation. While Zimmerman was walking back to his car after reporting the address to the 911 operator, as he later told police, Trayvon Martin came up behind Zimmerman and asked Zimmerman if he had a problem with him. Zimmerman whirled to say “No.” Martin replied, “You do now,” and proceeded to punch him in the nose, breaking the nose and knocking him down.

Martin then jumped on top of Zimmerman, grabbing his head and repeatedly slamming it into the ground. Zimmerman is recorded on a 911 call repeatedly screaming “help!”

Zimmerman was licensed with a conceal and carry permit to carry a handgun, which he had with him that night inside his waistbelt. One news report stated that Martin saw the gun and said, “Now you’re dead,” going for the weapon. But Zimmerman got there first, using it to shoot Martin in the chest once, killing him.

These facts are corroborated by the physical evidence as well as eyewitness testimony, medical and police records, and taped recordings, including Zimmerman’s own uncontradicted testimony, which is part of the record. The police report recorded the broken nose and head injuries, which are apparent in a video tape of Zimmerman at the police station thereafter. The police report also records grass and grass stains on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt. The coroner’s report stated that the gunshot was at close range.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The Truth About ‘Stand Your Ground’ (newser.com)
• Big Change at Group That Pushed ‘Stand Your Ground’ (newser.com)
• George Zimmerman’s Injuries Finally Make Mainstream Reporting (thewesternexperience.com)
• STAND YOUR GROUND LAW is active law in more states than just FLORIDA (bonjupatten.com)
• Online Profiling (thenewprint.com)
• Trayvon Martin Case Goes Beyond Race (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com)
• Law gives Zimmerman extra chances in legal fight (heraldonline.com)
• Zimmerman judge to step down from case (upi.com)
• Zimmerman’s attorney to seek bail in Trayvon Martin killing (ctv.ca)
• The Growing Movement to Repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws (ideas.time.com)

Digging Deeper Into Who Controls The World

By Susan Jennings | February 10, 2012 | Activist Post

As we delve deeper into world control, more information arises that helps us understand the current global situation.  Many people are unaware of the interconnectedness between the largest global companies.Eighty percent of the world’s wealth appears to be earned by a “core” of 1,318 corporations, which in turn are being controlled by only 147 companies. Seventy-five percent of these companies are financial institutions — and the top companies on the list are the Federal Reserve banks.

The Federal Reserve created 26 to 29 trillion dollars’ worth of bailouts for their own companies between 2007 and 2010. This was revealed in their own audit statements, and confirmed by United States Congressmen and prominent financial analysts. (Source)  Please note that the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, is a private corporation controlled by international bankers. (Source)

Anytime the ‘Fed’ prints money-Federal Reserve Notes, the American taxpayer is charged interest on the amount printed.  Alan Greenspan admitted that “the Federal Reserve is an independent agency . . . there is no other agency of government who can overrule actions we take.”

As they understood the extreme dangers to our life and liberty, our founding fathers were adamantly opposed to a central privately controlled bank. 

This global control occurs in multiple ways:

1. Different companies having the same board members (this also includes members of the same family who may be on different boards).
2. The ongoing movement between government leaders into private sector executive/board positions or lobbying positions for companies they formerly regulated and visa versa (Tim Geithner – former New York Federal Reserve Bank President becomes Obama administration’s Treasury Secretary).
3. Stock or bonds held in other companies (Goldman considering keeping majority of Facebook shares in Initial Public Stock Offering).
4. The division of competing brand names owned by the same company (Proctor and Gamble).
5. Funding through private foundations for various associations (The American Medical Association since 1910 and National Education Association are heavily funded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations.  Hmmm…helpful when you want to control public health and education).
6. The ease with which those in power move between the fewer and fewer global companies and political offices.

