It’s a Feature, Not a Bug, You Moron

The conglomerate of idiots and tyrants keeps saying we live in a democracy. I challenge ANY of them to find in the Constitution that established our nation any mention of us being a democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. The Constitution would never been ratified without the electoral college, because without it a few highly populated states, or simply a few highly populated cities would decide every national election. The colonies knew this, and insisted on the electoral college to ensure they had a voice, and that they weren’t effectively subordinate to a handful of cities and states. It’s called “checks and balances.”

The fools signing these pacts to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the POPULAR vote are basically saying they don’t want a voice, that they want New York and California to rule them.

You can’t fix stupid.

---

---

freebeacon.com/politics/buttigieg-the-electoral-college-is-one-of-the-manipulations-the-gop-uses-to-keep-their-agenda-in-play/

Lt Col Ralph Peters Goes Full Retard on Gun Control

Lt Col Peters, I have agreed with you on so much in the past, but here is where we part company. You are now attacking my fundamental rights, which I can not stand by and allow you to do without response.

You attempt to give yourself absolute moral authority and “unimpeachable” qualifications by stating “I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs.” How does that qualify you to opine about limiting or ELIMINATING MY RIGHTS? It does not. I’ve written lots of checks. Does that give me the authority to tell someone else that they can’t have or write checks? Obviously not. I’ve eaten lots of food, most of which I purchase at grocery stores. Does that give me the authority or tell someone they can’t either shop at a grocery store or grow their own food if they choose? Again, obviously not. However, that’s the faulty logic you use in an attempt to establish your authority.

You then display your actual ignorance on this topic when you say “These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting.” Yes, the AR-15, AK47 and similar weapons were originally designed as military weapons. No one denies that, but to deny the FACTS that these guns also have peaceful uses is ignorant, dishonest, or both. When you say ARs, and even AKs, are not used for hunting, that is patently and absolutely false. They are rapidly becoming the most popular weapons for that use. AR pattern rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and similar calibers are ideally suited for varmint hunting and small to medium game. AR pattern rifles in larger calibers such as .308 Win/7.62 NATO are ideal for larger game like deer, elk, etc. There are bolt action and other type rifles used for similar purposes chambered in these EXACT SAME calibers. Being a “scary looking” military-style gun does not limit the usefulness of a gun for LAW ABIDING purpose. Then you say “They’re lousy for target shooting,” which shows the exact same type and level of ignorance or malice on your part. These weapons are used recreationally by millions of people for target shooting and competition ALL THE TIME. Where are you getting your so-called facts?

The next asinine statement you make is “The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun.” Really? With any shotgun common to bird hunting today, such as a Remington 1100 or Beretta pump or semi-automatic, Nikolas Cruz could have easily killed and wounded just as many, and perhaps more people than he did. Using buckshot, he could potentially have hit more than one target at once. Have you ever seen what a deer slug fired from a shotgun can do? It’s a lot more gruesome than the damage a .223 can inflict, and at close range it would probably go through more than one body, potentially killing more than one person with each shot. Your ignorance continues unabated…

Next, you say “The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms.” Seriously? If the Las Vegas shooter actually slowed down to aim rather than using the spray-and-pray method, which is about all you can do with a bump-stock equipped weapon, he could have EASILY and PRECISELY killed just as many or more with a bolt action rifle. From his vantage point, he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, sir, you go full left retard with this quote. “That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” You can’t honestly be this ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You are a college graduate, and former commissioned officer in the United States military. I would expect more from you. You apply the MODERN, often intentionally misunderstood meaning of “well regulated.” Let me clear things up for you.

►To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”◄
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

In other words, “well regulated” means REGULAR as in similar in makeup. Citizens were to be armed with weapons similar to those in use by the military SPECIFICALLY to serve as a check and balance to government. Hunting was not mentioned as that was an assumed part of normal life. Have you not figured out that EVERYTHING in our form of government was designed to serve as a check and balance to EVERYTHING ELSE in our government? When those checks and balances are eroded or ignored, what then? When a benevolent government is freed from the constraints placed upon it, it has almost always throughout history become MALEVOLENT and oppressive towards the citizens it is supposed to serve. Our founders were painfully aware of this, and expressly included a provision in our Constitution to act as a final failsafe to return our government to its constitutional reservation should it stray. Are you honestly that ignorant of history?

