Sunday, February 16, 2014

DOES FREEDOM MATTER?


By John Porter

We Are Getting Closer To The Abyss Than We Think.

What was the purpose of the founding of these United States of America and the creation of our Constitution? Before the migration from Europe to this newly discovered land, all people of the civilized world were ruled by Kings. Even the original thirteen established states of this new land were ruled, as a colony, by the King of England.

Then something very profound and monumental took place, Independence was declared and the American Revolution was underway.  A war for the freedom of man insued. A group of men bent on their desire to be free and rule themselves in a land where the government answered to the people and not the people answering to the King and his court, rose up and risked their lives and fortunes in an attempt to end government dictating to, taxing at will, and over regulating the people. Through the shedding of their blood and fortune the American Constitutional Republic was born, an experiment in self government. As you know the opening shot fired in that revolution was called “the shot heard round the world.” It was so called because it was a rebellion against, not only the King of England, but against mankind being ruled by kings.

Kings, and dictatorial leaders all over the world heard that shot. They heard the shot that proclaimed that men were now in rebellion to being subjects of a government, or king, and willing to challenge it.

We Americans celebrate on July 4th every year, the marking of American Independence from England and its king, a very radical departure from governments which prevailed all over, “round the world,” at that time, and for thousands of years before. Never before in those thousands of years had the rule of kings* ever been challenged. Kings challenged each other, but never had the people challenged the kings and their rule.

  *Addendum: { It was known for many generations as "The Devine Right Of Kings" }

Is The United States An Exceptional Country? Barack Obama has stated publicly that he doesn't think it is. I quote Thomas Sowell, “You couldn’t be more exceptional in the 18th century than to create your fundamental document, the Constitution of the United States, by opening with the momentous words, “We the people…”

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, the elite who think that way, and that includes many among those who regard themselves as the educated and enlightened class, as well as the Liberal news media and political messiahs, find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of them imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

Barack Obama stated in a public interview on T V, "The founders made it very hard to change things as quickly as I want to." He also stated in a public speech, "If congress doesn't do what I think is necessary, I won't wait on them, I'll do it anyway." And again only, two weeks ago, he says in a televised interview, "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation. I've got a pen and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders." Never before in American history has any president so blatantly and openly shown such disregard and out and out contempt for our Constitution as the rule of law. He just simply ignores it. It is very apparent that his swearing to "uphold and defend" it, upon taking the oath of office, means absolutely nothing to him.

A campaign was started many years ago by President Woodrow Wilson, and continues today, to undermine and discredit the United States Constitution. Those efforts are headed today by the Progressive Liberals (Socialists) both in our news media and our federal government, and they are led, among others, by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and MSNBC.

The managing editor of Time Magazine, Richard Stengle, in an essay he wrote is a case in point, where he says, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn’t say so.” Mr. Stengle, I would like to direct you to the Tenth Amendment of that document, for apparently you have not read it. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.”

Our Constitution was designed to create a framework for a Federal Government—and worded to keep the government inside that framework. In other words, the Constitution exists for the purpose of limiting the powers of the Federal Government. “Does the Constitution matter?” “If it doesn’t, then neither does our freedom."

America, we are on a collision course with full-blown Socialism.

On November 4th all 435 seats of the House of Representitives and 36 Senate seats will be constitutionally vacated for us to refill. We are in charge of who will sit in them. Allow me to suggest, if we do not replace the "Progressive Liberals" with men and women who are defenders of our Constitution, we will be giving Barack Obama two more years of full power to complete his burning mission to turn this nation into the Socialist States of America. The Constitutional Republic of These United States of America will no longer exist and our Individual Liberty, to make and be responsible for our own decisions, will be gone from our lives forever.  { End }

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

OBAMA'S REJECTION

Of The RULE OF LAW


By Andrew Napolitano

Andrew Napolitano a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written eight books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent are "The Freedom Answer Book" and "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.


Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to comply with it. The government may not make a person or a class of persons exempt from constitutional protections, as it did during slavery, nor may it make government officials exempt from complying with the law, as it does today.

Everyone who works for the government in the United States takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it. In our system of government, we expect that Congress will write the laws, the courts will interpret them and the president will enforce them. Indeed, the Constitution states that it is the president’s affirmative duty to enforce the law. That duty is not an abstract formulation. Rather, it means the president cannot decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees or whose enforcement might cause him or his political allies to lose popularity. It also means the president cannot make up his own version of the law as a substitute for what the Constitution commands or Congress has written.

In the modern era, presidents have rejected the value of the rule of law and instead followed their own political interests. President George W. Bush, for example, while signing into law a federal statute prohibiting the government from reading your mail without a search warrant, boasted that he had no intention of enforcing that law – and we know that he famously did not enforce it.

But no modern president has picked and chosen which laws to enforce and which to ignore and which to rewrite to the extremes of President Obama. His radical rejection of the rule of law, which presents a clear and present danger to the freedom of us all, has had fatal consequences.

The law requires that if American tax dollars are being given to the government of another country, and that government is toppled by its military – the common phrase is a coup d’etat – the flow of cash shall stop immediately, lest we support financially those who have betrayed our values.

In Egypt, the military arrested the president, suspended the Constitution and installed a puppet regime. But Obama, embarrassed at the fall of the popularly elected but religiously fanatical government he supported, refuses to consider that military takeover a coup. Instead he has called it a popular uprising supported by the military, and he has continued the flow of your dollars into the hands of a military that has been murdering scores of peaceful demonstrators daily in the streets of Cairo.

The president’s signature domestic legislation – Obamacare – is scheduled to become effective in stages. One of its provisions, requiring employers of more than 50 persons to offer health insurance acceptable to the feds to all of their employees, becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2014. In anticipation of its becoming law, insurance carriers and employers have calculated that instead of costs going down, as the president promised, they will certainly go up, resulting in the loss of jobs. So the president, mindful of the midterm congressional elections in November 2014 and fearful that Democrats who supported this law might suffer at the polls at the hands of deceived and thus angry voters, announced on the Fourth of July weekend that he planned not to enforce that provision until Jan. 1, 2015.

Judge Napolitano’s brand new book explains how the government is taking your constitutional freedoms and how you can fight back: “The Freedom Answer Book”

When he wanted to use military force in Libya and Pakistan – two allies – without congressional approval, out of fear, no doubt, that Congress might turn him down, he dispatched the CIA to do his killing. Why? Because federal law requires that he report all offensive use of the military to Congress and eventually obtain its approval for continued use. Because the CIA largely operates in secrecy, the president needn’t report its behavior publicly or even acknowledge that it took place.

In the same vein, he recently moved all records of the Osama bin Laden killing from the military – which carried it out – to the CIA. Why? Because the military is largely susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act, which commands transparency, and the CIA is largely not. He probably fears that the truthful version of bin Laden’s demise will become known. If so, it would be the fourth version of those events his administration has given.

When he wanted to kill an American and his 16-year-old son in Yemen because the American, though uncharged with any crime and unasked to come home, might be difficult to arrest while advocating war in a foreign country, he wrote his own rules for governing his own killings. He did so in secret and notwithstanding clear language in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.

And when he wanted to keep us safe from terrorists but servile to him by spying on all of us, he established an enormous network of domestic spies who have access to all of our phone calls, emails and text messages. And he did this despite unambiguous language in the Constitution requiring a search warrant based on particularized probable cause of crime about the records he wanted to seize or the venues he wanted to search.

What’s going on?

What we have is a runaway government, dismissive of the Constitution it has sworn to uphold, contemptuous of the law it is required to enforce and driven by its own values of maximum control and minimum personal freedom. And we have a Congress supine enough to let this happen, as well as a judiciary so tangled in its own arcane procedures that immeasurable human freedom will be destroyed and Obama out of office before any meaningful judicial review can be had.

Is this the rule of law? What shall we do about it?


Saturday, February 01, 2014

EXPOSING THE NARRATIVE

By Tabitha Korol

Vijay Prashad’s propagandist diatribe in the Washington Post (A Caution to Israel, Jan. 26) contained abundant inaccuracies, with the obvious intent to disparage Israel and uphold the jihadist narrative. Under international law, Israel is not an occupier of Judea and Samaria. Jordan was never sovereign over the area after winning its 1948 aggressive war against Israel or after losing its 1967 aggressive war against Israel. However, because Arabs refused the partition, and could not win land militarily, they created a narrative to gain worldwide sympathy. It is well known that Arabs learned that Jews regained Israel and sympathy after WW II, and took on the mantle of victimhood for themselves. We are now all endangered by these pretenders.

Palestinians have the same academic freedoms as Jewish and Christian citizens in Israel, a democracy. It is the Islamic countries that deny basic human rights not only to Jews and Christians, but to their own women and children. If the cowardly world stood up against the Islamic-fascist bigotry, hate, and terrorism today, we might be able to retrieve the freedoms and peace we are all losing for tomorrow.