The majority of radio, television and large Internet companies has become concentrated into the hands of just few companies.  Fifty independent companies once comprised the media as of 1983.  Now, Time Warner-CNN/TBS/TNT/AOL/Fortune/People; News Corp-Fox/New York Post/Wall Street Journal/MarketWatch.com; Walt Disney-ABC/ESPN/Miramax//Pixar; Bertelsmann-Most EU stations/Random House/National Geographic magazines; Viacom-CBS-Simon & Schuster/Comedy Central/BET/Paramount; and GE-NBC/Telemundo/MSNBC/ decide what is news. (Source) Such consolidation creates the ability to easily manipulate the masses via television, radio and printed media.  This includes global news, political information, science, health and social values — which we have all seen go down the toilet.  The desensitization to dead bodies &amp, increasing violence, glorification of anti-social behavior, i.e. the ones doing the most lying/cheating/stealing are the winners; the invasive surveillance systems to acclimate the public to a complete loss of privacy, and the lack of unbiased, actual reporting on critical events.

As a result, the NDAA, SOPA and PIPA legislation have all had a positive slant on them in Mainstream Media. The NDAA wipes out the 4th Amendment right to due process; and the latter two proposed laws remove our free access to websites, giving the government the right to take down Internet sites at will.  Thus, their interests seem to be solely in maximizing their profits no matter the detrimental effects on the environmental, social and health of all life.  All the while maintaining control of the global population through massive manipulation.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• David Wilcock: Major Event: Liens Filed against all 12 Federal Reserve Banks (the2012scenario.com)
• David Wilcock: Major Event: (nalonmit.wordpress.com)
• The Federal Reserve’s Medicine Men: Heroes Of A New Dawn, Or Vampires Of A Dying Night? (blacklistednews.com)
• Legislation to Audit the FED inches Closer (alakhtal.wordpress.com)
• Citi’s Pandit To Employees: Capital Goals Haven’t Changed (blogs.wsj.com)

Judicial Review v. Judicial Activism

By Mark Alexander | April 12, 2012 | The Patriot Post

SCOTUS and Constitutional Authority

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” –Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 (1787)

Last week, seeing that his signature legislative achievement was in jeopardy, Barack Hussein Obama fired a shot across the bow of the Supreme Court as it considered the constitutionality of his so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (a.k.a., ObamaCare). Obama warned the court against “judicial activism.”

“I am confident,” proclaimed Obama, “that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step. … [T]hat’s not just my opinion, that’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law.”

Actually, as Obama knows well, the Supreme Court’s consideration of ObamaCare is not an example of judicial activism as Obama erroneously claims, unless the Court actually upheld the institution of socialized medicine as constitutionally compliant.

In fact, SCOTUS is exercising appropriate judicial review as outlined in Article III of our Constitution, and established as precedent in 1803 with the Court’s Marbury v. Madison decision under Chief Justice John Marshall. In that fundamental case, Marshall wrote, “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. … [T]he framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.”

Marbury v. Madison is often derided as the beginning of the end of Liberty. However, it certainly was consistent with our Framers’ intent, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78: “[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

The unfortunate consequence of the Marbury precedent is that it rendered the Constitution vulnerable to broad extra-constitutional interpretation, should the courts ever become highly politicized — as indeed they did in the 20th century, from FDR forward.

Judicial review was and remains a foundational component of republican federalism and was instituted to preserve Liberty. However, as Thomas Jefferson feared when warning the judiciary could become the “despotic branch,” the federal court’s checks and balances have been adulterated by judicial activists who, in the words of the venerable Senator Sam Ervin, “interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if [they], instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it.”

Thus, now, as Jefferson warned, “The Constitution [will be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Judicial Review v Judicial Activism (papundits.wordpress.com)
• What’s Obama Thinking? Wickard, not Marbury (johnmalcolm.me)
• The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
• Obama to the Court: I’m Following FDR’s Playbook (johnmalcolm.me)
• Obama Jumps the Shark, Takes One Leap Too Far (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Obama Puts Out Figurative Bounty on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
• Marbury v. Madison Debate Sparked by Obama’s Supreme Court Health Law Remarks (blippitt.com)
• Supreme Court: Marbury v. Madison, Something You Might Find Important (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Critics should accept court’s authority (kitsapsun.com)
• Coulter To Hannity: Liberals Use Judicial Activism To ‘Invent Rights’ Like Abortion, Gay Marriage (mediaite.com)

Standing MLK on His Head: The New Civil Rights Movement [Video]

The following comparison between the “old” (MLK) and “new” (Sharpton/Jackson) civil rights movements is from Bradlee Dean’s blog at You Can Run International.