To add insult to injury, you then personally attack the character and patriotism of EVERY American who has not served in the military or as a member of law enforcement. You say, “As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.” I know many people who have never served in either capacity who would willingly lay down their life for this country should that be required. You have abandoned sound logic, and resorted to the emotional attacks of a COWARD, sir.

Again, you attempt to establish some form of absolute moral authority when you say, “As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming.” I, too, swore the very same oath you did, as have many thousands of others, and will uphold it until my last breath. Apparently, I and many others under that oath seem to more fully understand what it means than you do.

Nearing the end of your painfully ignorant piece, which I am becoming convinced is also intentionally deceitful, you posit the following: “Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?” My question to you, sir, is do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that any of our founding fathers, or “geniuses” as you snarkily refer to them, would have intended for the law-abiding citizenry to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves should someone decide to employ their weapon illegally and with malice? Do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that the founding fathers intended for the citizenry to sit back and await the arrival of law enforcement to save them from a hostile person intent on killing them? You can’t possibly be this ignorant, can you?

Moving on to your next emotional, ignorant question, “We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?” I have some questions for you, Mr. Peters. Where have ALL of these mass shootings taken place? ANSWER: In “gun-free” zones where LAW-ABIDING citizens could not carry firearms to defend themselves and stop an attacker before it turned into a “mass” killing. Where are the places in America where the most people are murdered with firearms? ANSWER: In cities that already have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Do criminals obey laws? ANSWER: If I have to answer this for you, you need to ensure you never appear on television, write an article, or open your mouth in public ever again. But as for pure numbers of children murdered, why don’t I hear you decrying the slaughter of MILLIONS of children via abortion? There are more children murdered in this country EVERY. SINGLE. DAY by abortion than ALL PEOPLE OF ANY AGE who are killed by rifles of ALL types in an ENTIRE YEAR. Where’s your indignation about that?

Your next question, “How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?” That’s a great question. Let’s look at a few facts to help establish what “common sense” on this issue really is, shall we? Most mass shootings are over before law enforcement arrives. Either the murderer has left the scene, or has killed a large number of people before SOMEONE WITH A GUN shows up to stop him. As we previously established, ALL of these shootings were CHOSEN by the murderer largely because they were soft targets full of unarmed people. In all cases, when the murderer was confronted by a good-guy with a gun, the killing stopped. With that in mind, it would be COMMON SENSE and the most decent thing to do to have MORE good-guys with guns to counter any bad guys with guns, and more importantly to serve as a DETERRENT to those who intend harm to others. You continue by saying “As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.” ALL the evidence and actual historic facts DO NOT back up your assertion. Is it possible that some might be hit by friendly fire as you assert when you say ““Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger?” Yes, it is. But, again, what you are attempting to pass off as logic is flawed. Do I only eat raw meat because there’s a chance I’ll be burned on a stove or campfire? Do I refrain from using pens and pencils because I might write a misspelled word? Do we ban all cars because there are a few drunk drivers? As a military officer, and supposedly a leader in the military, you should understand the concept of “calculated risk.” It’s a SURE BET that many will die if the murderer is allowed to shoot at will, without opposition. There’s a VERY HIGH probability that the shooter will cease targeting innocent people when confronted by someone with a gun because they now have to defend themselves. There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that even with friendly fire casualties, fewer will die than if you allow the shooter to remain unopposed. You just haven’t thought this out, have you?

Your emotional diatribe is completely void of sound reasoning or fact. Based on your history debating and discussing other issues, this surprises and disappoints me. I’m sure in your lengthy military career you must have heard the saying “One ‘aw sh**’ wipes out a hundred ‘atta-boys.’” In one article, you have managed to do exactly that, sir.

---

---

I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

By Ralph Peters

February 22, 2018

Guns and I go back a long way.

My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)

And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:

“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.”

That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.

As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?

How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

Link to article:  https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/

+

 

Senate Republicans caved on everything in the budget

This is from last month, but didn’t get much if any airtime in the mainstream media, or even Fox News for that matter.  The gutless establishment RINOs had a great opportunity to do SOMETHING right for the first time in the Obama presidency.  But, of course the spineless, democrat-lite, self-serving RINOs led by John Boehner 2.0 (a.k.a. Paul Ryan), and Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell folded like lawn chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

They could have easily stopped most of the Obama tyranny had they been concerned about honoring their oath of office more than they were worried about keeping their seat at the table of power with their perks and salaries. 

This is why ALL of Washington DC needs to be COMPLETELY reset.

+

---

---

By: Daniel Horowitz | September 22, 2016

Whenever you think Republicans have finally reached “peak capitulation,” they never fail in raising the scope of their betrayal. The result of the upcoming continuing resolution, likely to receive a vote early next week, is that control over the internet will head to Russia and China while 110,000 refugees from places such as Syria, Iraq, and Somalia will be immigrating here in the upcoming fiscal year.

A President Who Never Does His Job Tells the Senate to Do Their Job

Obama and his hypocritical minions are waging an offensive claiming that the Constitution says the senate can’t prevent Obama from appointing a justice to replace Antonin Scalia.  It’s amusing that many of the same people saying the senate can’t stop Obama from appointing a justice were senators who did everything in their power as senators to prevent a Republican president from appointing a justice, even coming right out and saying in the case of Chuckie Schumer that he would prevent any nominee of George W. Bush from being voted on for the last 18 months of Bush’s presidency.  The current Vice President, Joe Biden, was one of the chief persecutors of Robert Bork, giving rise to the phrase “getting Borked.”  The democrats don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate.  As I heard it said about Mitch McConnell saying no Obama appointee would be approved, it was poor chess.  I agree with McConnell, and I pray he has the guts to say the course and not cave into Obama AGAIN, but he should have said nothing, submitted the liberal candidates to the same body cavity search they have submitted conservative appointees to until they withdrew themselves from consideration, but still never bring them up for a vote.

But assuming the not so conservative Republican leadership actually holds the line, the fear is that Obama will just do a recess appointment when the senate adjourns in January prior to the inauguration.  I would not put it past him, but I do not believe such action to be constitutional.  Here’s why.

A question I have posited elsewhere, if the Constitution says what it says, and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say, am I correct in interpreting Article 2, Sect 2 of the Constitution to say that POTUS can’t simply do a recess appointment for a “Supreme” Court justice because the senate is in recess, but that the vacancy he is attempting to fill must have occurred DURING THAT RECESS?

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

What do you think? I guess your answer depends on whether you think the Constitution is ACTUALLY the law of the land or not.

Was Justice Antonin Scalia Murdered?

A Supreme Court justice is found dead with a pillow over his face, in unwrinkled pajamas, after his security detail is told to stand down, coincidentally in a county where the cause of death can be legally pronounced on the scene, and no autopsy is then required, and the judge pronounced him dead of natural causes OVER THE PHONE.

If you want to fuel conspiracy theories, this is the way to do it.  Even though this is all conveniently legal because of Texas law, this is the first time I can remember the federal government NOT pushing to investigate to the max extent possible the death of one of their own.

Republicans in control of the House and the Senate, two crappy candidates for the democrats, Obama’s “fundamental transformation” stalled, and the only way to advance it being through the courts…  Yes, there’s a possibility that someone connected to Obama had Scalia killed, and the circumstances surrounding his death just open the door to these theories.

Have someone independently do one or more autopsies, just like they did for a simple street thug like Mike Brown.  They brought in coroners from the local, state, federal, and military sources to do autopsies on Brown to quell a LOCAL disturbance.  The death of Scalia has NATIONAL implications.  Shouldn’t we have the same due diligence in investigating the death of a pivotal Supreme Court justice?

Oh, by the way, the senate doesn’t owe Obama a vote or confirmation of his nominees to the court.  The same democrats who are whining most loudly about this are the same ones who obstructed EVERY Republican sponsored bill (Harry Reid), and also refused to bring up any George W. Bush nominee in the last year of HIS presidency (Chuck Schumer).  So, if they don’t like it, tough.  It’s time the Republicans start fighting as hard to protect our Constitution and nation as the democrats fight to destroy them.

Listen to Chuck Schumer decrying “judicial activism” in his own words.  He doesn’t mind it when it’s a LIBERAL judge legislating from the bench.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146#ixzz40LUoMzBG

Update:  More info

“For the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.”

http://clashdaily.com/2016/02/sen-schumer-says/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:15023447&utm_campaign=Islam%20HATES%20This%20Woman%20Because%20She%E2%80%99s%20Not%20Cutting%20The%20%E2%80%98Poor%20Refugees%E2%80%99%20ANY%20Slack

Letter to ISIS: We could use a little help

Our government is completely out of control. We have a president who may not even be qualified to hold the office, but congress won’t even ask legitimate questions about his eligibility. He has violated the Constitution and broken the law so many times that they will have to add a new wing to the Library of Congress just to document all of his transgressions. He has been caught lying on video, in his own words, time and time again. In his latest constitutional violation, he said on video more than 20 times over 6 years that he didn’t have the constitutional authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws. Yet as soon as the midterm elections are over, what does he do? Unilaterally changes the law without congress. Then when he is confronted about previously saying that he didn’t have the authority to do so, he denies he ever said that, even going as far as saying “I can rewind the tapes for you.”

Where is congress while they are being rendered irrelevant by a tyrannical president? Cowering in the corner trying to preserve their perks and privileges, but doing NOTHING to exercise the checks and balances at their disposal to defend the Constitution. Rather than use the power of the purse which is exclusively theirs, or the power to impeach a runaway president, they further enable the out of control president by funding ALL of his unconstitutional agenda.

Where are the “Supreme” Court and the federal courts while the lawless president tramples the Constitution and breaks the law? They have been rendered irrelevant. Even in the few instances where they have ruled against Obama’s agenda, he has simply ignored the courts and done whatever he wants to do. Obama controls all of the agencies in government with the means to physically stop him. I’m pretty sure you won’t see Ruth Bader Ginsberg or John Roberts storming the White House with an AR and a knife in their teeth. Thus you have a lawless, tyrannical president whose STATED goal is the “fundamental transformation” of America, and neither of the other two branches designed to keep his branch of government in check doing anything to stop him.

What alternatives are left to heal the ailing patient that is our Constitution?

We administer a 3% solution of 2A.
+

---

Obama calls the government “MY government”

Obama says the government is “MY government.” In light of his track record of unilateral action, does this tyrannical view surprise ANYONE? Why hasn’t the congress impeached and removed this tyrant yet? When will the military honor its oath, and protect the Constitution from this domestic enemy since congress won’t? If neither congress or the military will do their sworn duty, how long will we, the American people tolerate these usurpations of power, and abuses of our liberty before we act to restore the Constitution as the rule of law in America?

---

VIDEO: Obama’s arrogance on display: “MY government”

Written by Allen West on June 7, 2014

Yesterday in an interview with NBC News regarding why he didn’t seek approval for the Berdgahl swap, Obama’s arrogance was in full flower when he said it was a unanimous decision from “MY government.”

Funny how that goes. Lincoln said it was government of the people by the people and for the people that shall not perish from the earth.

So choose this day: Obama’s or Lincoln’s definition of the American Constitutional Republic. It is truly the difference between tyranny and liberty.

(Follow link below to see video of the interview)

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/obamas-arrogance-display-government/
+

---

Obama Demands Court Uphold His “Right” To Ignore Constitution

“Obama made it clear his Administration would ignore the court and its injunction regardless of what the judge may decide, claiming incorrectly that “…[the] injunction would have ‘nil’ effect, for the government would continue to possess the identical detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force…” Of course, that is a lie, as the AUMF applies only to known members of al Qaeda or the Taliban.”

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! (scream of pained frustration)
IMPEACH THIS POWER HUNGRY, USURPING, LAW BREAKING, CONSTITUTION DESTROYING PIECE OF CRAP, AND I MEAN YESTERDAY.  In the many episodes of Obama violating the law (ignoring judges orders to lift drilling ban, ignoring the War Powers Act, breaking contract and bankruptcy laws, etc, etc) at least up to this point he was silent and just did it. Now he is BLATANTLY saying HE. WILL. NOT. OBEY. A. COURT. ORDER. He is emperor Obama. He is above the law. Or so he thinks.

CONGRESS, DO YOUR *&^%$%^* JOB AND IMPEACH THIS ENEMY OF THE REPUBLIC, OR WE WILL REMOVE YOU ALONG WITH HIM.

Every American must follow this story closely since the media has ignored it completely.  The media is now the enemy, and a mouthpiece for a corrupt, tyrannical government.  We, the people must restore accountability to the media and our government.

---

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-demands-court-uphold-his-right-to-ignore-constitution/

August 15, 2012 By Doug Book

Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people.

On May 16^th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5^th and 6^th Amendment rights.

Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”  (unlimited power in the hands of a tyrant who has repeatedly and consistently ignored the Constitution and our rights is a BAD thing)

Mr. Obama: I’m calling you out

This is what the REAL mainstream of America is thinking and feeling.

---

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1586060.html

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
By William Piercey Sr.

The new era of government control over our lives and freedoms has begun. This week, it got personal, and I felt helpless.

The doctor overseeing my health care advised me to get an H1N1 flu shot. I’ve been under a six-year treatment program for a chronic infection, plus I have heart and lung problems. Therefore, I am considered a high risk. Fortunately, my doctor had three shots available, but I would have to get approval from my county health department. Much to my surprise, the woman at the health department apologized and told me that even though I was a senior citizen at high risk, the health department had been instructed to approve shots only for children and pregnant mothers. I asked when a shot for my situation might be available. “We really don’t know. Check back with us sometime in December.”

What? The terrorist detainees in Gitmo are getting shots this month. Why not a high-risk senior citizen?

Mr. Obama, this is what we call health care rationing, which you claim won’t happen under a government-run health care program.

If George W. Bush was considered the Barney Fife of executive power, then welcome to the Chicago-style politics of the new Vito Corleone family. The president himself, like a strong-armed enforcer, said in a nationally televised speech, “If you misrepresent anything in this plan, I will call you out.” This administration has turned the once dignified and esteemed Oval Office into a war room for its liberal propaganda.

On his first day in office, the president signed the Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel executive order. During the campaign he vowed to keep lobbyists out of the administration. But in Section 3 of this order is a waiver clause. The director of the Office of Management and Budget “may grant” a written waiver of any restrictions. Former lobbyists were given waivers and now hold key positions in government. Mr. Obama, you lied.

At the same time lobbyists were coming in the front door, dozens of new unvetted, hand-picked ideologues were being shuttled in the back door. Many of these people were placed in key policymaking positions. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was worried about 18 of these unvetted czars, 10 of whom worked in the White House. An amendment to force these appointees to testify in oversight hearings was shot down by the Democratic leadership. Collins was especially concerned about Carol Browner, who negotiated fuel-economy standards with the auto industry. She even sent a letter to Obama, and one of his counsels replied that no one would be made available. This administration fears no one, especially a senator who dares to enforce something as minor as checks and balances. Obama promised transparency. He lied.

On the topic of transparency, the $787 billion stimulus bill was a progressive Trojan horse. It’s loaded with political favors and programs that set up the infrastructure for education, health care and climate change. It was passed and signed in a matter of weeks. This was not a bill to put Americans back to work. Obama said it would produce 3.5 million jobs in two years. Over the past year the administration has changed its story daily but finally settled on the “create or save” propaganda. Obama also said the bill would keep unemployment under 8 percent. The rate has climbed to over 10 percent. Either his economic advisers are incompetent and need to be fired, or, once again, Mr. President, you lied.

Mr. President, you said you didn’t want to run our car companies and banks, but you do. With the $350 billion in TARP funds left by President Bush, Obama’s people continued the surge of bailouts. Americans might be shocked to know the recipients of bailout money now total 727 institutions. This government control in the private sector is unprecedented.

Government-run health care, card check, cap-and-trade, net neutrality, control of radio stations and possible newspaper bailouts are just part of this administration’s agenda.

It’s time for Americans to get in this government’s face and call it out. This coup d’etat can be defeated. We have the numbers, the votes and the will power to turn back this assault on our individual freedoms.

With 15 million unemployed Americans, I’m sure we can find a few willing patriots to fill all those upcoming vacant seats in Washington, especially with an annual salary of $170,000, office, staff, insurance, expense account and, best of all, a three-day workweek. The only requirements for this job are honesty, integrity and a love of country.

William Piercey Sr. is a Cape Girardeau resident.

+

---

Newsweek Despairs ‘Checks and Balances’ Impede ObamaCare

More hypocrisy from the state-run media formerly known as “mainstream.”

Isn’t it funny how Newsweek, the New York Times, and a host of other liberal opinion outlets screamed endlessly during the George W. Bush years that he was “abusing” his powers, that he was wrecking the constitution, that the “checks and balances” were a good thing.

Now a thug communist has sneaked into the Oval Office, is blatantly coloring outside the lines of the constitution, and is doing EVERYTHING HE CAN to circumvent the constitutional checks and balances.  Yet now those liberal communists who are in the tank for Mao-bama are crying that the constitution is getting in the way of “real change.”  Thank God for that!

These people HATE what our country was founded on.  They hate our constitution.  They hate capitalism, and they hate freedom.

In short, THEY HATE AMERICA.

---

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091029014120.aspx?print=on

By: Brent Baker

October 29, 2009 13:36 ET

Penning the lead story for the “Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn’t Yet)” Newsweek cover, “A Liberal’s Survival Guide,” Anna Quindlen defended President Obama from liberal complaints he’s not enacting liberal policies fast enough as she explained that he’s “saddled” by the “incremental” constitutional structure, but she fretted: “Universal health care is the area in which the gap between what’s needed and what’s likely is most glaring, and the limitations of the president’s power most apparent.” Not hesitating to share her opinion, Quindlen despaired:

It is dispiriting to watch the cheerleaders of American exceptionalism pound their chests and insist that our citizens do not need the kind of system that virtually every other developed nation finds workable….

As elected officials posture and temporize, families are bankrupted by health-care costs and forgo treatment they can’t afford. Statistical measures of the national health, from life expectancy to infant mortality, continue to be substandard. And because we have that system of checks and balances, in which movement usually happens slowly and sporadically, a great need for sweeping reform may be met with a jury-rigged bill neither sufficiently deep nor broad, which perhaps someday will give way to a better one, and then eventually a truly good one.

Framing her piece in the November 2 edition of the magazine, “Hope Springs Eternal: Assessing a Young Presidency,” Quindlen proposed:

This is a country that often has transformational ambitions but is saddled with an incremental system, a nation built on revolution, then engineered so the revolutionary can rarely take hold.

Checks and balances: that’s how we learn about it in social-studies class, and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary. And it’s also meant to safeguard the rights of the individual…But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can’t.

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
+

---

Byrd: Obama in power grab

Sen. Robert “KKK” Byrd (D-W.Va.) is someone I can’t recall ever having been in agreement with. That’s why I find it so remarkable that he and I would now agree on anything.

Read article here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html