Tag Archives: scotus

Is this how Obamacare was upheld by the SCOTUS?

“In the latest batch of Hillary emails released, Sidney Blumenthal forwarded Clinton a memo regarding the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas written by David Brock.

The seven-page memo, sent on Oct. 24, 2010 and entitled “Memo on Impeaching Clarence Thomas,” was sent in an email with the subject “H: Brock memo here, have many more ideas on this. S.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/31/sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-a-memo-about-impeaching-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas/

That Robert’s decision stinks to high heaven

Sounds like someone had some dirt

This just bolsters that feeling with me

Terror! Terror! Terror!

“NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Another suspected member of a reportedly ISIS radicalized terror cell was arrested in New Jersey Monday, as the metropolitan area goes on hyper-alert for the threat of an attack during the Fourth of July holiday.

As CBS2 Political Reporter Marcia Kramer reported Monday, experts said they think the terror threats are very real, because ISIS is actively trying to radicalize people in the Tri-State Area.

Among those radicalized people, according to authorities, was Alaa Saadeh – the 23-year-old West New York, New Jersey man arrested Monday. He was believed to be part of a group interested in detonating a pressure cooker bomb at a New York landmark.”

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/29/terrorism-arrest-concerns/

ISIS?

You want to find hard core radicalized people intent on destroying our country? Look no further than the white house.

And it is not just them, they are aided and abetted by congress and the SCOTUS

What the hell is ISIS going to do?

Maybe if they got really lucky they could get 30 or 40 people.

On the other hand, we are now officially slaves to the federal govt.

They can force us to buy or do anything or be taxed at some exorbitant rate

Maybe a fire arm tax is in order

Our rights can now be revoked because they come not from our creator, but from the SCOTUS.

ISIS?

Who needs ISIS to destroy America when you have those that are in power now

The 4th of July needs to become a protest instead of a celebration

It needs to become a declaration that we intend to be free regardless of them and their laws.

Time is short, but try to have your effigy of your most favored Politician done by the 4th and then hang it and blow the hell out of it with fireworks and or firearms.

Video is much appreciated

Hanging in effigy: Bring back the most American of traditions

It is time to let the bastards know what we think them. We need to start stringing effigies from light poles and trees.

Seriously, do so to celebrate the 4th of July

Label it “Politician” “SCOTUS” “Senator” or whomever suits your fancy

People do not hear us speak, but trust me, if effigies start getting strung up people and the media are going to pay attention

Let those that you love know how you feel about them

I will be making and hanging one and will post the pics when I get it strung up

Bow down before your new masters

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of theCourt’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti-tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves” Justice Scalia in his dissent

There it is and boy did he say a mouthful. Scalia knows how big this one is and that there are going to be consequences.

The Govt. via the supreme court has just repudiated Christianity in our country.

God is no longer the giver of law, the Govt. is via supreme court rulings.

Forget the mumbo jumbo written in that book of yours the SCOTUS will decide what is what.

You know,  just like those inalienable rights endowed on you by your creator.

The SCOTUS gives you your rights….Or takes them away

Bow down now before your new masters

Your new Gods.

Bow down

Is this enough? Has not every insult been hurled at us? Have we not petitioned and entreated our grievances according to law ? Have we not voted representatives to office only to be boldly betrayed?

Have we not time and time again been sold, almost as chattel, to lobbyists and monied interests who fill the pockets of those we elect?

Is this not enough when men wearing robes put themselves above God and millennium of holy tradition?

Is this not cause enough, the total sum of the injuries and insults that we have endured, to spur you to action?

If not  then no cause will ever be great enough.

You will endure the chains of servitude imposed by  them and gladly at that, if you balk now

I make the case that our liberty is already gone and hard tyranny comes next

Our choices have been made for us both by fate and men and the way forward is clear

Look around you, is that freedom? Is that what our forefathers died for?

