Tag Archives: US Constitution

CNN admits there is absolutely no evidence of collusion of any kind between Donald Trump and Russia

New Hampshire’s John Sununu is Republican royalty in the Granite State, and he’s been around the elite of the GOP for decades. He’s served a handful of Presidents, been the Governor of New Hampshire, and been advising GOP leaders for a very long time. In fact one of his sons has served as Senator from New Hampshire, and another son is the current Governor of the state. The point is that Sununu understands the game of politics and he’s been playing (and winning) for quite a long time.

He is a favorite guest of CNN, recently appearing on their morning show to speak to the two outspoken liberals… I mean journalists… who host the show. Chris Cuomo (son of Democrat favorite Mario Cuomo and brother of current Democrat New York Governor Andrew Cuomo), and Alisyn Camerota. Both hosts have a long and storied tradition of regurgitating Democrat talking points while mocking conservatives, but Sununu was ready for their game and he beat them at it on Tuesday morning.

While Camerota spends several minutes trying to get Sununu to admit that he is “troubled” by the allegations against the Trump team (of collusion with Russia), all she succeeds at doing is proving Sununu’s point about the liberal media. In fact, at one point in their conversation Sununu actually pushes Camerota to admit that there is NO EVIDENCE that President Trump has done anything wrong, or even that anything wrong has actually taken place! It’s magnificent.

But Chris Cuomo doesn’t let the segment stand for itself. He refuses to allow a Republican to “win” the interview and he closes the segment by implying that Sununu was just doing a “good job” spinning the news. Here’s what Cuomo says, “They’re certainly doing a better job coordinating messaging on how to deal with the investigation. Governor Sununu, always a capable mind and a good political debater to be sure.” The implication of course being that all Sununu did was repeat talking points. However, if you watch the segment and read the transcript below, you’ll see that Sununu proves without a shadow of a doubt that the media is biased and the Russia collusion story is bunk.

Transcript from RealClearPolitics:

Camerota: Let’s dive into all of these different Russian threads because I want to gauge your feelings on these separately.

Let’s talk about what Jim Sciutto, our Jim Sciutto is breaking this morning in terms of reporting. There are these — there were these intercepted communications picked up by our intel agencies that heard Russian government officials talking about some kind of what they called derogatory information they had on Donald Trump, then a candidate, and whether or not they could use it to leverage the Trump campaign.

Are you troubled?

SUNUNU: In the 2016 campaign, that’s right. I came on your show with derogatory business information on Donald Trump during the primary. Why is it a surprise? Why is it a news story that the Russians in Washington would convey the same material to the Russians in Moscow?

The same story that you’re quoting at the bottom of the story noted that the same sources that gave your reporter that information conceded that it was possible that the Russians were exaggerating or even making it up.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

SUNUNU: Why is this even a story worth talking about?

CAMEROTA: It is only a news story, you’re right, if, as part of the investigative thread it turns out they were able to leverage the Trump campaign and they were able to somehow use the information they had to help get the Trump campaign to do something that they wanted them to do. So, this is just one more thread down that line where, as you know, congressional committees and the FBI are trying to figure out if they can connect those dots.

SUNUNU: Everybody was talking about Trump’s business problems. Why is that news now again?

Look, let’s put this whole thing in context. You have to tell me what you think the venality (ph) was that they could have conveyed.

CAMEROTA: Well, do you think that Jared Kushner, in attempting to set up a backchannel as has been reported, do you think that the Trump campaign wanted something out of the Russians and there was a dovetailing of agendas?

SUNUNU: In the ten weeks between an election and an inauguration, there is a lot of discussion going on between all members of — or potential members of an administration with all kinds of folks. When I was named chief of staff, a lot of ambassadors that were slight acquaintances tried to become good friends in that ten weeks. It is not unusual.

You guys have made back channel a derogatory term. Back channel is a positive asset.

CAMEROTA: Is it?

SUNUNU: Nixon could have not have done China — Nixon could not have done China without a back channel.

CAMEROTA: Yes, even —

SUNUNU: Kennedy used back channels. Go ahead.

