(EXCERPT!!!!!) ~ America’s Unspoken Civil War… “Smedley Butler excerpt from the movie “The Corporation” ” | Veterans Today
Over the past decades, America has planned and executed civil wars across the globe, turning nation after nation into a cesspool of blood, as “tool of foreign policy.” Now the cabal that has kept the world aflame for a lifetime or longer has now turned inward, targeting America.
Far from “conspiracy theory,” the highest levels of America’s military and intelligence are, not just aware, aided by privatization of key security functions now “outsourced” to what can only be described as America’s real enemies.
IMPEACHMENT OF U.S. PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949 | Veterans Today… “Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore, is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be re-established. “
Constitutional Grounds for the Impeachment and Fraud Upon the Supreme Court, et al…
(Editor’s note: Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore, is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be re-established. Toward that end, all actions of the Bush (43) presidency are to be declared “null and void,” all treaties abrogated, all executive actions declared unlawful and all actions including but not limited to the establishment of the United States as a criminal empire undone. The subsequent election of Barak Obama as president thus has no legal standing. Gordon Duff and Lee Wanta)
Boston and Freedom… “Americans Made a Pact With the Devil After 9/11/01 Now we’re paying the price, says Andrew Napolitano.”
The government’s fidelity to the Constitution is never more tested than in a time of crisis. The urge to do something – or to appear to be doing something – is nearly irresistible to those whom we have employed to protect our freedom and to keep us safe.
Regrettably, with each passing violent crisis – Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine, 9/11, Newtown and now the Boston Marathon – our personal freedoms continue to slip away, and the government itself remains the chief engine of that slippage.
The American people made a pact with the devil in the weeks and months following 9/11 when they bought the Bush-era argument that by surrendering liberty they could buy safety. But that type of pact has never enhanced either liberty or safety, and its fruits are always bitter.
(Before It’s News)
Mike Adams * Natural News
(NaturalNews) While tens of millions of Americans believe President Obama may be the most divisive president since Abraham Lincoln, at least one U.S. senator thinks he may be the most abusive in terms of wielding power.
Granted, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is a political opponent, to be sure, so some may be prone to take his comments in that context. But in reality Cruz is more than just a political opponent:
He is also a constitutional expert who has served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Reinquist; as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department and as the director of policy planning at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission under President George W. Bush; and as Solicitor General for the state of Texas.
“Government’s “Obligation” to Protect its Citizen s” ~ Flyover Press – News & views from the rest of the nation
Government’s “Obligation” to Protect its Citizen s
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws. South vs. Maryland , 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 (1856).
For conservatives who revere the constitutional separation of powers, it’s an understatement to say this Ronald Reagan appointee has been a disappointment.
Considered a “swing vote” on the court, he often swings the wrong way. He’s something of a switch-hitter – sometimes swinging right and sometimes swinging left depending on who’s pitching.
But he made a statement earlier this month that was somewhat encouraging.
Scalia on Gay Marriage: ‘No Scientific Answer’ About Effects on Children (Audio)
CNSNews.com ^ | March26, 2013 | Perry Starr
Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:41:46 AM by lbryce
During oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday over the constitutionality of a California law that reserves marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the effects on children who are raised by same-sex couples is not confirmed by experts or science.
ANTONIN SCALIA: ‘When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?’
Business Insider ^ | 03/26/2013 | Brett LoGiurato
Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:41:44 PM by SeekAndFind
During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples. “We don’t prescribe law for the future,” Scalia said. “We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?”
Coach is Right ^ | 3/19/13 | Doug Book
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:11:08 PM by Oldpuppymax
In yet another testament to the corrupt if inventive workings of the liberal mind, Attorney General Eric Holder recently decided to defraud the United States Supreme Court in the hope of preventing sections of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) being ruled unconstitutional.
