The Mainstream Media, the White House and the race-baiters
of the Black ethnicity of America have joined forces once again to divert the
attention of America and its Conservatives away from a crucial issue and
discussion of it. In this instance, the
issue is the illegal Health Care Mandate that was unread in its majority or in
its entirety by more than 90% of the members of Congress who voted for its
passage. This is NOT an exaggeration.
In order to downplay and remove the Healthcare debate from
the national conscience, the Media and the White House and the race-baiters of
the Black ethnicity of America had sat upon the February 26, 2012 Sanford,Florida shooting of a black 17 year old, who was in the act of attempted
manslaughter...
...in order to cloud out the Healthcare Debate and Discussion over what was presented to the US Supreme Court.
And it appears that all the major Conservative talk-shows
are so obsessed with the story, that a week after Healthcare has come and gone,
an issue that affects every single person in the United States…the obsession is
with one person and the open call for targeted assassinations by the Black
Panthers and black racists, not to mention Hollywood producer Spike Lee
tweeting a wrong address in the appearance of sanctioning murder, rioting, and
mayhem on not just George Zimmerman, but anyone with or even perhaps neighbors
with him. Had neighbors been killed by
Spike Lee’s reckless indifference, by those following the tweet to the wrong
address, or had the elderly couple at the wrong address Spike Lee tweeted been
murdered; Mr. Lee could have been charged with Murder in the Second Degree for
his reckless indifference. However, if
you are a race hating Black, (xenophobic to any and all skin colored peoples but those who have black skin like you -- if yous should {I don't}...) and if you intimidate and call for murder as a race
hating Black, under Attorney General Eric Holder, and the illegal Presidency of
Barack Hussein Obama II, the Department
of Justice will at least by appearance and precedence by legal behaviors and actions on their part, they will refuse to file charges or the Attorney General will over-ride
any in the field seeking to uphold the Law, and selective Civil Rights
enforcement.
Thomas Sowell gives us a clear perspective on the Healthcare Debate as far as it concerns anything said by Barack Obama. Essentially, if the mandatory Healthcare Coverage (or else) Law is intelligently discussed at length, the conclusion America would come away with is that Obama is nothing but a smooth talking LIAR.
Writes Sowell:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/obamas-lying-again/
One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.
...
He replied: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what
would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that
was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court
declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by “a strong majority
of a democratically elected Congress”?
The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years!
Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a
degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the
University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous
Supreme Court cases in history – Marbury v. Madison in 1803 – Chief
Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court
can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the
Constitution.
They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the
foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way Barack Obama
has never heard of it or really believes it to be “unprecedented” after
two centuries of countless precedents.
In short, he is simply lying.
Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying
presidents of the United States, I prefer they be like Richard Nixon.
You could just look at him and tell that he was lying.
But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you
would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is
obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down
education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.
He is also counting on something else – namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies.
... It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced
to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying.
Obama’s lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that
exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.
And that is not only the case there, but the National media (as well as the Conservative Media) is also failing to expose the scandalous nature, let alone the educational insights, of some of the exchanges that were conducted in the Healthcare Debates inside the US Supreme Court.
Let me just cite one example that should have rocked this country and been in the Media since at least Thursday March 29, 2012...and the Media is still stuck on the race-baiting of a Florida story, with the motivation and hoping that it will stoke the flames of national riots where blacks rampage and burn down their or other (I assume the Media preferably presumes these will only be inner city) neighboring neighborhoods in protest. They will say that this is merely a means to increase viewership and readership and the phrase "If it bleeds, it leads" is an American Economic principle for Media survival.
If we had to choose between the US Constitution and saving this Republic from that of the inconvenience of race riots in 30 to 60 US cities, I say "Save the US Constitution and this Republic". A few hundred lives lost is nothing compared to over 100,000,000 US Citizens (Conservatives and right of center Moderates of most political persuasions) that would either be liquidated or otherwise perish in a Communist-Socialist Totalitarian State, and necessarily so within the first decade (though probably in under 5 years, with some 30,000,000 in the first 18 -24 months and thereafter accelerating in order to "spread the wealth around").