CAMEROTA: During the Cuban missile crisis. I mean, so, you’re saying that during the transition when there is another president, that you are comfortable with the incoming administration using a back channel, if the reporting is correct, using Russian equipment so as not to be caught on the U.S. surveillance and intelligence equipment? You’re comfortable with that kind of back channel?

SUNUNU: Well, let’s speculate on why — I don’t think it happened that way. But let’s speculate on why it might have happened. There might have been concerns that the intelligence community was feeding Obama the information that he probably shouldn’t have had.

And you know what, with what you are reporting now on what has come out from deep sources in the intelligence community, if that was a concern and I doubt it was, but if that was a concern, they were pretty smart to have those feelings, weren’t they?

CAMEROTA: Is there anything about the Russian investigation connected to the Trump campaign that troubles you?

SUNUNU: Yes. But the reporting that’s taking place and the exaggeration of venality and the suggestion — look, it’s now seven months since the election. And to this day, no one has cited a single piece of evidence.

In your last session, you guys were patting yourselves on the back because you said Clapper had passed the responsibility off to the FBI. But you forget that in the last weeks of the administration, Obama allowed all his intelligence agencies to share their information and there is no question in my mind that when that happened, since Clapper’s group had originated this, that anything the FBI had would have gone back to Clapper.

So, it’s nice for Clapper to try and wash his hands of it by throwing it in the FBI’s lap, but he was — had access in those days to whatever the FBI had. There is nothing there.

CAMEROTA: So, Jared Kushner, meeting with a major Russian banker of a massive bank that has ties to Vladimir Putin, nothing to see there?

SUNUNU: Well, tell me what you think is to see there and I’ll comment on it.

CAMEROTA: What do you think would be the motivation?

SUNUNU: I don’t think there is anything there.

CAMEROTA: Why would they do it?

(CROSSTALK)

SUNUNU: So, you’re implying — you’re implying —

(CROSSTALK)

SUNUNU: Because during the ten weeks everything is trying to meet somebody who is going to be in the administration. Everybody who is involved in business, everybody who is involved in politics.

CAMEROTA: Sure.

SUNUNU: I can’t tell you how many people tried to meet with me between the times I was then chief of staff —

CAMEROTA: And did you meet with a Russian banker when everybody tried to meet with you?

JOHN SUNUNU, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: I can’t tell you how many people tried to meet with me between the time I was named chief of staff —

CAMEROTA: And did you meet with a Russian banker when everybody tried to meet with you?

SUNUNU: No, but I had breakfast with the vice president at the Russian embassy and a lot of folks there started talking to me.

CAMEROTA: Uh-huh. And would you have carved out time to meet with a Russian banker with ties to Vladimir Putin if he asked?

SUNUNU: I’m not even sure what would have happened if that had — first of all, Putin wasn’t there. But, look, you’re asking hypotheticals on hypotheticals. There’s nothing —

CAMEROTA: Well, I’m trying to actually take your temperature.

SUNUNU: You — you have nothing —

CAMEROTA: I mean I’m trying to gauge your — your comfort level with all of this.

SUNUNU: My comfort level — the only discomfort I have is with folks in the media trying to create a veniality without having the courage to specifically tell me what the veniality that I should be concerned about is.

CAMEROTA: Well, but —

SUNUNU: I don’t have — I have not identified any veniality. Have you?

CAMEROTA: Well, you should be concerned if there was collusion. And that’s what Congress —

SUNUNU: I don’t — I don’t see any evidence of collusion. Do you?

CAMEROTA: No. That’s what — that — but —

SUNUNU: OK. So that’s — that ends — that should end your reporting right there.

CAMEROTA: Well, we’re at the beginning of the —

SUNUNU: You should put an exclamation point after your “no.”

CAMEROTA: Understood. But we’re at the beginning of the investigation. So what Congress —

SUNUNU: You’re seven months into the investigation.

CAMEROTA: Not exactly.

SUNUNU: You’re seven months —

CAMEROTA: Robert Mueller has just taken over. Robert Mueller has just taken over.

SUNUNU: Oh, this is a new investigation.

CAMEROTA: Well, no. I mean, look, that’s not exactly fair, governor, because, as you know, Congress people have been calling —

SUNUNU: The Obama investigation went on for the last —

CAMEROTA: For a special counsel to do this, to handle this because — so it gets away from all of the partisan bickering. So it’s just starting in that regard.