“In light of the recent mainstream media-created outrage over Trayvon Martin’s death, I couldn’t help but notice how far off the modern-day civil-rights leaders are from the creed of the civil-rights movement in the 1960s, led by a great man of God, Martin Luther King Jr. He was a prophet to the nation – a molder of consensus to guarantee equal rights under the law for all men, “endowed by their Creator,” as the Declaration of Independence rightly states.

Let me take you back to the 1960s. Every participant in the civil-rights marches was required to sign the following pledge before they could participate:

• 1. Meditate on teachings of Jesus daily.
• 2. Remember that the non-violent movement seeks justice and reconciliation, not just victory.
• 3. Walk and talk in the manner of love/charity, for God is love.
• 4. Pray daily to be used by God.
• 5. Sacrifice personal needs. Greed has to go out the window.
• 6. Observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
• 7. Seek to perform regular service for others and for the world.
• 8. 
Refrain from the violence of fist, tongue or heart.
• 9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
• 10. Follow the directions of the movement and of the captain of the demonstration.

However, the self-made civil-rights leaders of today, such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, have left out their Bibles and their morals, as they debase themselves and reap nothing but mockery and reproach. Let me contrast the original pledge with the modern version of the pledge, as demonstrated by their actions:

• 1. Meditate on the media and anything but the teachings of Jesus.
• 2. Practice civil disobedience to just laws, through force, in hopes of an unjust victory.
• 3. Walk and talk in the manner of thuggery/pride!
• 4. Play the race card as you are enslaved through deception by a godless administration daily.
• 5. Sacrifice the needs of others, gain is the goal.
• 6. Send threats to those who disagree with you.
• 7. Seek to have it your way at all costs, lie if necessary.
• 8. Use fear and force.
• 9. Strive to take from others, because you deserve what you take!
• 10. Follow the directions of an unconstitutional and unlawful administration.

These modern civil-rights leaders are demoralizers of the faithful. They have turned civil rights into uncivil distribution of privileges, derived by the state. They have left off the Declaration of Independence, therefore throwing off freedom. Under their directives, racism is being taught to a new generation under the guise of decrying racism.”

Related Articles

• LA Press Club Event on Thursday: What if MLK Had Tweeted the Civil Rights Movement? (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Cooking Up Change: How Food Helped Fuel The Civil Rights Movement (npr.org)
• Great Website – MLK – More Than A Dream (crader.info)
• The Civil Rights Movement – – It’s About That Time For A Change! (ladyvluv1908.wordpress.com)
• Library Site Focuses Attention On The Civil Rights Movement In Northern Cities (keptup.typepad.com)
• ‘Mad Men’ makes rare nod to civil rights movement (thegrio.com)
• Obama Speaks On Trayvon Martin Case: VIDEO (towleroad.com)

What if the Government Rejects the Constitution?

By Andrew Napolitano | April 11, 2012 | WND

 Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel and anchor of “FreedomWatch” on Fox Business Network. His most recent book is “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong.”To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

Andrew Napolitano asks rhetorical questions about all 3 branches dishonoring charter

What if the government never took the Constitution seriously? What if the same generation – in some cases the same human beings – that wrote in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government? What if the feds don’t regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?

What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don’t think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people’s backs?

What if there’s no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us Obamacare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don’t want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?

What if both parties love war because the public is more docile during war and permits higher taxes and more federal theft of freedom from individuals and power from the states? What if none of these recent wars has made us freer or safer, but just poorer?

What if Congress bribed the states with cash in return for their enacting legislation Congress likes, but cannot lawfully enact? What if Congress went to all states in the union and offered them cash to repave their interstate highways, if the states only lowered their speed limits? What if the states took that deal? What if the Supreme Court approved this bribery and then Congress did it again and again? What if this bribery were a way for Congress to get around the few constitutional limitations that Congress acknowledges?