That decimation of 100,000,000 souls which the Left views as weeds to be ripped out (rather than as people or human beings), would still leave a nation of 230,000,000 legal and illegal citizens in a nation where the Left has a goal of a reduction to something in the order of 140,000,000 to 160,000,000 for the continental US (then to be the continental Socialist States of America or SSA). Or words to this effect.
[[[[Updated portion, April 9, 2012:
In the meantime, the Media and the Obama Administration will wink, wink behind the New Black Panthers calls to create riots and mayhem, and commit unprovoked mass murder because of some paranoid schizophrenia that only the "black man" is allowed to have and be called sane -- at least according to the New Black Panthers.
Transcript of audio and repeat audio posting at:
"...we got to suit up and boot up…and get prepared for the war that we’re
in…this stuff got to boil over, and all your great’s talked about that
happened to be bloodshed involved with revolution- true revolution means some bloodshed,
so there‘s blood being spilled because there’s a new life that is
beyond this bloodshed. There is a new reality that is built upon your
original African principles and spiritualities and values and norms that
is beyond this bloodshed. But we gotta go do it."
No you don't gotta.
"...see the destruction of the devil‘s world and the devil’s society- and I‘m ain’t talking about no dude underneath the ground with a pitchfork and pantyhose. I’m talking about that blonde haired, blue-eyed, sometimes brown-eyed, Caucasian walkin around...."
And this is in response to an Hispanic American killing a Black American...blame the whites and have a race riot anyway. What imbecility is this, or what intentional and malicious orchestration is this? And as with Media Matters, Americans of all ethnicities need to wise up and ask the hard question based on precedence with the Obama Administration supporting and organizing the Occupy Wall Street uprisings and demonstrations and ask:
"Is New Black Panther Group Phone Call and incitement to murder, rioting, and mayhem also directly linkable to the West Wing and the Obama Administration as was the Occupy Wall Street Demonstrations? Is this Obama's own Phase II in order to declare Martial Law, and prevent a 2012 Presidential Election and over throw the Republic of the United States of America?"
America needs to know! End of Update]]]]] Personally, I don't want there to be race riots, because everyone is a victim except the manipulators who use this to attain power, wealth, sexual favors, elitist party and social invites, and what have you. These often poor folks who mis-spend their life frustrations are often set into a worse state for months and years to come. They need a hand up, and a right way...not to be a laughing stock collective by the elite, nor to be anarchists who destroy far more innocent lives than any guilty they seek to target. Irresponsibility puts them into a status of perpetuating perceptions as criminals, because fear by threats and actions of rioting does NOT equal power, it equals mistrust, road-blocks to employment potential, and creates a solidified second-class citizenship distinction.
I am of a mind and believe that most Conservatives, and not just me, that most of us seek to have ALL United States Citizens have and live in a first-class citizenship, with all the amenities and opportunities and showering of financial blessings earned legally and peacefully by whosoever can or will.
We do need to make distinctions of those who are lawful and lawless, and Constitutional and those seeking to overthrow the same. But with the illegal election and placement of Obama, and with the support of the Obama Hierodule Propaganda Media in full swing (while intimidating most all others), the lines of what is Constitutional and Legal and what is not (or shall we say what the new rules and redefinition of benign neglect illegality winked at into legality are) are getting more and more blurred.
The Huffington Post reported
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-health-care_n_1408264.html
that Clarence Thomas had a blunt assessment about the rapid-fire questioning from his colleagues during recent hearings on the nation's health care law. The queries weren't helpful to him in deciding the case, he said.
And Thomas suggested his loquacious colleagues should do more listening and less talking.
"I don't see where that advances anything," he said of the questions.
"Maybe it's the Southerner in me. Maybe it's the introvert in me, I
don't know. I think that when somebody's talking, somebody ought to
listen."