SUNUNU: OK. Can I ask a question? If Mueller comes out and says that my version is correct and yours isn’t, how much crow are you going to eat?

CAMEROTA: Governor, I don’t have a version of events. I asked —

SUNUNU: Of course you do. The whole half hour I listened to is a version.

CAMEROTA: Governor — governor, we are asking questions of the sources of the people who know, attempting to see where the investigation is. The investigation isn’t complete. Everyone agrees on that.

SUNUNU: Without — without identifying — without identifying a veniality that should be investigated.

CAMEROTA: Governor, we appreciate your perspective, that there’s nothing to see here and that the investigation is, I don’t know, silly.

SUNUNU: Politically motivated by folks trying to rationalize a horribly run Democratic presidential campaign.

CAMEROTA: Governor John Sununu, thank you very much. Always great to get your perspective.

SUNUNU: Nice to be here, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: They’re certainly doing a better job coordinating messaging on how to deal with the investigation. Governor Sununu, always a capable mind and a good political debater to be sure.

 

[From an article by Onan Coca, published by CONSTITUTION.COM]

 

…………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

By the definition of treason given in the US Constitution, both Obama and Clinton are guilty

According to the US Constitution, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of treason and should be charged, tried, convicted and appropriately punished by the forfeiture of their lives.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

I’m sure given enough time and space, one could fill volumes with incidences from Obama and Clinton that would fall under the Constitution’s definition of treason, but all it takes is one conviction to put them in front of a firing squad, but I’ll show more than one cause, at least for Obama.

Libya – Obama – Obama assisted in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muamar Gadhafi. Obama supplied weapons and air support for the rebels that eventually took control of the government. So who were these rebels? According to some Libyan sources, many of the rebel leaders who ended up in key government positions were members of al Qaeda. Furthermore, the Libyan sources claim that the same members of al Qaeda that Obama helped put into power in Libya were also responsible for the attack on the Us Embassy compound in Benghazi and the murder of US Ambassador Stevens and the three other brave Americans.

“For example, Abdul Wahhab Hassan Qayed now works in the Libyan Interior Ministry where he has been put in control over Libya’s borders. He is the brother to Abu Yahya al-Libi. Qayed, a recently assassinated member of Al Qaeda. Under his oversight, Al Qaeda operatives are being free access to cross the border into Libya where they have been welcomed.”

“Another example is that of Fadlallah Haran Musa and Khalid Atiyeh. Both men have ties to Al Qaeda and have been placed in important government roles. Musa has been made head of the National Security Fares in Barqa (eastern Libya) and Atiyeh has been assigned to be Musa’s assistant.”

Sufyan Gammu is still one of the most sought after members of Al Qaeda, largely because he had served as Osama bin Laden’s personal driver. Information states that he is now living openly in Libya under the protection of the new government, again with the cooperation of the Obama administration.’

Salem Al-Barrani Dirbi, also of Al Qaeda has been in hiding in the mountains of Libya since 1996. Dirbi is
the current leader of Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade and now is free to walk the streets of Benghazi.”

“The list goes on from here of known terrorists and enemies of the United States that have now not only found sanctuary in Libya, but many have been placed in positions of power. And according to the Libyan exiles, their documentation shows that they all have the knowledge and blessings of the Obama administration.”

Egypt – Obama – Obama helped Egyptian rebels to overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak. One of the main rebel forces behind the rebellion was the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group. Once Mubarak was ousted, Obama fully supported the new Egyptian government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and run by Mohamed Morsi. In fact, Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood was so strong that it led one Egyptian newspaper to claim that President Barack Obama was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Under Morsi’s rule, Egypt’s substantial Coptic Christian population were targeted by not only radical Muslims, but also by police and government agents. Many Christians were beaten, raped, burned and murdered and their homes and churches were looted and burned.

Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood government of Morsi wanted nothing more than to destroy Israel and the United States. During one cabinet meeting, the Egyptian leadership forgot that the meeting was being televised when the cameras caught Magdi Hussein, the leader of the Islamic Labor Party, saying:

“I’m very fond of battles. With the enemies, of course, with America and Israel, but this battle must be waged with maximum judiciousness and calm. Even though this is a secret meeting we must all take an oath not to leak anything to the media unless it is done officially by Sister Pakinam. We need an official plan for popular national security, even if we did …”

In the light of this and other troubling information concerning Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government, Congress voted to freeze all military and financial aid and transactions. However, Obama took it upon himself to illegally bypass Congress and send 20 F-16 fighter jets and millions of dollars that had been frozen, to Morsi’s terrorist government.

It’s clear that Obama’s actions amount to nothing less than treason. In fact, a group of Egyptian lawyers have filed charges of criminal terrorism and crimes against humanity against Barack Obama for his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood. The charges have been filed in the International Criminal Court and similar charges, including treason, need to be filed against him here in the United States for aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States.

Egypt – Clinton – While serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton also fully supported Obama’s support of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government. Her support was enough to bring Egyptian lawyers to file criminal charges in the International Criminal court against Clinton for crimes against humanity, like those filed against Obama.

Reports from Egypt at the time connected then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to domestic terrorism that took place in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. In an interview with Turkey’s Anatolia news agency, Naglaa Mahmoud, the wife of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, she admitted her role in the nation’s violence. She told them that she actively worked to help excite domestic insurrections to overthrown Abdel Fatah Al Sisi, the new Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt. Perhaps the most internationally explosive part of her interview was when she said that her actions were in collaboration with Hillary Clinton.”

“Former Muslim Brotherhood activist turned Christian, Walid Shoebat translated part of the interview with Mahmoud. What she said should shock you and should be enough to dash any 2016 presidential hopes of Hillary Clinton, but you know that the liberal mainstream media will keep this buried just as they have buried the news about the charges filed against Obama:”

“Qaffas: According to Anatolia Press, Mahmoud said, ‘I have between my fingers, a treasure trove of secrets from the White House and Mrs. Clinton fears my wrath. ’She said, ‘I will not speak about Huma Abedin’. When asked if she had a close relationship with Hillary Clinton, Mahmoud said, “When my husband returns from his kidnapping, the one who led the coup will pay a hefty price.’ Of Mrs. Clinton, she said, ‘We have a long friendship of many years. We lived in the U.S. and my children learned there. This friendship increased further when my husband became the legitimate president of the country.’

“Mahmoud went on to say that they were recruited by the Clintons from the U.S. and began their friendship in the 1980′s. This appears to be a conspiracy that is being hidden.”

Speaking of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, let’s not forget her closest aid and confident, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. What many people may not realize is that there exists an Islamic organization known as the Islamic Sisterhood, a female branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2012, it was learned that there was a list of 63 names of the women leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood. One of those names was Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, the mother of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin.

Saleha Mahmoud Abedin is a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia and according to Walid Shoebat, has been heavily involved in organizations tied to terrorism. He claims to have found numerous accounts in Arab news sources ‘that implicated Huma’s mother as being part of a plot reminiscent of Hitler’s Nazi Germany.’ However, he says that with the rise of Huma Abedin, that much of the information on Saleha has been efficiently cleansed.

Another name on the leadership list for the Muslim Sisterhood was Najla Ali Mahmoud, who just happens to be the wife of the former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi who was the leader of the militant Muslim Brotherhood. Don’t forget that she is the one who has leveled charges against Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, at the time Huma Abedin, a devout Muslim was married to then US Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who is a devout Jew. Knowing the hatred that exists between Muslims and Jews, their marriage is a strange one at best. Normally, a Muslim family would disown a daughter who married a Jew, yet Abedin remained in good standing with her family, again another curiosity begging the question why? As I reported in 2012:

“Have you ever heard of the term Muruna? It’s a Muslim policy that allows someone to lie and deceive in order to gain someone’s complete trust so as to place themselves in a position to gain information useful to the cause. Hamas has used Muruna in a number of ways, one of which is getting a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim person of influence in order to learn or gain access to valuable information and secrets.”

