Category Archives: Supreme Court

Why Congress Refuses to Investigate Obama's Illegal Presidency

CONGRESS KNOWS THE TRUTH about Obama. They already know he is a fraud and a criminal usurper. That weight is crushing their ability to govern effectively because it is insanguiating the confidence of their constituencies. Congressional integrity is bleeding out. However, they also are aware, repressively if not consciously, that they are now accountable for the fall of this nation because of their choice to ignore the moment of truth. They failed to uphold the rule of law prescribed in the doctrinal foundations of the Constitution, and now they are left with the teeth-gnashing reality that there are no more available precedents upon which to justify their rank and repulsive derelictions, or their weak attempts at mitigating what they fear.

bidenobama
A Questionable Election

Ind what do they fear? Black people rioting? Preposterous you say? Surely. But before you dismiss this entire unsavory idea, let us remember that the compelling string of facts, cover-ups, and miscues surrounding the rise and 2008 election of Barack Hussein Obama to the US presidency, creates a rather comprehensive picture of something gone horribly wrong, and that this man should not have never been approved as eligible to stand for election to the highest office in the land, nor should he be allowed to stay in this office.

In fact, the evidence against Obama is voluminous, and is far less circumstantial than the body of evidence that will most likely convict Casey Anthony, she of flared nostrils and pouty lips, of first degree murder in the death of her young child sometime over the next day or two. Unlike the once vigorous candidate-in-waiting from New York, Donald Trump, who somehow lost his usually ample nerve on the issue after his shiny new television deal with NBC was assured, there are those who haven't stopped connecting the dots.

We know well the Marxist and Islamic enemies among us, those who boldly announce their pernicious intentions to thwart the touted American governing system announced to the world with great hopes and cheer by a few good men and women in 1776. But how dare anyone—anyone who can read at what used to be known as high school level, and who also cherishes the proud sovereignty of this nation and the stipulative value of the full fabric of its constitution—dismiss the seriousness of this so-called "birther" issue out of hand. Behavior so egregious to a citizenry already lost without the perspective that freedom always requires defending only invigorates this and other writers who believe that the media blackout has gone on long enough, and we demand the prompt attention of all who play a role in keeping our nation safe from all its enemies, foreign and domestic, and that list includes its voting citizenry, its publicly elected officials, and its wunderkind, or this republic, as Ben Franklin predicted, will not long continue to stand. No more a laughing matter, given the divisive and debilitating nature of this administration's policies, someone in Washington must act, and act now on this question.

We believe those in Washington are hoping that the next election will rid us of this inconvenient public concern. Hardly. Given the community organizer-standards of voter registration irregularity, the odds are too objectional that against all common sense and political decency, the current resident of the White House will find himself the necessary numbers to keep him in office, if that is where he wants to be. The fact that his positive poll numbers still put him in the mid-40s shock many. But there are other considerations.

We urge you to step up and help save the nation from thrusting deeper into the mire of cultural corruption by reading and finally comprehending this meaty consolidation of circulating facts about the man who would be king.

Barring the sentimental idea that nothing this terrible could possibly happen in America, perhaps some cataclysmic event intercedes, nuclear attack, financial collapse, and we are immediately catapulted into crisis, perhaps even martial law is declared by The One, and suddenly the November, 2012 elections are postponed. Highly irregular, but possible we believe, and devastating to the continuing liberty of the American people.

Ir, what about the enormous costs of an after-Obama retirement from office? Secret Service, Presidential pension, et cetera. Should American taxpayers be forced to run a huge lifetime tab for a discredited political hustler, even if this full weight of incriminating evidence is not acted upon until after he has vacated the office, given the usual cowardice of those in Congress who might otherwise be expected to act upon this level of treachery against ever disappearing US sovereignty?

In 1974, the Justice Department ruled that presidents who resign from office before their official terms of office expire are entitled to the same lifetime pension and benefits extended to other former presidents. However, presidents who are removed from office due to impeachment forfeit all benefits.

There are highly disturbing "missing" details from the "official" Obama portfolio, and we should not gloss over the many, highly disturbing "available" details yet not "officially" introduced into this same "official" Obama portfolio. After all, a permanent record is a permanent record.

So, if you haven't carefully inspected the full body of evidence that suggests this man is a usurper upon the American constitutional system of laws and liberty, we have the perfect link for you.