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Judge Napolitano Calls Out The Government And The President (economicnoise.com)
• What If Patriotism Means Abolishing the Government? ~ Andrew Napolitano on neo-America. (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism?’ (johnmalcolm.me)
• Can the Government Force You To Eat Broccoli? (lewrockwell.com)
• Hope for the Dead by Andrew P. Napolitano (“The Government Murdered Jesus Christ”) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Can the President Kill You? (lewrockwell.com)
• Can the President Kill You? by Andrew P. Napolitano (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Is the CIA in Your Kitchen? by Andrew P. Napolitano (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Judge Napolitano Slams Obama’s SCOTUS Criticism: ‘No Pres. Has Questioned This Since Andrew Jackson!’ (mediaite.com)
• Andrew Napolitano on Obama’s Assassination Powers (reason.com)

State to Feds: We Won’t Cooperate

By Bob Unruh | April 10, 2012 | WND

Legislation defying Obama on track to become law

A Virginia proposal that declares state workers and resources will be unavailable should Barack Obama decide to exercise provisions in the newest National Defense Authorization Act regarding the detention of U.S. citizens has begun moving forward again.

House Bill 1160 was adopted by lawmakers last month, and the deadline for Gov. Bob McDonnell to address the controversy arrived last night. A spokesman in his office told WND today the governor recommended some adjustments to the proposal, and its chief sponsor in the statehouse says those will be made, and it then is expected to become law.

The bill addresses several obscure sections of the NDAA of 2012, which was signed into law by Obama in December. Those sections appear to allow unlimited detentions by U.S. military forces and federal law enforcement agencies of even U.S. citizens without charges or a court hearing.

The federal plan targets citizens who are classified as belligerents, or who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities, and the chief sponsor of the Virginia plan, Delegate Bob Marshall, told WND that he was alarmed to find out that Obama specifically had wanted that section included in the law.

Marshall contends the federal law deprives citizens of the rights they are guaranteed under the U.S. and Virginia constitutions. Virginia’s detention prevention bill was adopted by wide margins, 37-1 and 96-4, in both houses of the general assembly.

Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for McDonnell, today release a statement that explained what is going on.

“Over the past few weeks, Governor McDonnell has heard from a number of Virginians regarding House Bill 1160, sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall. During the consideration of this legislation and since its passage, he has expressed both the shared concern that Virginia does not participate in the unconstitutional detention of U.S. citizens and the desire that this legislation does not impact legitimate law enforcement activities.

“Preserving public safety is the foremost priority of any government. Every day, state and local law enforcement personnel work together and work with the federal government to keep Virginians safe by fighting crime, responding to emergencies, and combating terrorism. The governor believes we must encourage and promote these collaborative efforts while ensuring that core constitutional principles enjoyed by all U.S. citizens are respected. He believes these standards are expected by all Virginians and want to take appropriate steps to reaffirm that position. In the governor’s view, this legislation now accomplishes that goal.

“Since the legislation’s passage, staff has worked with the patron to come up with amendments that will achieve the goal of not supporting unconstitutional detentions while preserving the ability of law enforcement and our state defense forces to carry out their responsibilities. The amendments Governor McDonnell sent down achieve those goals, and Delegate Marshall has expressed his support for them. The governor hopes the General Assembly will support them, as well.”

Marshall told WND that the governor had a couple of minor technical amendments, and then also wanted to address the need on occasion for a joint operation with the federal government on any of a number of possible issues.

When a U.S. senator noted that the federal plan originally included a provision preventing the president from detaining people, the “White House asked that that be removed. Obama then says ‘I won’t use this ability.’ … That’s odd. That’s troubling,” Marshall said.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Don’t Forget to Remind Governor Mcdonnell to Sign That Bill (citizentom.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)
• Please Ask Governor Mcdonnell to Sign Hb 1160 (citizentom.com)
• Persistence Is Bearing Fruit (citizentom.com)
• Why I Prefer Bob Marshall in the U.s. Senate (citizentom.com)
• Confidential (nrvsierraclub.com)

Reaping the Rewards of a ‘Progressive’ America

By Frank Salvato | April 8, 2012 | Breitbart

 As the nation directs its attention to the events taking place at the United States Supreme Court, specifically, the oral arguments surrounding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, now may be a good time to evaluate some of the “progress” we have made, both as a country and as a culture, where the Progressive Movement’s efforts are concerned.