We must now be bold and decisive

There will be no better time coming

No set of circumstances more opportune in the level of outrage provoked

Our masters have spoken and we must let them know that we are not happy

We need to put a gauntlet across their faces as they have ours

But we must unite and have a unified face of resistance

 

The law and loss of moral authority

I thought it would be timely to re-post this bearing in mind the recent SCOTUS decision. We are now entering the era of the Reichstag fire and the rubber stamp court will rule , not by what is written into law, but instead by what they desire.

I know that some of you will be inclined to look to the recent second amendment rulings to say that it just isn’t so…. but it is.

Remember the first Obamacare ruling? Congress has the power to tax? Elections have consequences?

Well , a lot of people haven’t realized it, but that ruling gives the tyrants unbridled authority to tax anything, anywhere.

Sure it is legal to own a gun, you just have to pay a $5000.00 a year tax, kind of like the $200.00 tax stamp on silencers.

We have now officially been fundamentally transformed

Anyway, I have work to do so I leave you with the below.

Happy Friday everybody

The law and loss of moral authority

To put our current legal situation into context you have to ask one basic question; what is law? Is law as we have been lead to believe, the codification of statutes defining what is illegal or not? Or is there some inherent property of moral righteousness that must exist for that law to have force?

I will argue that there is a moral component of law that must be present to make the system of law work. I am, of course, aware that there are many places that laws are passed that have no moral basis at all. There are dictatorships around the world that oppress their peoples and use their codified statutes to imprison and kill any who dissent.

The ultimate example of this is was the Nazi Germany government who made it legal to kill Jews. It was not only legal, but a system of laws was implemented to guide their extermination. But those laws, even though written out with penalties for those who did not follow them by the legislature, were illegal.

It is a basic component of the human being to know right from wrong. It is the reason that human beings set up laws in the first place. They are set up to make sure that innocents are not victimized by the predacious in our societies. In virtually every place that a human society exists, whether on a group, tribal or civilization level, there are always laws that govern behavior. Even those that break the laws have a sense of righteousness. In prison populations, if the prisoners feel that they are being treated in a fair and just manner they will comply with the rules and follow the system. Take away that feeling of just and fair treatment and prison riots and mayhem ensues. The prisoners realize that they have broken the law and when treated humanely will accept their punishment for the most part. The prisoners know that they have committed a wrong and they knew the possible penalty beforehand and knew what they risked. If torture, mal-treatment and other injuries are added to the punishment then a situation of self-righteousness is set up. The only way to control a prison population under those circumstances is with solitary confinement and complete isolation; if left to exist within prison society it would quickly conflagrate into confrontation.

In places where law exists without any moral authority there is always rebellion brewing just under the surface of society. The dictators and bureaucracies of these societies must rule with an iron fist because they know that one moment of slackness will have them swept from power and executed or exiled. Every single individual who is subject to these laws knows that they are illegal. How can they be illegal if they are written into law you might ask; Is that not the definition of law?

My argument is that it is the moral component of the law that is essential for it to work. It has nothing to with writing a statute and everything to do with human nature. We are after all the ones who create the laws, then write them and in the end follow them. It is at the very core of our nature to organize and codify law because we are innately social by nature and always end up forming some type of society that must have rules. It is also our own feeling of self-righteousness that makes us create the laws.

Certain things are innately wrong and one person should not be able to do this or that to another, and that is the basic creator of law. Laws don’t start out as regulations to govern society. They start out as basic rules of moral behavior; don’t steal from those in our community, don’t kill anyone and don’t try to take my wife. It is this same sense of self-righteousness that drives us to rebel when we know that a law is being applied without any righteous basis.

Take traffic laws for an example. Someone is driving down the highway when they suddenly see blue lights in the rearview. They were oblivious to their speed, lost in thought, and look down at the speedometer and see that they are doing 70 M.P.H. When the cop walks up and gives them a speeding ticket for doing 70 M.P.H. in a 50 M.P.H zone, there is little room for self-righteousness. Most people knowing that they broke the law, and one enacted for public safety, will accept the ticket and pay it without even showing up in court. The next example is the opposite.

Someone is rolling down the highway and the only difference in the scenario is that when they look down they see that they are only doing 45 M.P.H. They continue on for a while, waiting for the cop to go around them. When they eventually pull over, part of it is curiosity as to why he would be stopping them. In this case when a 70 M.P.H. ticket is handed out the reaction is going to be entirely different. That person will go to court. In addition to going to court, if not resolved there, they will spend large amounts of time and money to right the injustice. They will actually spend time and money far out of proportion to the actual injustice that happened because they are self-righteous.

Now imagine that the law was written like this: If you are driving down the highway you can be pulled over and issued a speeding ticket at any time no matter what your speed was. That is the point where the law goes against human nature. People would naturally begin to rebel against it because of its inherent injustice. In the second case it is not only that person’s right to rebel against the law, but also their moral obligation. They have a moral obligation to rebel because they should be seeking to re-establish moral law. If they live in human society then moral law, compatible with human nature should be the rule. If this is not the case, then they are being set up to have very bad things happen.

The Jews in Nazi Germany also had a moral obligation to fight and for the most part they did not (With the notable and heroic exception of the Warsaw ghetto and a few others) and were led to their slaughter. They had a moral obligation not just to themselves, but to their fellow Jews and compatriots. They were obligated to save their children, their mothers and fathers and other humans and in the end, for the most part did not.

Instead they followed the laws of Nazi Germany. (Just as the German soldiers at the Nuremberg trials did) They agreed to be registered because to not do so would be breaking the law. They showed up in groups to be transported away because to not do so would be breaking the law. They gave up their goods and businesses and money because not to do so would be breaking the law. There were, of course, severe penalties for breaking the law such as being imprisoned or just disappearing into the night and that drove most to comply.

I know that faith also played a part for many and I am not judging their actions or inaction. I am simply stating the results of what happened by their following the law and putting forward the fact that we are all morally obligated to act when law becomes illegal or immoral.

When law has lost its moral authority and becomes nothing more than something punitive to arbitrarily punish enemies then it is not true law; or at least not true to human nature , by which we all act. In that case all the law becomes is a fear of retribution. No one cares if they break the law for they feel no guilt about doing so and we humans, for the most part, are moral beings. Personally I don’t rob people because it is against the law. I don’t rob people because of the fact that it is morally wrong and I have no desire to violently take from another to gain wealth. I will die before I take the sustenance of another to live.

Once the moral component of law is removed only fear of punishment remains. If someone follows the law it is only because they don’t want to be fined or imprisoned; It I not because they have a moral imperative. But fear only goes so far; when the law becomes illegal its moral authority is transferred to those against whom it is used. They now have righteousness on their side and righteousness has a way of cancelling out fear.

Counter-intuitively, the more injustice that is piled on the more it is met with resistance. The IRA is an excellent example. By the 1960’s their membership was flagging and their armed struggle against the British was at very low ebb. That all changed on bloody Sunday when British troops opened fire into a crowd of demonstrators and killed and wounded a number of them. Instead of being frightened by this, they were outraged and active resistance against them doubled. A vicious cycle was started as the British escalated their actions in response to the increase in attacks and therefore caused even more.

The result of the British crackdown was the highest membership in the IRA in history and the start of a real shooting war. The level of violence escalated to a point never seen before and eventually drove the Brits to sue for peace. The danger of enrolling in the outlawed organization was more than offset by the sense of self-righteous outrage that was generated by the deaths and military lock down of entire neighborhoods. When one joined the IRA it was not a matter of if you would die or be imprisoned, but rather when. Still, even knowing what the outcome would be the ranks of the IRA swelled to enormous numbers. When the British military began a covert assassination program to kill suspected IRA members and affiliates, instead of instilling fear it just added to the sense of outrage and drove more to join and fight.

It was the (Legal) injustice of what was being done that gave the moral righteousness to the IRA and drove them to war. I bring this all up because we are now, in our own society, entering an era of legal lawlessness. We will be forced to make choices about how we respond when confronted with these laws. From the patriot act to the NSA spying, the NDAA authorization of indefinite detention, the IRS and the DOJ it is becoming clear that we are living in an increasingly lawless society.