“Walid Shoebat suggests that Huma Abedin may in fact be part of a Hamas Muruna plot. He points out that against all Muslim tradition, she married Anthony Weiner, a Jew and the former democratic congressman from New York who resigned in disgrace after his sex scandal. Shoebat tries to support his possible case against Huma by pointing out that she is still a practicing Muslim and as such, was never disavowed by her very Muslim family for marrying a Jew. Additionally, he mentioned that when Weiner resigned he reportedly told a friend, ‘My problem is that I have three women I have to convince that I’m cured: Huma, her mother — and Hillary.’”

“Now, Huma is the closest person to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and is in a position that gives her access to highly classified documents and information that could prove to be very useful to Hamas and her mother.”

Clearly, Hillary Clinton’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood along with her association with Huma Abedin and her links to the Muslim Sisterhood and Hamas are aiding and abetting our enemies.

As I stated at the beginning, there are numerous other examples that could fill volumes, but I hope I have provided enough evidence to show that both Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are guilty of treason against the United States as defined by the US Constitution. They both need to be charged, arrested, tried, convicted and summarily executed for their high crimes against our nation.

 

[by Dave Jolly, writing for CONSTITUTION.com]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  The Bible says this, in Numbers 32:23: “You may be sure your sins will find you out.”  It appears we are watching that process at work.

 

………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lies the US government continues to tell us…

The new “compromise” USA Freedom Act does NOT curtail NSA spying

 

Last week, Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined President Obama in congratulating themselves for taming the National Security Agency’s voracious appetite for spying. By permitting one section of the Patriot Act to expire and by replacing it with the USA Freedom Act, the federal government is taking credit for taming beasts of its own creation.

In reality, nothing substantial has changed.

Under the Patriot Act, the NSA had access to and possessed digital versions of the content of all telephone conversations, emails and text messages sent between and among all people in America since 2009. Under the USA Freedom Act, it has the same. The USA Freedom Act changes slightly the mechanisms for acquiring this bulk data, but it does not change the amount or nature of the data the NSA acquires.

Under the Patriot Act, the NSA installed its computers in every main switching station of every telecom carrier and Internet service provider in the United States. It did this by getting Congress to immunize the carriers and providers from liability for permitting the feds to snoop on their customers and by getting the Department of Justice to prosecute the only CEO of a carrier who had the courage to send the feds packing.

In order to operate its computers at these facilities, the NSA placed its own computer analysts physically at those computers 24/7. It then went to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court and asked for search warrants directing the telecoms and Internet service providers to make available to it all the identifying metadata — the times, locations, durations, email addresses and telephone numbers used — for all callers and email users in a given ZIP code or area code or on a customer list.

The first document revealed by Edward Snowden two years ago was a FISA court search warrant directed to Verizon ordering it to make available to NSA agents the metadata of all its customers — more than 113 million at the time. Once the court granted that search warrant and others like it, the NSA computers simply downloaded all that metadata and the digital recordings of content. Because the FISA court renewed every order it issued, this arrangement became permanent.

Under the USA Freedom Act, the NSA computers remain at the carriers’ and service providers’ switching offices, but the NSA computer analysts return to theirs; and from there they operate remotely the same computers they were operating directly in the Patriot Act days. The NSA will continue to ask the FISA court for search warrants permitting the download of metadata, and that court will still grant those search warrants permitting the downloading. And the NSA will continue to take both metadata and content.

The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the government must obtain a search warrant in order to intercept any nonpublic communication. The Constitution requires probable cause as a precondition for a judge to issue a search warrant for any purpose, and the warrant must “particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Because this is expressly set forth in the Constitution itself, Congress and the president are bound by it. They cannot change it. They cannot avoid or evade it.

Probable cause is evidence about a person or place sufficient to permit a judge to conclude that evidence of a crime will probably be found. Both the Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act disregard the “probable cause” standard and substitute instead a “government need” standard. This is, of course, no standard at all, as the NSA has claimed under the Patriot Act — and the FISA court bought the argument — that it needs all telephone calls, all emails and all text messages of all people in America. Today it may legally obtain them by making the same claim under the USA Freedom Act.

When politicians tell you that the NSA needs a court order in order to listen to your phone calls or read your emails, they are talking about a FISA court order that is based on government need — not a constitutional court order, which can only be based on probable cause. This is an insidious and unconstitutional bait and switch.