I say that now may be a good time for this evaluation because as the Justices of the Supreme Court debate the merits of the case before them, we stand on the precipice of the largest expansion in government authority since the institution of the income tax. And while both Republicans and Democrats; Conservatives and Liberals, have all had a hand in the expansion of government, no other group has celebrated that expansion over our liberties, over our freedoms, more than Progressives.

Now, I am not an overly religious man. As regular readers understand, my Mother would be very happy if I attended church more often. But even I can see that at the hand of the Progressive Movement the idea of secularism has become totalitarian. In a nation built, in part, as a sanctuary for the religious (this is the onus behind the First Amendment’s right to “Freedom of Religion”), people of the cloth are being placed under arrest for preaching on public grounds.

In Hemet, California, the Rev. Mark Mackey, a preacher with the Calvary Chapel, was arrested for “preaching to a captive audience” as he read passages from the bible outside a still closed Department of Motor Vehicles building. The arresting California Highway Patrol Officer said to Mackey, as he was leading him away in handcuffs, “You’re not allowed to preach here because this is a captive audience…You can preach on your own property.” One so-called constitutional attorney said Mackey was “creating an intimidating situation.”

In Florida, as the details of a highly publicized crime are still coming into focus, a volunteer neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, is in hiding because the New Black Panther Party has put a $10,000 bounty on his head, along with a “dead or alive” precursor, for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin (and we all thought vigilantism was a thing of the past). And as race-baiting activists – the likes of self-anointed Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both whom have become quite wealthy in their pursuits of keeping the nation divided along racial lines, and elected officials call for – and incredibly so – the arrest of a man before an investigation into the event is even concluded, racist organization La Raza (“The Race” in Spanish) has issued a statement questioning his ethnicity. “His background is not clear…Is he Latino? Is he white? Is he both? Who knows?,” La Raza spokeswoman Lisa Navarrete said in an interview with The Daily Caller. Zimmerman’s Mother is Hispanic.

Speaking of the New Black Panthers, as the men and women of our military fight and die to liberate whole national populations from the tyranny of Islamofascist oppression, our own Justice Department, led by Eric Holder – who is turning out to be not only a racist but a racial activist by proof of both his actions and inactions, refuses to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, paramilitary-clad, night-stick wielding New Black Panther racists who stood outside a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 General Election intimidating every Caucasian voter who tried to enter. J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department Voting Rights Section attorney, who served in the Holder regime, has testified that orders were given not to prosecute any Black defendants…period.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Holder Loves Black Panthers? (dewgeneral.wordpress.com)
• Reaping the Rewards of a ‘Progressive’ America (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Zimmerman Family Member To Holder: Hey When Are you Going to Do Something about Those New Black Panther Threats? (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
• George Zimmerman Is Like The Guy In “To Kill A Mockingbird” (ken_ashford.typepad.com)
• New Black Panthers call for Race War (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Zimmerman family challenges Holder on New Black Panthers, says no arrests ‘based solely on your race’ (wyldgoose.wordpress.com)
• Where in the world is Al? – Tea Party Nation (gds44.wordpress.com)
• New Black Panthers call for Race War (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• Black Panther Leader Jailed on Weapons Charges (trommetter.com)

Obama to the Court: I’m Following FDR’s Playbook

By Ron Radosh | April 4, 2012 | PJ Media

Many have commented on President Barack Obama’s remarks on the Supreme Court this week, when he stated “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress,” referring to the passage of the unpopular ObamaCare, and the chance that in June, the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.

The Wall Street Journal ‘s editors took on the president’s claim that a negative Court ruling would be “unprecedented”:

Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what’s up with that “unprecedented”? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a “democratically elected” legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by “strong” majorities.

The so-called Affordable Care Act, moreover, was not passed with any kind of a strong majority. Democrats pushed it through the Senate on a purely partisan vote, attaining only a drop more than the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster. And in the House the vote was 219-212, despite a Democratic majority.

Now, Obama is too smart to not know about Marbury v Madison. As a graduate of Harvard Law School and later a “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago, he obviously knew this case very well. Indeed, most students whose high schools still have history or civics have heard about it way before college.