"We have a lifetime to go back in chambers and to argue with each
other,"... "They have 30, 40 minutes per side for cases that are
important to them and to the country. They should argue. That's a part
of the process.
"I don't like to badger people. These are not children. The court
traditionally did not do that. I have been there 20 years. I see no need
for all of that. Most of that is in the briefs, and there are a few
questions around the edges."
So let's look at one scandalous exchange that should have shaken things up in the news cycle far more than petty race-baiting incitements sweeping the Mainstream and Conservative Media alike, and one example where Conservatives of great influence "fumbled" in not driving forward to replace the race-baiting and pseudo hand-wringing issue of the Left.
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:19 a.m. ff.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT : BUSINESS,
ET AL.,
|
:
|
|
Petitioners
|
:
|
No. 11-393
|
v.
|
:
|
|
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY
OF
|
:
|
|
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET
AL.
|
:
|
|
ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAUL D. CLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS
Page 4 -
MR. CLEMENT: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest
of the Act cannot stand. As Congress found and the Federal Government concedes,
the community-rating and guaranteed-issue provisions of the Act cannot stand
without the individual mandate.
Page 5 -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel….[i]n one instance -- and we
might or may not say that it's unconstitutional -- Massachusetts passed the
mandatory coverage provision.
Page 6 -
MR. CLEMENT: … Finding (I), which is 43a of the Government's
brief, in the appendix. Congress specifically found that having the individual
mandate is essential to the operation of guaranteed issue and community rating.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: … I'm looking at it. The exchanges. The
State exchanges are information gathering
facilities that tell insurers what the various policies actually mean. And that
has proven to be a cost saver in many of the States who have tried it. So, why
should we be striking down a cost saver –
[Justice Sotomayor totally ignored Constitutionality of the Act in question, as it pertains to a required decision of the Court which states in
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html states that
“a law repugnant to the constitution
IS VOID. . . .”
and
“in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land, the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution, have that rank.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html states that
“a law repugnant to the constitution
IS VOID. . . .”
and
“in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land, the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution, have that rank.”
but rather wants to argue
as if a Legislator oir member of Congress still discussing a Bill, in regard to her discussion over whether or not cost savings that can be read into
something can justify a bill signed into law…and screw the Constitution. That’s HER argument.]
Page 7 -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I guess, on the bottom line, is why don't
we let Congress fix it?
Pages 7 to 8 –
Congress could look at it…and… could choose to fix what it
has. We're not declaring -- one
portion doesn't force Congress into any path.
Page 8
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well,
there's such a thing as legislative inertia, isn't there?
MR. CLEMENT: Well, that's exactly –
JUSTICE SCALIA: I mean -
MR.CLEMENT: -- what I was going to say, Justice Scalia, which is I think the question for this Court is -- we all recognize there's legislative inertia. And then the question is what's the best result in light of that reality?
Page 9 -
MR. CLEMENT: And I agree. We're simply asking this Court to
take on, straight on, the idea of the basic remedial inquiry into severability
which looks to the intent of the Congress -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, I wanted to ask you about that. Why do we look
to the -- are you sure we [should] look to the intent of the Congress?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Scalia:
[A]re you sure we [should] look to the intent of the Congress?
Nancy Pelosi,
“We have to pass the
[Health Care]
Bill so that you
[we]
can, uh, find out what’s in it”
You mean, YOU didn't know, Nancy? Because that's what John Conyers seemed to be saying.
John Conyers , No intent on reading the Healthcare Bill
John Conyers , No intent on reading the Healthcare Bill
John Conyers states to the effect that Congress refuses to read every bill.
Therefore the intent of Congress in regard to the Healthcare Bill signed into Law (without being read) is then what?
Answer: Unconstitutionality by means of Criminal Negligence and Irresponsibility. Or in the vulgar: “We don’t know what the **** we’re passing, but let’s pass it into Law anyway.”
And they expect THAT to be upheld by the US Supreme Court?
Good grief.
No comments:
Post a Comment