Section 5 of the VRA requires 9 Southern states and a number of jurisdictions in 7 others—all charged with a history of voting rights abuses–to obtain “preclearance” from the DOJ or the District Court of DC before making any changes to state election policies or procedures. Passed into law in 1965, Section 5 was enacted as an “emergency provision” designed to “promote full access to the voting process” and expire in 5 years. (1)
Police on Home Invasion: “You’re on Your Own”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/06/police-on-home-invasion-youre-on-your-own-n1527007 ^ | Mar. 6, 2013 | Katie Pavlich
Posted on Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:43:59 AM by EXCH54FE
Project Veritas is out with a damning video showing police officers from multiple departments saying “you’re on your own” when it comes to home invasions. The video focuses on New Jersey and New York, where it is nearly impossible to obtain a firearm. In New Jersey you must obtain a permit to purchase a Biden approved shotgun. Some officers are seen offering advice about how to fight off an intruder: throw bleach, yell, hide with your cell phone and call the police, etc.
Officers steered clear from suggesting the man in the video obtain a firearm to protect himself, his family and his property. The video also points out painfully long response times, sometimes over 30 minutes, of many police departments.
http://www.conservativedailynews.com ^ | february 18, 2013
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 6:19:19 PM by lowbridge
EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO SUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.
Supreme Court rules on Obama forgery case
Examiner.com ^ | February 16, 2013 | Marv Dumon
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 7:21:35 AM by sopwith
On Tuesday, Feb. 19, the Supreme Court of the United States will announce its decision on whether or not Barack Obama should have been placed on the California ballot during the 2008 presidential elections.
Obama Continues Radical Social Engineering of the Military… “Gay and lesbian advocates praised Panetta for the move. “Secretary Panetta’s decision today answers the call President Obama issued in his inaugural address to complete our nation’s journey toward…”
By Arnold Ahlert Thursday, February 14, 2013
The progressive revamping of the military has gotten another boost. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has offered an array of new benefits to the same-sex partners of service members, both active and retired, whether they are married or not.
They include child care services, member-designated hospital visits, and the issuance of military ID cards to same-sex partners, granting them access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms.
“Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation,” said Panetta in a statement announcing the development. Yet all service members are not receiving equal support: unmarried heterosexual partners and their families are not getting these benefits.
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin reiterated that viewpoint in his own letter released after President Barack Obama announced his gun control plan.
Supreme Court to Hear Case About Obama Eligibility???
Examiner.com ^ | Jan 10, 2012 | Marc Dumon
Posted on Friday, January 11, 2013 7:44:07 AM by voicereason
On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama‘s eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.
As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court’s decision to review Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.
On Feb. 15, all nine justices will hear arguments on whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void. Continued at source….
(“Gunny G: What “The Folks” Are Saying…) ~ Chief Justice John Roberts schedules conference regarding Obama’s forged IDs.
U.S. Supreme Court ^ | 1/9/2013 | Chief Justice Roberts
Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:13:25 PM by Elderberry
There are no less than 5 Presidents in the Constitution.
The President Elect has never taken the proper oath to the Office of President.
No President has ever taken an oath to support the written Constitution.
The President elected by the Electors appoints the President of the United States.
George Washington established the precedent of appointing himself to be President of the United States.
[SNIP]Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with
“revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic.
By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor
from foreign citizens. There is a reason for this, one Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media has ignored. Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony. If you go outside the US, if you stay inside the US, if your contributor is living in the US but not a citizen, any money you get can mean years in jail.
Obama term, a new book reveals.
The ruling was, to a certain extent, unexpected, because the court is almost evenly divided along the conservative–liberal lines, and the vote that determined the decision in favor of the administration was that of the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts’ swing vote saved President Barack Obama’s legislation, and Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion.
Thursday, June 28, 2012 mirrors the date December 7, 1941, President Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” in that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States deserted his scruples for which he was selected to serve on that exalted body of justices. He abandoned the conservative principles that caused President George W. Bush to place his name to serve as that court’s Chief Justice and created another day of disgrace and dishonor for our rapidly immoral descent into depravity.
Should the Court accept the case for review, it will be the first upon which the justices will issue a substantive ruling—one based on the merits.
Constructive secession: a frightening possibility unless King Barack I is stopped « « Coach is RightCoach is Right
By Derrick Hollenbeck, staff writer
Was John Roberts blackmailed? This and other questions keep swirling around the blogosphere « « Coach is RightCoach is Right
By George Spelvin, staff writer
President Barack Obama signed his executive order stopping deportation of some young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children a scant 13 days before Justice John Roberts flipped his no to a yes allowing the President’s premier legislation to become the law of the land just as Obama’s reelection campaign ramps up. Now some observers are wondering if questions asked about the Roberts’ private adoptions in 2005 during his confirmation hearings might have had a “lingering” effect.
(Will Obama Walk Away Scot-Free If Not Dealt With B4 November Election ?) Col. Larry Sellin: Obama’s Eligibility Must Be Dealt With Before 2012 Election
What does a conservative believe?
Tenth Amendment Network ^ | 7/12/2012 | Marc Gindin
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:56:22 PM by TenthAmendmentNetwork
Let’s lay out the belief system of a conservative, as applied in the 21st century. If you’re a conservative, you believe these things.
The Right To Secede by Joseph Sobran… (The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.”)
How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore.
Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.
Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.
Chief Justice John Roberts says in his opinion that the Interstate Commerce clause doesn’t authorize the mandatory health insurance provision of Obamacare but that following the Constitution isn’t important so long as the Chief Justice is in political agreement with what Congress wants a law to do.
………..”I’m convinced that Justice Roberts’ appalling disregard of the Constitution was motivated by his desire to ensure Obama’s defeat in November. This would explain his surprising agreement with Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer, and Ginsberg. It explains his disregard of well-established precedent on the tax and spend clause. It explains what is otherwise a completely unsupportable ruling.
I do not understand the mindset of a United States Congressman or Senator, of either Party, who would so publicly and readily not only abdicate their responsibility to follow the Constitution, but sit back and without a fight or so much as a show of false indignation, allow another branch of Government to usurp their powers and render them meaningless.
Maine Governor LePage makes a bold statement against the tyrant Obama’s police state.
Via The Portland Press Herald:
The IRS description was a reference to a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires most Americans to buy health insurance or pay an annual penalty when filing their tax returns.
The provision, known more broadly as the individual mandate, was the subject of a multi-state lawsuit, but was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Power of Intimidation… (“Role of the Supreme Court since Marbury vs. Madison is to determine if laws passed by the Congress and the President are in accordance with the Constitution”)
We think of the 9 robed Justices of the Supreme Court as beyond intimidation. However, we now know this is false. The bizarre decision of Chief Justice Roberts to uphold Obamacare by making it Obamatax is not the first time that a Supreme court Justice has succumbed to intimidation and voted to usurp the Constitution, believing it was necessary to preserve either the Supreme Court or their own personal legacy.
PALM BEACH, Fla. – Though he usually focuses criticism on Democrats, top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh is scorching Republicans as “clueless” in their efforts to stop President Obama and his health-care agenda, and what he expects to be its “disastrous” impact on everyday life in America.
“We’re left with Obamacare, and we are left with a damaged Constitution, and we have a Republican leadership that’s clueless in how to slow any of this down,” Limbaugh said this afternoon.
For John Roberts, it is Palm Sunday.
Out of relief and gratitude for his having saved Obamacare, he is being compared to John Marshall and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Liberal commentators are burbling that his act of statesmanship has shown us the way to the sunny uplands of a new consensus.
If only Republicans will follow Roberts’ bold and brave example, and agree to new revenues, the dark days of partisan acrimony and tea party intransigence could be behind us.
Yet imagine if Justice Stephen Breyer had crossed over from the liberal bench to join Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy in striking down Obamacare. Those hailing John Roberts for his independence would be giving Breyer a public caning for desertion of principle.
Why did Roberts do it? Why did this respected conservative uphold what still seems to be a dictatorial seizure of power – to order every citizen to buy health insurance or be punished and fined?
Congress can do this, wrote Roberts, because even if President Obama and his solicitor general insist the fine is not a tax, we can call it a tax:
“If a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. … If the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”
Roberts is saying that if Congress, to stimulate the economy, orders every middle-class American to buy a new car or face a $5,000 fine, such a mandate is within its power.
Now, Congress can indeed offer tax credits for buying a new car. But if a man would prefer to bank his money and not buy a new car, can Congress order him to buy one – and fine him if he refuses?