So if we accept that the president was not ignorant of basic constitutional law and the concept of separation of powers, then we have to come up with other theories to try to explain why he made this statement.

The most obvious is that he was both trying to inflame his base before the election and to threaten the Supreme Court justices in advance, especially Judge Anthony Kennedy, the supposed swing vote who many think might side with the liberal justices. The president also said the following while making his remarks:

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Marbury v. Madison Debate Sparked by Obama’s Supreme Court Health Law Remarks (blippitt.com)
• The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
• Unforced Error (wingoperie.wordpress.com)
• Obamacare and the Relevance of Marbury v. Madison (coppellpianoshop.wordpress.com)
• Rush Limbaugh: How to Respond to Obama’s Lies? (johnmalcolm.me)
• What’s Obama Thinking? Wickard, not Marbury (pjmedia.com)
• President said that justices were “unelected” and “unprecedented” (usaworldgaze.wordpress.com)
• Sowell on Obama (economicnoise.com)
• AG Eric Holder to 5th Circuit: We’re aware of Marbury v. Madison (legaltimes.typepad.com)
• Obama Eats His Words on Health Care Law (socyberty.com)

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism?’ [Video]

IBD Editorials | April 05, 2012 | Investor’s Business Daily

Power: Given the president’s end-runs around Congress, his shredding of the Constitution and his assault on the authority of the courts, a second term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, raised the question on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show Wednesday. And while it seems fanciful in light of the safeguards built into our democracy and its institutions, it recognizes the threat posed by the president’s policies and actions if left unchecked.

“I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism,” Napolitano opined.” 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.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Judge Napolitano: “Obama Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism…No president in modern times has questioned their [SCOTUS] authority” (destructionist.wordpress.com)
• You have to love Investors Business Daily (maureenholland.wordpress.com)
• Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’? (1oneday.wordpress.com)
• Prison Planet.com ” Judge Napolitano: “Obama Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism” (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Judge Napolitano: I Think the President Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• JUDGE NAPOLITANO: I Think the President Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism. Well, happily our… (pjmedia.com)
• Judge Napolitano: “Obama Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism” (tatoott1009.com)
• INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’? I think it’s more that… (pjmedia.com)
• Judge Napolitano Slams Obama’s SCOTUS Criticism: ‘No Pres. Has Questioned This Since Andrew Jackson!’ (mediaite.com)
• Judge Napolitano: Obama’s DOJ Could Be Held In Contempt If They Don’t Comply With Appeals Court Judge (mediaite.com)

Obama’s branches of government

By William Warren | April 5, 2012 | NetRightDaily

NRD Editor’s Note: As always, you may reprint this cartoon anywhere you please, but we ask that you provide a link back to this source. To see more Warren Toons, click here.

Related Articles

• Buffett rule heads to the Senate; Let the tax season begin (netrightdaily.com)
• Obama Can’t Name Supreme Court Case For His ObamaCare Argument! (netrightdaily.com)
• 5th Circuit Court schools constitutional law ‘professor’ Obama on judicial review (netrightdaily.com)

State Nullification

By Tom Woods | TomWoods.com

What Is It?

State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

Says Who?

Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

What’s the Argument for It?

Here’s an extremely basic summary:

1) The states preceded the Union.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted.  The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign.  The peoples of the states are the sovereigns.  It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government.  In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.  No other arrangement makes sense.  No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power.  In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.  James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.

Why Do We Need It?

As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Weekend Reflections: Nullify Obama Now ~ 10th Amendment Codifies In Law That ‘We The People’ Of The States Created The Federal Government. (politicalvelcraft.org)
• An Open Letter…. (madisonsrepublic.com)
• Prison Planet.com ” NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• In support of liberty, Virginia Senate Passes “NDAA Nullification” Bill 1160 (the5150report.wordpress.com)
• The Truth About James Madison (lewrockwell.com)
• Georgia Senate Majority Leader & President Pro Tempore Introduce Unconstitutional Nullification Bill (thinkprogress.org)
• JURY NULLIFICATION: YOUR AWESOME POWER by Alan Stang (gunnyg.wordpress.com)

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]