Archive
(EXCERPT!!!!!) ~ America’s Unspoken Civil War… “Smedley Butler excerpt from the movie “The Corporation” ” | Veterans Today
By Gordon Duff and Press TV
—
—
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.
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.
“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).
Is Justice Kennedy finally waking up?
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)
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?’
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
English: Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia testifies before the House Judiciary Committee’s Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on Capitol Hill May 20, 2010 in Washington, DC. Scalia and fellow Associate Justice Stephen Breyer testified to the subcommittee about the Administrative Conference of the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
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.
Scalia’s argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically,
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?”
Eric Holder instructs Justice Department to defraud Supreme Court…
Eric Holder instructs Justice Department to defraud Supreme Court
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”
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.
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.
English: Official portrait of the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
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.
COLOR OF LAW: COLORING the CONSTITUTION « Ed Rivera
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.
April 30: George Washington becomes the first President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
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.
Our SCOTUS Chief Justice Turns Liberal on US and Gang of 20 RINOs Support UN Tax Scheme LOST
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.
What does a conservative believe?
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 Says Following Constitution Not Important
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.
Have we no patriots in DC? Are all of our Representatives cowards?
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.
Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War
Aging rocker and reality TV personality Ted Nugent is emerging, even ahead of Donald Trump, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s most embarrassing public supporter.
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.
John Roberts Makes His Career Move by Patrick J. Buchanan
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.
The Supreme Court Is Not Our Friend SCOTUS has consistently allowed federal powers to expand
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.
Roberts did not change
If you wish to understand Thursday’s incoherent opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, you must first know Republican history from the Summer of 2005.
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.”
JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE MOST HATED MAN IN AMERICA
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.


























Recent Comments