This is the litany of charges the Obama Administration does not dare address point by point, so we ask every unassuming but patriotic Obama supporter now witnessing a crack in the mirrored images of the last campaign, you who supported this candidate from Hawaii, Chicago, Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, or wherever he really belongs, to do one thing for America. We urge you to step up and help save the nation from thrusting deeper into the mire of cultural corruption by reading and finally comprehending this meaty consolidation of circulating facts about the man who would be king.

Read it all.

Power of the People vs. Political Parties

Andrew Breitbart & US Flag
Andrew Breitbart
....nothing new under sun.

FOR THE RECORD, I am not a member of any political party. I am, moreover, repelled by arguments that people should vote for a party’s candidate because . . . he is the party’s candidate. I have no interest serving any party simply for the sake of serving the party. I want best practices principles advanced, whoever, and from whatever party this person should come forth from the nation who supports those principles, but I also remain a pragmatist who considers each decision carefully.

"I think George Washington was right when he said, in his 1796 Farewell Address, that political parties “are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” He went on to argue:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

More intelligent scorekeeping over at the Pileus blog.

Of Gun Laws And Purse Strings

ONCE AGAIN, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT has left the black community defenseless against armed gangs and thugs who terrorize and plunder law-abiding Americans.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban. Gun rights groups hailed the ruling as a seminal moment in their ongoing fight to roll back restrictive gun-control legislation. As far as the National Rifle Association (NRA) is concerned, McDonald settles the matter once and for all: "This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period." Be that as it may, the McDonald decision is really a victory for and about black Americans. At least it should be.

Read it all.

Mark Warner On Gun Control

Mark Warner
Senator Mark Warner, (D-VA)
It only took a couple of weeks to receive my first reply to an action letter I wrote to several members of the US Congress concerning what appears to be a stealth assault on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution by the Obama regime...

Dear Mr. Thy,

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on gun control. I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue.

I realize that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the debate around Second Amendment rights. I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks. I do not, however, support laws or regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

In the United States Senate, legislation on gun control generally falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I value the thoughts that you have shared with me on this important issue. I will keep your views in mind should any legislation on this matter come before the full Senate in the future.

Again, thank you for writing. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to contact me with your opinions and concerns.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

The most interesting piece of information conveyed by this reply was how Senator Mark Warner signed off this letter, as a United States Senator with no mention of the State of Virginia he was elected to represent, at all. I suspect, should any of Senator Warner’s esteemed colleagues indeed reply to my original note, and they happen to mention their respective state constituency they will probably also include their party affiliation, again diluting the original power and prestige each of the States once maintained as partners in this Great Union, a union now tragically scarred and blemished by an unwarranted and unwieldy Federal encroachment of those powers and liberty.

To set things back on firm ground, a spirited patriotic citizen or two might find themselves approving of and supporting a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, not the second. On principle of course, not because one Senator Warner forgot to mention his constituency in a form letter to me. I do thank the senator for his reply.

Guns In The Nation's Capital

US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court

RESIDENTS IN ONE of the District's most violence-ridden neighborhoods are mostly indifferent to the prospect that handguns could legally return to the city after a 32-year ban. After all, the city is perennially one of the most dangerous in the nation.

"It doesn't seem like it was doing anything anyway," said Norman Day, who lives on Orren Street Northeast in Trinidad. "People can bring [guns] in from anywhere. You can't put up checkpoints everywhere. It probably won't make any difference. If anything, it might save the District some money by not hauling off anybody with a gun."

Many residents in the Ward 5 neighborhood in Northeast—the site of one of the most violent crime sprees in recent city history—have been hardened to the frequent violence and responses by the Metropolitan Police Department. Others saw the ban as the last remaining barrier between occasional violence and all-out chaos.

"That's the worst thing they could ever do," Daphne Potter said at the corner of Oates and Staples streets Northeast. "Most of that shootings come from the young kids. I hate to see what's gonna happen now." Earlier in the day, gun advocates rejoiced outside of the Supreme Court building.

"I'm very pleased with the decision, but at the same time, I am a bit suspicious of the possible restrictions that could come down," said Craig Burgers, 25, a Michigan native now living in Arlington. "You shouldn't have to check your rights to enter the District. I have my gun in my house and I mostly use it for target practice but would definitely use it if someone tried to break in."