Roberts has just said that Congress has that power.
Clearly, the chief justice was searching for a way not to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional. But to do so, he had to go through the tortured reasoning of redefining as a tax what its author and its chief advocates have repeatedly insisted is not a tax.
DEVVY’s ALERTS: obama to soldiers: Pay Up; State to Farmers: good luck, Pelosi, roberts,tax,Penalty,Unlawful, etc, etc…
The Obama/Roberts Doctrine of Christian Rewards/Punishments (SCOTUS opened a Pandora’s box of taxes)
The notion that we are all our brothers’ keepers lies at the heart of our Judeo-Christian heritage. It also happens to be one of the fundamental tenets of socialism – which accounts in large parts for that perverse ideology’s widespread appeal.
Either philosophy can – and has been – used to justify the notion that health care is a “right” rather than a good tradable in the marketplace.
Posted on Monday, July 02, 2012 11:01:35 AM by SeekAndFindThe relationship between conservatives and the Supreme Court is rather like that between Charlie Brown and Lucy Van Pelt in autumn. She always holds the football as if Charlie Brown has a fair shot at kicking it, and then she always snaps the ball away at the last moment.
(“Get Rid of The Supremes”) More Fascism in America Upheld by the Supreme Bureaucrats by Scott Lazarowitz
Given so many bad decisions by the Supreme Bureaucrats in Washington in the past few years, I am not surprised that they would uphold one of the worst and most clearly un-American pieces of legislation in U.S. history.
The Supremes upheld the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare. The biggest surprise for me was that the “conservative” appointee of President George W. Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined the four communists “liberals” in approving what is essentially the power of the federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance.
As Ryan McMaken observed, “Now that one of Bush’s appointees saved Obamacare for Obama, every conservative who voted for Bush to get ‘strict constructionists’ on the bench should have the word ‘sucker’ tattooed on his or her face.”
Now he has all chances to be labeled “the first communist president”. And this really means that he is the person to change the course of America – the way Lenin changed the course of Russia about a century ago.
Contrary to most that has been written since Thursday’s enactment of RobertsCare, Chief Justice John Roberts did not change. He has always been that way. Eight years ago, when John Roberts was nominated, we were warned that he was a liberal jurist appointed by a RINO president, just as liberal David Souter was appointed by the previous RINO president. Two articles in July 2005 by Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulterforetold the Souter-like liberal jurisprudence of Justice Roberts. We now know that Shapiro and Coulter were 100% correct.
President Bush‘s Roberts Pick Disappoints was written by Ben Shapiro on 7/20/5. Pull quote: “Roberts is not an originalist. There is nothing in his very short jurisprudential record to indicate that his judicial philosophy involves strict fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution.”
Prison Planet.com » Supreme Court Forces U.S. To Take A Giant Step Toward A Totalitarian Socialist Government
The United States of America took a giant step toward a totalitarian socialist government when the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare, allowing the individual mandate for the government to force American citizens to buy health insurancewhether they want to or not.
Prison Planet.com » Obamacare to unleash crushing new taxes, trillions in debt, huge job losses, and it doesn’t even cover natural medicine
By now, we all know the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate portion of Obamacare by declaring it a “tax.” This is, in essence, a declaration that the federal government now has unlimited power to force consumers to spend some (or even all) of their take-home pay on various products, services or even intellectual property that they have no interest in buying in the first place.
487px File Official roberts CJ cropped
Thank you, Chief Coward Roberts
I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank Chief Justice John Roberts for assisting the Obama regime in placing another nail in America’s coffin. Not only did he agree with the liberal communists; he gave them an out by stating that the individual mandate was a TAX rather than something that could be controlled through the commerce clause. The Obama regime had stated from the onset of this Constitution-killing legislation that the mandate was not a tax.
Chief Justice John Roberts is the most hated man in the United States of America today. He will be hated forever by strict constructionalists, but he will not be hated by conservatives reasonably versed in Supreme Court rulings, they will simply dislike him. After all, Justice Roberts is on solid Constitutional ground.