Supreme Court: President Obama’s Assault on the Constitution

April 10, 2013

At noon, 1,146 days ago, President Obama placed his hand on the Bible and swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Sadly, he has not lived up to his oath.

Indeed, for the last three years, President Obama has treated the Constitution as more of an irrelevance than as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Last week, channeling the specter of FDR, he brazenly tried to bully the Supreme Court into abdicating its duty to the Constitution. In the face of public outcry, he quickly backed away, and the attorney general was forced to send a federal appellate court a written “never mind.” But the shot across the bow of the Court was not unintentional.

This administration is engaged in a systematic effort to draw power into Washington, to expand federal government control of the economy and our lives. From Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to cap-and-trade to the NLRB’s abuse of Boeing, virtually every policy of the Obama administration expands federal government power over our economy.

The Constitution, however, was drafted precisely to prevent such an aggregation of power in Washington, to serve, as Jefferson put it, as “chains to bind the mischief of government.” Although many of its structural limitations have been diluted by activist courts, the Constitution still retains vitality.

Hence, the Obama administration has endeavored to eliminate those few remaining constraints. Consider five examples.

Read the rest of this entry »


Judge Napolitano: Obama’s Drone Policy Is “Stalinistic”

March 7, 2013

Napolitano says Obama’s policy of using drones to kill Americans without a trial is“Stalinistic.”

“The Constitution couldn’t be clearer. If the government wants the life, the liberty or the property of a person, they have to do it through due process, which means a jury trial. They can’t just execute. That’s Stalinistic.

Napolitano also said if Bush would have had this policy Barack Obama would have been the first one to criticize it…

Because he did.

Via Your World:


Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional

March 6, 2013

Yes it is UN Constitutional, no interpretation needed. Can’t you just send out one of Dear Dictator’s armed servants and hall the offender in front of a judge? If not why not.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about the constitutionality of domestic drone strikes on U.S. citizens Wednesday, keeping his eye on the Constitution in a way few lawmakers are able to do.

Discussing Holder’s letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) saying the administration may consider a domestic drone strike on U.S. citizens, Cruz began by laying out a hypothetical scenario for the attorney general.

Video below.

Read the rest of this entry »


Clayton Cramer On Fixing Our Mental Health System

February 23, 2013

He has an article in PJ Media. It article sounds quite convincing to me. The article makes the point that is far more costly to clean up after the act, than it might be to treat people before the act.

And then we have Obama’s latest attempt to trade treatment for Civil Rights … Deny our veterans 2nd Amendment Civil Rights.


Our Lord of the Flies Grants Full Approval For The Gun Ban

January 25, 2013

fly-guy-why

 

Well since Fast and Furious did not work, we will destroy the Second Amendment my way… sorry about all the dead Mexicans, but you got to do what you got to do, for security, don’t you know.


You Didn’t Build That

September 28, 2012

President Obama says his “You Didn’t Build That” comment was taken out of context. Here is Obama in his own words explaining that to people who are just trying to run their business without the government interfering.

Watch the BS run … and buzz.

Explain this…

We know about this…

and this…

And we are learning about this…

What do you think the Constitution meant by natural born citizen clause. 

What did you think the Constitution meant with the Presidential requirement of only natural born citizens? You thought they were talking about some third worlder?


One Nation Under Socialism

March 21, 2012

Jon McNaughton, an artist who often mixes religion and politics in his work, has released a new painting.

In “One Nation Under Socialism,” President Obama holds the U.S. Constitution as it burns.

While McNaughton previously depicted Obama stepping on the nation’s founding document, “One Nation Under Socialism” glowers directly as if challenging the viewer. His right hand is holding the Constitution and his left hand is pointing to the flames.

McNaughton tells CBSDC that the hands “represents his recognition of what is happening (to the Constitution) as it goes up.”

“There are numerous symbols and subtleties in this painting, and I’m not ready to reveal all of them,” McNaughton said.


Obama’s Birth Cetifcate: Recently Released Birth Certificate Provides Proof He Is Not A Natural Born Citizen

April 29, 2011

For Reference, the Constitution as written, and nowhere can I find any amendment related to the requirements to be President. All I find is this, from Article 2, Section 1:

The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. An obsolete part of this clause provides that instead of being a natural born citizen, a person may be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

The only operative part currently is … “must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old”, the rest pertains to the original founding. The reason for this last clause was to extend eligibility to Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, regardless of their place of birth, who were born under the allegiance of a foreign sovereign before the founding of the United States. Without this clause, no one would have been eligible to be president until thirty-five years after the founding of the United States.

Looking at the phrase “natural born citizen” it means born to parents who are both US citizens at time of birth, and born in the USA.

I still can’t find anyone who will delineate how an American citizen mother and a Kenyan citizen father makes you a natural born citizen. Because this would mean any third world anchor baby could be president. Is this what we now have, the anchor baby president? So until someone can prove Obama’s father was a US citizen on Barack Huessien Obama’s birth day, then I guess we have a pure media concoction, brought on by the “hide the birth certificate” media scam.

Or is it the great msm racist con-game, to totally destroy the Constitution?

Because if you take this to the extreme, you get anybody in the world can be president, as long as they were born in the US, regardless parentage, and allegiance. I doubt this is what the founders meant by “natural born citizen” … i.e. born of two parents who were American citizens at time of birth, and born in the USA. This provides the case with no allegiance to America, which is what strangely we have with the current anti-American president.

Ann Coulter nails the birth certificate issue again, as she has every time I’ve heard her opine. The reason the issue had traction with otherwise sensible Americans is precisely because Obama’s loyalties seem so “foreign.” His agenda has always been global and he clearly rejects American exceptionalism.

Who wants to try, I am all ears.

Over at the legal blog “Natural Born Citizen” there is this:

They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.

The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance.


One Day In 1787 The World Changed

September 17, 2010

A document emerged that spoke to the fact that free people could manage their own affairs in the world and domestically — 55 men changed the world, on September 17, 1787 the US Constitution was ratified. The document began with the Jeffersonian puzzler “WE THE PEOPLE” … The government is subservient to the people not the other way around …
The preamble reads —

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In 2004, Sen Byrd changed the date to “Constitution Day” from Citizenship Day, I suspect they wanted to do away with US citizenship, the planning was already underway … For the progressives to take over and rule America it has been a 100 year process. Which brings us to today.

Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, always assigned “We the people” as the final arbiter. Why else would the super-size font be so prevalent?

Constitution Day


Oath? What’s That? Just Another Lie

September 8, 2010

Protect and defend the Constitution … Shall I, yes I believe I will.

The President’s oath of office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr President, I see a slight shortfall on your part, care to explain?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers

%d bloggers like this: