It is very
easy to get angry over the fact that some of the same evil or inclined towards
evil people I crossed paths with in my youth, as middle aged (also), are
actively going about or actively pursuing the destroying this country. It is also very easy to say the wrong things
or even the right things the wrong way.
So I have had to pull back a bit before posting.
Everything we say or do in reaction to the
unprecedented Federal propensity toward practicing unconstitutionality or Lawlessness
is what will affect for the good or ill the outcome. Victory, if we are to have total victory,
must necessarily be first sought from an entirely legal and peaceful process,
even if we are betrayed from time to time, or uncertain as to who we may or may
not trust to stand up for their Conservative and lawful Constitutional Convictions. So in the meantime, if I may, I would like to
address a few concerns that I have had that likely is not being covered by most
others.
Homeland Security:
U.S. Citizens have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS when it comes to anything Electronic. Really?
Under Obama, Homeland Security has taken the position that any American Citizen has NO Constitutional Rights to privacy of any kind when it comes to electronics when you live within 100 miles of a U.S. Border. A January 29, 2013 Homeland Security Policy Position expects those under its umbrella organization
to take the stop and arrest point of view that if a U.S. Citizen (as well as any foreigner of any type) who possesses any electronic device that can store information while living inside the United States, on U.S. soil, up to 100 miles away from its border within the land of the States themselves, including the coastline attached to the Ocean - Sea - (or one of the) Great Lakes, i.e. in the ZONE, that individual has can have that property seized by any officer of Homeland Security on a whim.
In fact, it appears that through this new Obama policy, there need be no arrest, and no receipt of seizure made. As America transitions into a new tech age and a reliance upon it, there are now millions in the ZONE who depend on personal computers, cameras, and such devices to conduct go about their employment. And if these can be warrentlessly seized, who is to say that any company operating exclusively within the ZONE cannot automatically be put out of business by a totalitarian seizure? If you make your living by as either an individual or as a business by Computer, where you or your employees / representatives log in hours and send in work related data, in spite of the fact that you have absolutely nothing to do with illegal citizens or anything illegal, it no longer matters according to the Department of Homeland Security. They now claim the unconstitutional right to invade home or work or wherever you are, and seize anything that may store electronic information, without reasonable cause, without court order or warrant and you HAVE to submit or else.
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/crcl-border-search-impact-assessment_01-29-13_1.pdfUnder Obama, Homeland Security has taken the position that any American Citizen has NO Constitutional Rights to privacy of any kind when it comes to electronics when you live within 100 miles of a U.S. Border. A January 29, 2013 Homeland Security Policy Position expects those under its umbrella organization
to take the stop and arrest point of view that if a U.S. Citizen (as well as any foreigner of any type) who possesses any electronic device that can store information while living inside the United States, on U.S. soil, up to 100 miles away from its border within the land of the States themselves, including the coastline attached to the Ocean - Sea - (or one of the) Great Lakes, i.e. in the ZONE, that individual has can have that property seized by any officer of Homeland Security on a whim.
In fact, it appears that through this new Obama policy, there need be no arrest, and no receipt of seizure made. As America transitions into a new tech age and a reliance upon it, there are now millions in the ZONE who depend on personal computers, cameras, and such devices to conduct go about their employment. And if these can be warrentlessly seized, who is to say that any company operating exclusively within the ZONE cannot automatically be put out of business by a totalitarian seizure? If you make your living by as either an individual or as a business by Computer, where you or your employees / representatives log in hours and send in work related data, in spite of the fact that you have absolutely nothing to do with illegal citizens or anything illegal, it no longer matters according to the Department of Homeland Security. They now claim the unconstitutional right to invade home or work or wherever you are, and seize anything that may store electronic information, without reasonable cause, without court order or warrant and you HAVE to submit or else.
It is an international legal fact that after Obama was already in the U.S. Presidency (as a Foreign Usurper and putative United States President), he sent U.S. Ambassador to Kenya to officially recognize the place of his birth as being that of Kenya.
In 2009, the nation of Kenya dedicated what amounts to a national shrine in Kogelo, Kenya to what they call "the birthplace of President Barack Obama" (NOT that of his late father's, but that of President Barack Obama)?
In 2009, the nation of Kenya dedicated what amounts to a national shrine in Kogelo, Kenya to what they call "the birthplace of President Barack Obama" (NOT that of his late father's, but that of President Barack Obama)?
It reads in part:
It is my personal opinion and belief that it is the duty of every United States Citizen to at least passively (by legal and peaceful non-compliance) to refuse to obey an unlawful and unconstitutional order, whether it is electronic or gun confiscation without justifiable cause or warrant. Simple rule-making, be it by Congress or a State Legislature or by a fat-ass overpaid bureaucrat deserves to be challenged and resisted and counter-prosecuted by the PEOPLE each and every time. I still have yet to see one major news outlet or major Conservative use even a single one of these Supreme Court Cases. They are essential to justifiable and legal passive resistance.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
@ 176 "... The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.
@177 "… an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
@178 "... the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature...."
@179
... it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution
@180
contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
...It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, 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.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701
“… as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution.”
State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @ 433
“… Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution....”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877
"But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "
Challenging Executive Orders That Seek To Usurp Constitutional Authority NOT Granted
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952) @ 588 governs “Presidential Policy” as opposed to “Congressional Policy”.
I am including the context of the passage of this case which forbids the use of executive orders [along with Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653] from manifesting as neo-legislation unless they can PROVE ability.
To just say / lie, "by the powers invested in me by the Constitution" to legislate or usurp powers not there, is NOT a sufficient answer when properly challenged. We just do not hear anywhere near the discussion we ought to have from major Conservatives in bringing up Youngstown, let alone other relevant Supreme Court Cases. The Leftist Progressive think-tanks quote and even misapply Supreme Court Cases and Decisions with regularity. It is a necessity that if Conservatives are to win against the Liberal Traitors of this nation, that we familiarize ourselves with major decisions and utilize them. This is a necessity for Conservative survival and perpetuation of a free society in a free Republic for ourselves and those of our own generations living in it. We can only hope we persevere and leave those who come after us an intact and free Republic with the same Constitution and conservative values necessary to bring about the most freedom and prosperity to all that man can bring about.
We can only hope that all or whosoever will of the People of the United States of America (as well as those of the World outside of it) would turn their hearts to GOD the Father through Jesus Christ the Son, and that GOD would bless us individually, and in regard to the United States, as a nation, in His boundless benevolence upon those who love HIM: the GOD of Israel, the GOD of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the GOD who changeth not (contrary to Muslim Hadith lies and/or any Quranic fabrications).
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952) @ 587 - 589 reads thus:
It is clear that, if the President had authority to issue the order he did, it must be found in some provision of the Constitution. And it is not claimed that express constitutional language grants this power to the President. The contention is that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Particular reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President . . ."; that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", and that he "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though "theater of war" be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities.
Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The
first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . ." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may
"make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress -- it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.
It is said that other Presidents, without congressional authority, have taken possession of private business enterprises in order to settle labor disputes. But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution
"in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof."
The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand.----------------------------------------------------------------
Document Confirmation: Obama's START Treaty Calls Heavy Bombers As Nukes.
When I stated that the START Treaty pushed by Obama counted as one nuke, http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/12/obama-on-behalf-of-russia-suckers.html
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/02/see-i-told-you-soobama-unilaterally-is.html
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/12/obama-20-world-where-united-states-has.html
I was NOT kidding nor exaggerating. NOT even slightly.
A May 2012 Classified Report to Congress, redacted and de-classified and released on September 20, 2012, under the Freedom of Information Act http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/DOD2012_RussianNukes.pdf states twice on page 2 that conventional heavy bombers are THEMSELVES counted as if a nuclear weapon:
Note that under New START Treaty counting rules,. each deployed nuclear capable heavy bomber counts as one nuclear warhead·…
3 (U) Under New START Treaty counting rules, each deployed heavy bomber counts as one deployed nuclear warhead.
Then on November 27, 2012, we have the Internal Security Advisory Board (ISAB) report being asked to assess a strategic reduction of all United States Nuclear Weapons to very low numbers or to even zero (pp. 17-18 of the pdf)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/201403.pdf
It is my belief that ZERO / 0 nukes means the certain violent nuclear holocaust deaths of 330,000,000 people in the United States, plus many tens of millions in Canada and Mexico...perhaps 80% or more of their populations as well. That's a whole lot of unnecessary death.
Now while it may be Biblically Prophesied that it will one day happen, it seems to me that we are to walk in a way where we are to do what we can to NOT be its cause. The most important thing we can do in life, is to call people to the Faith of trusting in Jesus Christ unto eternal Salvation.
The Bible says,
Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: (Isaiah 55:6)
Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord's anger.
John 3:31, 35-36 The Prophet John the Baptist said in regard to Jesus:
31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 12:44-49
44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
For those who wish to come to the LORD Jesus and be eternally saved, here are two links to helpful tracts
http://www.jsm.org/documents/whatmustidoinside1-24.pdf
http://www.campuscrusade.com/fourlawseng.htm
But in returning to this nuclear emasculation issue, while under the Obama rules, making an airplane count as an imaginary nuclear bomb... I have a question.
Under Obama's rules, will it be that his Public Relations Spin Team will advocate that (using Obama's START Treaty Rationale) the United States should revise it history and claim that it had 35,902 nukes in World War II? The two we dropped on Japan, and the approximately 35,900 "heavy" or long range bombers which he and his "yes-people" now, under his START Treaty Rules, would reinterpret us to have had?