All this may start with the NSA, but it does not end there. Last week, we learned that the FBI is operating low-flying planes over 100 American cities to monitor folks on the streets and intercept their cellphone use — without any search warrants. Earlier this week, we learned that the Drug Enforcement Administration has intercepted the telephone calls of more than 11,000 people in three years — without any search warrants. We already know that local police have been using government surplus cell towers to intercept the cellphone signals of innocent automobile drivers for about a year — without search warrants.

How dangerous this is. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It applies in good times and in bad, in war and in peace. It regulates the governed and the governors. Yet if the government that it regulates can change it by ordinary legislation, then it is not a constitution but a charade.

Suppose the Congress wants to redefine the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion or the right to keep and bear arms, just as it did the standards for issuing search warrants. What is the value of a constitutional guarantee if the people into whose hands we repose the Constitution for safekeeping can change it as they see fit and negate the guarantee?

What do you call a negated constitutional guarantee? Government need.

 

[by Andrew Napolitano, as published in The Washington Times. Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is an analyst for the Fox News Channel. He has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.]

 

………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Four of our nine Supreme Court justices do not respect our country or its Constitution…

While reams have already been penned examining the implications of last week’s Hobby Lobby decision, most of what’s been written, particularly in the liberal press, has missed the point entirely.

Though I’m mildly pleased that the Supreme Court is not quite ready to take gasoline to both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) signed into law by Bill Clinton, a liberal, in 1993, I am alarmed, and so too should you be, that only 56 percent of our sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices are still willing to give the U.S. Constitution a modicum of the respect, recognition and compliance it not only deserves, but requires.

America was dragged before Emperor Obama’s counter-constitutional, secular-”progressive” firing squad and remarkably, miraculously, they missed.

But it’s a false sense of security. As we Christians and conservatives celebrate with chest bumps and high fives, we remain bound, gagged and blindfolded while these “progressive” fascists reload. The next volley of cultural Marxist lead is but moments away.

Tick, tick goes the judicial-supremacy time bomb.

I don’t mean to throw a wet blanket on the party. There is much to celebrate, and this ruling’s broader implications are profound indeed. The opinion simply doesn’t go far enough.

Yes, Hobby Lobby was, in part, about the non-negotiable fact that government cannot compel religious business owners of private, closely held corporations to be complicit in abortion homicide. It was also, tangentially, about the self-evident reality that women are not, never have been and never will be, entitled to expect Christian men, who are not their husbands, to pay for their birth control and abortion drugs so that they can have consequence-free sex or otherwise murder their pre-born babies.

Hobby Lobby was chiefly about one of our very first freedoms: religious liberty.

How is it that this was a 5-4 decision? Even an elementary understanding of American history and a cursory analysis of both our U.S. Constitution and RFRA establish that this opinion should have been roundly unanimous. The majority decision merely recognized, in the weakest of terms, Americans’ God-given, inalienable, constitutionally guaranteed right to religious free exercise (yes, even for those pesky Christian business owners).

Still, while lovers of freedom rejoice across the nation, the reality is that there are at least four domestic “enemies within” currently sitting on the highest bench in the land, not the least of whom is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ruth Bader GinsburgGinsburg tells you everything you need to know about Ginsburg: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012,” she disgracefully vomited a couple years back in an interview about the fledgling Egyptian government. “I might look at the Constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

Ginsburg hates the America of our founding. She hates our constitution and, like all true “progressives,” endeavors to circumvent it at every turn.

And that’s the prism through which we must interpret the parade of hyperbolic horribles in her scathing Hobby Lobby dissent. She excoriated the constitutionalist majority for its ruling, calling it a “radical” decision “of startling breadth.” Still, when you cut through the alarmist tripe, she actually gets to the meat of the matter.

“In a decision of startling breadth,” she wrote, “the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Uh, yeah, and?

Here’s what Ginsburg actually meant: “I hate the First Amendment. It’s broad, inalienable, and I want to alienate it. Oh, and dead babies. Lots of dead babies.”

Ginsburg is right. This decision was “of startling breadth,” but only if you happen to be a secular elitist hell-bent on marginalizing Christians and wielding unchecked power over your fellow Americans.