The lawlessness is not on the part of the people, but rather on the part of those writing the law. The irony is that as the laws become more illegitimate the numbers of them are increasing exponentially. There are already so many federal laws on the books that at any given time any given individual is guilty of a crime. We have now become beholden to the very institutions that are supposed to be serving us as a society. Instead of serving us, the people, they now serve the bureaucracy instead. The bureaucracy and the institutions thereof have become the center of law giving rather than we as citizens. The law, rather than protecting us has become an instrument to protect the bureaucracy and punish those who disagree with it.

We have come to the point where our laws are becoming as corrupt as any given banana republic and if we do not actually want to become one, then we need to make a stand and say enough is enough. I am sure that while I have been writing this that I have committed at least three crimes; either by what I have written or done or thought or possibly what type of lighting I used. Do I care? No not at all. My sense of self- righteous indignation has grown to the point that I have no fear. I have no fear of death or imprisonment. The level of outrage has grown in me to the point that I will go to war.

Will they put me in prison? Go ahead lock me up with a captive audience and let me speak the truth to them; I will leave with an army of self-righteous individuals. Of course the speaking of this truth is illegal in prison, but at this point what is law? We all have hard choices coming up in the future; choices that could affect the rest of our lives and need to decide how to act. In the end how we act is going to be influenced by how the legal system acts. Let me end this with a question: If you receive a letter from the IRS informing you that you are subject to an audit, is your hard drive going to crash? I know that mine is.

Natural law vs. the legal system

I recently responded to an article entitled “Is the ACA legal?”. I know that my response sounds a little bitchy, but it wasn’t intended. It is just one of those things that can happen on a Wednesday morning. It wasn’t that his question irritated me, it is just irritation at the whole situation in general. I am a little lazy this morn also, so instead of starting fresh I have pasted the response below and will attempt to expound on the idea.

“Using the word legal is a joke.(No offense intended) When the laws of a nation are subverted there are many things that are “Legal”. If they ban guns or free speech and it is upheld by the SCOTUS it becomes “Legal” even while being illegitimate. If Madison’s “Tyranny of the majority” comes to fruition then the will imposed on the minority will be “Legal”. According to the ruling that robert’s (Sic) made congress can tax us for anything as a type of penalty. We can be required to buy a car or a toaster or any other nonsense and be taxed if we don’t. Stimulus anyone? Our rights and freedoms are not granted by legality and when illegitimate laws are passed they subvert natural law.”

The whole concept of natural law is bound up in the idea that some things are inherently right and wrong and are built into our nature, independent of political order, society or nation-state. When legal systems come into a state of conflict with natural law a conundrum is created that will invariably end with some type of contention.    It is often stated that the constitution guarantees our rights but that is a mistaken perception. The constitution only codifies our natural rights and spells them out as a guideline for the government.   As a human I have a right to life. I have the right to defend myself. I have a right to be free. I have the right to speak as I please. I have the right to be unencumbered by tyranny.    The government claims that they are the protector of these rights because they are in the constitution, when in fact they were codified to protect us from the government. The government (SCOTUS) defines daily what my freedoms and rights are by their rulings on the legality of matters that pertain to them. Their rulings though, have no bearing on my actual  natural rights regardless of what they rule.   Thomas Jefferson saw the potential for this abuse after the SCOTUS usurped the power of judicial review ( Ruling on the constitutionality of matters) and wrote in 1820    “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.”     What the end all of this game is that in order to keep my natural rights that were “Endowed” on me, I may have to  become a criminal in the eyes of the law. I have a right to freedom, but in order to insure that right I may become a criminal and be imprisoned.     Is that legal?  In the end I don’t care about the legality of the matter. If you make me a criminal I can only respond as Jesus did when asked if he was the KIng of the Jews “You have said it”.   Take that as you will.

Cruz: Democrats want to pack court with judges to protect ObamaCare

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/191158-cruz-dems-want-to-pack-court-to-protect-obamacare

I think that Cruz has it all wrong; I think it is much more insidious than that.This is the only way to pull off a Hugo Chavez. I would expect to see a sudden death or retirement due to “illness” on the SCOTUS. This is their last chance to get the brass ring and they have waited one hundred years to get it. Do you really think they will stop now? We will find out soon enough.