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Ariel Sarousi, a 25-year-old gun owner who moved to Falls Church from his home in Boston a year ago, pointed out that the District has a much higher crime rate than Northern Virginia, which has no such ban.

"You can easily dispute the idea that the ban on guns has decreased crime in the District," he said. Mr. Sarousi said he is much more likely to consider moving into the District now that he is allowed to bring his gun with him.

Well, one thing is a proven fact. DC's stringent, zero tolerance gun ban for the past 30 yrs has none nothing to stop the violent nature of DC's fiercest and at risk citizens. Guns by themselves are not the problem—the culture and violent nature of the people that live in DC are the problem. Change the culture and the violence will subside.

Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds. In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest. Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court. "I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

dcheney
VP Dick Chaney

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Thursday's decision was embraced by the president, said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "This has been the administration's long-held view," Perino said. "The president is also pleased that the court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right." White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Tracking The First Amendment

NaiveAmerican
Naive American

In light of a recent "libel tourist" piece of legislation passing one house of the state legislature in New York, I wanted to respond to a common supposition many Americans have with regard to the "American experiment" called democracy. To paraphrase the tribal wit of the fictional Forrest Gump, democracy is as democracy does. And given this critical time in our nation's history when economical, cultural, and military strains are weakening our resolve to fight the good fight in far too many areas of life, the buck starts here. So I will start with these three sentences.

  • No foreign law trumps American law.
  • No foreign restraint of freedom of speech can over-rule the First Amendment.
  • Period.

In theory, this is true, but American law is often subverted by the assailing forces of political expedience. If we postulate that the Saudis own a big enough chunk of American assets or debt to force capitulation to terms antithetical to the spirit and letter of American jurisprudence, this is not much different than the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn property rights law in favor of commercial interests. So surely, we all recognize the ingenuity of certain fee-tweaked minds laboring in the business of hairsplitting to "reinterpret" our most cherished legal language under the banner of protecting the "public" good to make what "once was" now a "relic of the past".

As a staunch culture nationalist first, and a peace-loving kitsch-sharing globalist second, we should indeed keep a watchful eye out for this type of treasonous behavior in our leadership, and even those in the street, our neighbors, our friends, our families, and fight if must be to keep our constitutional freedoms, especially those which strengthen us and protect us from those enemies who would threaten not just these liberties, but our lives and our destiny as a free decent people. Upon reflection of other pressing matters such as lax immigration enforcement of policy, faulty trade agreements acrruing massive deficits, foreign takeovers of critical ports and other security-related operations, we can easily see that something is rotten in Denmark, and it isn't Denmark, but it is the enemy within, both foreign and domestic, who would continue to chip away at common sense and responsible liberty, and threaten all we with proven philosophies hold dear.

Treason Boils In The American Kettle

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder[er] is less to fear.”

—Marcus Tullius Cicero

Constitution2
"We've given you a Republic, if you can keep it..." replied Benjamin Franklin to the woman he called Liberty America.

Here are two parts of a ideal-shattering essay by Sibel Edmonds called The Hijacking of A Nation. Every patriot must read this essay, although it is bound to lead to much distress and demoralization of said patriotism. Are the facts contained within these two essays—truths, half-truths, or outright lies? The average citizen may never know, but he should be wary of all things.

In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must be constantly awake against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence…since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.

Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought to influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal; those who are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy themselves a few strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in DC circles referred to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who facilitate and bring about desired transactions. These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.

  • Part 1: Read it all.
    The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.Justice Felix Frankfurter

    It used to be the three branches—congress, the executive, and the courts—that we considered the make-up of our nation’s federal government. And some would point to the press as a possible fourth branch, due to the virtue of its influence in shaping our policies. Today, more and more people have come to view corporate and foreign lobby firms, with their preponderant clout and enormous power, as the official fourth branch of our nation’s government. Not only do I agree with them, I would even take it a step further and give it a higher status it certainly deserves.

    Operating invisibly under the radar of media and public scrutiny, lobby groups and foreign agents have become the ‘epicenter’ of our government, where former statesmen and ‘dime a dozen generals’ cash in on their connections and peddle their enormous influence to the highest bidders turned clients. These groups’ activities shape our nation’s policies and determine the direction of the flow of its taxpayer driven wealth, while to them the interests of the majority are considered irrelevant, and the security of the nation is perceived as inconsequential.

  • Part 2: Read it all.

    Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award.