Indeed, the secularist left’s utter meltdown over having but a small measure of control over others wrested away is highly instructive. Still, why would we expect lefties to understand the First Amendment when these Rhodes Scholars are calling a decision penned by Justice Alito “#ScaliaLaw” on Twitter?

In his concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who more often than not gets it wrong, got one right:

“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief. … It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”

Wow. And now for the pink elephant in the room: Although the Hobby Lobby decision did not directly address the raging cultural debate over counterfeit “gay marriage” and the irreconcilable friction this modern, sin-centric novelty has with the long-established and inalienable right to religious free exercise, it doesn’t take a Phi Beta Kappa to read between the lines and discover, as Ginsburg and Kennedy evidently agree, that the “startling breadth” of the decision most assuredly touches and concerns the debate head on. (And not in favor, I might add, of the homofascist “you-have-to-affirm-my-faux-marriage-or-go-to-jail” crowd.)

While Justice Kennedy is anything but predictable on these matters, this ruling makes it pretty clear that, as both the First Amendment and RFRA already assure, the Christian baker, photographer, florist or any other business owner, is protected from being forced, under penalty of law, into indentured servitude – from having to give their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

In other words, both the First Amendment and RFRA trump any and all so-called “sexual orientation” laws. Or, as Ginsburg put it, private businesses “can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Darn skippy.

Furthermore, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act expressly protects religious free exercise while ignoring newfangled notions of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

When religious belief comes into conflict with sexual identity politics, religious belief wins every time. Period.

 Let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. I’m a Christian. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.

No debate. No question. No compromise.

The language of the Hobby Lobby decision simply acknowledges this reality.

[by Matt Barber, writing for EAGLE RISING]

……………………………….

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Taking from the federal government the power of borrowing” was Thomas Jefferson’s single solution to bring the government in line with the Constitution…

Why have we turned our backs on the principles that this nation was founded upon? We are literally killing the nation that our founders bled and died for. We are choking the life out of it with big government, corrupt government, and huge levels of debt.

Many of those who founded this nation bled and died so that we could experience “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  And yet we have tossed their ideals aside as if they were so much rubbish.

Our founders had experienced the tyranny of big government (the monarchy) and the tyranny of the big banks and feudal lords, and they wanted something very different for the citizens of the new republic that they were forming.  They wanted a country where private property was respected and hard work was rewarded.  They wanted a country where the individual was empowered, and where everyone could own land and start businesses.  They wanted a country where there were severe restrictions on all large collections of power (government, banks and corporations all included).  They wanted a country where freedom and liberty were maximized and where ordinary people had the power to pursue their dreams and build better lives for their families.  And you know what?  While no system is ever perfect, the experiment that our founders originally set up worked beyond their wildest dreams.  But now we are killing it.

Why in the world would we want to do that?

Most people are under the illusion that the United States has a “capitalist economy” today, but that simply is not accurate.  At best, we have a “mixed economy” that is becoming a little bit more socialist with each passing day.  We pay dozens of different types of taxes each year, and some Americans actually end up giving more of their earnings to the government than they keep themselves.  But that is still not enough, and so our state governments have accumulated astounding amounts of debt, and our federal government has amassed the largest single debt that the world has ever seen.  If future generations of Americans get the chance, they will curse us for the chains of debt that we have placed upon their shoulders.

So what do our government officials do with all of this money?

Well, today approximately 70 percent of all federal government activity involves taking money from some Americans and giving it to other Americans.

Despite this unprecedented wealth-redistribution program, poverty is absolutely exploding in this country and 49 million Americans are dealing with food insecurity.

Meanwhile, the bankers have been getting fabulously wealthy from all of this debt.  The Federal Reserve system was designed to trap the U.S. government in an endless spiral of debt from which it could never possibly escape, and that mission has been accomplished.  In fact, the U.S. national debt is now more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was first created a little more than 100 years ago.

Most people like to think of big banks as “capitalist” institutions, but that is not really accurate either.  In the end, giant corporate banks like we have in the United States are actually collectivist institutions.  They tend to greatly concentrate wealth and power, and socialists find those kinds of banks very useful.

In fact, Lenin once said that “without big banks, socialism would be impossible.”