It seems to me, and perhaps millions of other U.S. Citizens of all races, customs, and most religious beliefs that Obama and they are clearly insane, dangers to society, and too incompetent to serve in the Federal capacities that they do. But in a society where tens of millions are on mind and mood altering drugs through prescriptions as well as illegal substances, perhaps the segment of the insane of society is cresting as a greater majority than we heretofore have ever known.
But even so, dare I ask what kind of psych test passes people as rational who are so irrational that they would count a conventional plane as if an atomic bomb, or that there are no evil leaders in the world who would dare launch a nuclear weapon against the United States if the United States no longer has a nuclear weapon and threatens to use a conventional plane to deter them from launching a multi-warhead nuclear missile?
Even a well placed high altitude detonation,
as high as 250 miles above the Earth using just a small 1.4 megaton nuke, was able to send an Electro-Magnetic Pulse that could knock out 300 street lights (and apparently their transformers) in Hawaii over 740 miles away from the Operation Starfish detonation that also took out a couple of satellites over Johnston Island, where it was detonated, while also creating direct but intermittent radio interference with an effective range of 9,000 miles (i.e., as far as Argentina) for up to one year.
If the altitude were lowered to 100 miles, 50 miles, 17 miles...even were the nukes detonated in flight over the Continental USA, the result of even 1, let alone 10 or 12, would be catastrophic. Likely everything electronic without a lead shield would be rendered permanently useless. Just think of how extensively we all depend on electronics. Obama depends on ignorance and dopified populations to blindly and naively TRUST him. And his nuclear policy is to strip the United States of EVERY nuclear warhead, and pretend a conventional non-nuclear deterrent would be sufficient. Bullshit!
Obama has already told us that he believes in an altered form of saving that does NOT save, and in fact, by experience, leaves him and others worse off than when he started. But even so, he thinks that if they make the most extreme sacrifice for him personally, that would bring about a mythical new age. But what he doesn't say, is that new age is all about his benefit, while the new age for the country is its perpetual and assured worse and most miserable state while being duped believing it would have his false promises of peace, safety, equality, prosperity when he fomented dissent, hate, corruption, greed, theft, etc.
“I worked as a Community organizer in CHICAGO! I was very active in low-income
neighborhoods, ah, working on issues of CRIME and education and, and EMPLOYMENT!
Ah, and SEEING that in some ways, a certain PORTIONS of the
African-American Community, uh, are doing as
bad if not worse. Uh, and
recognizing that MY FATE remained tied up with, uh, THEIR FATES, that uh, uh, that MY INDIVIDUAL SALVATION,
uh, is not gonna, uh, come about, uh, without
a COLLECTIVE SALVATION FOR THE COUNTRY!
Uh, um, unfortunately I think THAT RECOGNITION, uh, requires that we
make SACRIFICES; and this COUNTRY has not always been willing to make the
sacrifices that is necessary to bring about our NEW DAY IN THE NEW AGE.”
Glenn Beck when on Fox on St. Patrick’s Day 2011,
dealing with some of Obama’s influence on the issue
-------------------------------
John Brennan's motivation to steal or destroy Obama's Passports and other records held by the Department of State was in part because he converted to Islam? Yes, it makes sense.
It has been credibly charged, though not as yet sufficiently substantiated, that John Brennan the man who successfully conducted an espionage operation within the U.S. Department of State to destroy Obama’s passport file records
appears to have done so, in part, because he was a recent and zealous convert to Islam
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS executives openly promoting
Treason and the overthrow of the Government of the United States and of
our Rights under the Constitution without even the slightest shame.
I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.
To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office.
Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree. But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself. This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.
That ancient and outdated document he so despises for us to live by gives him the right to freedom of speech without fear of being assaulted. A proper U.S. President would be so incensed with the CBS "let's overthrow and destroy America" piece, that a proper United States President would have -- within 12 hours -- removed CBS News from the White House Press Corp and banned CBS News for the duration of his term in office, and refer to them as reprehensible and instigators for Treason Against the Government of the United States.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/28/cbs_news_segment_take_our_country_back_from_the_constitution.html
Professor Louis Michael Seidman of Georgetown University
Professor Louis Michael Seidman of Georgetown University
I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.
To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office.
Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree. But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself. This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.
That ancient and outdated document he so despises for us to live by gives him the right to freedom of speech without fear of being assaulted. A proper U.S. President would be so incensed with the CBS "let's overthrow and destroy America" piece, that a proper United States President would have -- within 12 hours -- removed CBS News from the White House Press Corp and banned CBS News for the duration of his term in office, and refer to them as reprehensible and instigators for Treason Against the Government of the United States.
---------------------------------------
Informational Videos:
Workers tracked on Internet by Big Corporations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y_MI-leGfYM
--------------------------------------------------
Google and Facebook - How they are handling your personal info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n4ils5kuyI8
Classic Movie Diversions
No comments:
Post a Comment