While there may be a bit of animosity between big government and big banks once in a while, the truth is that they are usually very closely tied to one another.  We saw this close relationship very clearly during the financial crisis of 2008, and it is no secret that there is a revolving door between the boardrooms of Wall Street and the halls of power in Washington.  The elite dominate both spheres, and it is not for the benefit of the rest of us.

In America today, government just keeps getting bigger and the banksjust keep getting bigger.  Meanwhile, the percentage of self-employed Americans is at an all-time low and the middle class is steadily dying.

What we are doing right now is clearly not working.

So why don’t we go back and do the things that we were doing when we were extremely successful as a nation?

In case you don’t know what those things were, we offer these clues…

#1 “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

#2 “A people… who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.” – George Washington

#3 “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” – James Madison, Essay on Property, 1792

#4 “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.” – John Adams

#5 “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

#6 “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

#7 “I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements.” – Thomas Jefferson

#8 “Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine

#9 “If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” – Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, November 29, 1802

#10 “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” – John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention (1787)

#11 “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” – Thomas Jefferson

#12 “Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” – John Adams, 1765

#13 “If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.” – George Washington

#14 “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.” – Thomas Jefferson

#15 “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

[from an article by Michael Snyder in THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE Blog]

……………………………………

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Supreme Court saved Obamacare by declaring its penalty to be a tax…therefore dooming Obamacare because it violates the Origination Clause of the Constitution

If the president wants to witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation’s second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the Origination Clause, which says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

The ACA passed the Senate on a party-line vote, and without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats. What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on — the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote.

This case comes from Matt Sissel, an Iowa artist and small-business owner who is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates for limited government. Sissel neither has nor wants health insurance, preferring to invest his limited resources in his business. Hence he objects to the ACA’s mandate that requires him to purchase it or pay the penalty that the ACA daintily calls the “shared responsibility payment.”

In June 2012, a Supreme Court majority accepted a, shall we say, creative reading of the ACA by Chief Justice John Roberts. The court held that the penalty, which the ACA repeatedly calls a penalty, is really just a tax on the activity — actually, the nonactivity — of not purchasing insurance. The individual mandate is not, the court held, a command but merely the definition of a condition that can be taxed. The tax is mild enough to be semi-voluntary; individuals are free to choose whether or not to commit the inactivity that triggers the tax.

The “exaction” — Roberts’ word — “looks,” he laconically said, “like a tax in many respects.” It is collected by the IRS, and the proceeds go to the Treasury for the general operations of the federal government, not to fund a particular program. This surely makes the ACA a revenue measure.

Did it, however, originate in the House? Of course not.

In October 2009, the House passed a bill that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers — a bill that hadnothing to do with health care. Two months later the Senate “amended” this bill by obliterating it. The Senate renamed it and completely erased its contents, replacing them with the ACA’s contents.

Case law establishes that for a Senate action to qualify as a genuine “amendment” to a House-passed revenue bill, it must be “germane to the subject matter of the (House) bill.” The Senate’s shell game — gutting and replacing the House bill — created the ACA from scratch. The ACA obviously flunks the germaneness test, without which the House’s constitutional power of originating revenue bills would be nullified.

Case law establishes that the Origination Clause does not apply to two kinds of bills. One creates “a particular governmental program and … raises revenue to support only that program.” The second creates taxes that are “analogous to fines” in that they are designed to enforce compliance with a statute passed under one of the Constitution’s enumerated powers of Congress other than the taxing power. The ACA’s tax, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is not an enforcement penalty, and hence is not analogous to a fine, fits neither exception to the Origination Clause.

The ACA’s defenders say its tax is somehow not quite a tax because it is not primarily for raising revenue but for encouraging certain behavior (buying insurance). But the Origination Clause, a judicially enforceable limit on the taxing power, would be effectively erased from the Constitution if any tax with any regulatory — behavior-changing — purpose or effect were exempt from the clause.

The Court of Appeals sits six blocks from the Senate, which committed the legislative legerdemain of pretending to merely amend a House bill while actually originating a new one. Across the street from the Senate sits the Supreme Court, where this case may be headed.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court saved the ACA by declaring its penalty to be a tax. It thereby doomed the ACA as an unconstitutional violation of the Origination Clause.

[by George F. Will, writing for The Washington Post]

…………………………………..

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized