Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Take A Stand For The Constitution, For The Bill Of Rights, And Be Warned Of A Probable Joint Foreign Hostile Jihadi and U.N. Troops Invasion Obama Appears To Be Planning Conquest Of The USA With.

In the United States, we still have a Constitution that is supposed to guarantee certain rights and issue negative laws to tell the Government that it cannot violate those rights guaranteed by the Constitution, be it in the plain text or in the Amendments made to the Constitution. 

Davis v. Burke, 179 U.S. 399 (1900) @ 403

Where the Constitution “asserts a certain right, or lays down a certain principle of law * * *, it speaks for the entire people.”  

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @ 495, 528

@ 495  “Extraordinary conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary remedies, but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.”

@528    “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power."

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) @ 636-638
Government of limited power need not be anemic government. Assurance that rights are secure tends to diminish fear and jealousy of strong government, and, by making us feel safe to live under it, makes for its better support. Without promise of a limiting Bill of Rights, it is

doubtful if our Constitution could have mustered enough strength to enable its ratification. To enforce those rights today is not to choose weak government over strong government. It is only to adhere as a means of strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)@  14
"The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and, if allowed to flourish, would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government. If our foreign commitments become of such nature that the Government can no longer satisfactorily operate within the bounds laid down by the Constitution, that instrument can be amended by the method which it prescribes. But we have no authority, or inclination, to read exceptions into it which are not there. "

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.”

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29
"the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution."  

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."

The Communist-Socialists want to do away with the entire Constitution, because many of these are on power-trips and have psychoses of one sort of mental illness or another, usually aggravated by pharmacy prescribed medications they take and quack psychiatric counseling (which the majority of psychiatry, well over 50%,  de jure and de facto really is).   

Out of hand, they demand that by mere executive fiat, the usurper of the Presidency of the United States, merely by waving around a dark tone skin color in a nice suit while pretending Presidential legitimacy, merely by "executive fiat" wave a fairy wand and go "poof!" , he signed an executive fiat that by exigency does away with any number of rights guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights.  Neither a President, if we even had a legitimate and Constitutionally legal one to be in office, nor a Governor, can do what nutty Media Communist-Socialists advocate across the major television networks, be they to take our guns, the right of free speech, the right to openly be a Christian and worship as we choose, et cetera.  

Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932) @400-401
It does not follow from the fact that...every sort of action the Governor may take, no matter how unjustified by the exigency or subversive of private right and the jurisdiction of the courts, otherwise available, is conclusively supported by mere executive fiat."

Out of hand, regardless of consequences or logic or factual data, we are told by the big 6 controllers of the 90% of the Mainstream Media that we citizens of the United States who are conservatives or Christians or Veterans or any designation they don't like, magically now (because THEY claim self-deification) that we alone "HAVE TO" give up rights that these same advocates themselves refuse to give up.  They are quick to demand we lose our freedom to worship, our freedom to petition, our freedom of the press, our freedom of speech, our right to bear arms, our freedom to assemble...but THEY themselves ILLEGALLY and by ILLEGALITY demand to retain those rights we are expected to give up, so they can set themselves as little gods over us as if by our consent to be perpetual victims and they thus absolve themselves of any criminality in the matter.  

Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 US 90 (1886) @95  
"But the insuperable difficulty with the application of that principle of construction to the present instance is that, by rejecting the exceptions intended by the legislature . . . the statute is made to enact what confessedly the legislature never meant. It confers upon the statute a positive operation beyond the legislative intent, and beyond what anyone can say it would have enacted in view of the illegality of the exceptions."

While we still have a Court System that has not yet collapsed entirely into injustice and Communist-Socialist Judicial Political Correction Agendas here in the United States, the primary concern of free speech that crosses the line, in the opinion of the Court still holds, as in the area of free speech (for example) --  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) @52;   Yates v. United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) @ 318;  Hess v. Indiana 414 U.S. 105 (1973) @  107  --
whether if or not there is an abuse of doing more than what is implied as to what a right allows, such as if or not it imposed a "clear and present danger" to Society so as to cause actual immediate or imminent physical harm.

Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368,(1921) @373
"That the Constitution contains no express provision on the subject is not in itself controlling; for with the Constitution * * * what is reasonably implied is as much a part of it as what is expressed." 

Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 (1930) @383
"The language of the Constitution "has to be interpreted in the light of the tacit assumptions upon which it is reasonable to suppose that the language was used.”

Europe is being intentionally overwhelmed by hostile Muslims, many of whom include unarmed (for now)  ISIS and other unarmed (for now) Muslim terrorists,  who demand money, places to live that evict native citizens from their apartments and homes, instant service, and instant food that is attuned to their foreign diet.



We in America are not Europe.  

We are armed across all ethnicities and there is no way in hell Americans en masse, be they Democrat, Republican, or other will allow a bunch of foreign scumbags to come here, demand we submit as slaves plus give up our residences and become homeless and lose what we possess just for these foreign animalistic video game or outdoor range targets with legs.  But that impending invasion that Obama is just exactly what Obama appears to definitely be preparing to bring about and to soon to be attempting and physically pass from the planning phase into reality:  an invasion of hostile Islamic jihadi murderous enemies of military age and third world training, into the United States against the Citizens of the United States for the glory of Islam and as proxy armies for globalist conquest and population elimination.  The globalists apparently hope to be called upon as the saviors of those they kill to make the killing of millions that much more "delicious" to them, or words to that effect.  

In the language of 50 United States Code 21, Obama may try to direct the apprehension and removal clause against U.S. Citizens.  

50 U.S. Code § 21 - Restraint, regulation, and removal
"Whenever there is *** any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. 

The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct ***  and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety."

Mind this, the Soviet Communists acted with 24 hour or less apprehensions and executions against their enemies.  They bragged of a 90% confession rate.  It matters not what was denied, the average Soviet walks up, accuses, says the person confessed (even if they remained silent or entirely in denial) and blam!   Later, they offered mock military tribunal trials conducted in minutes for show, and the consequence was generally still "blam!"   That is no less than what we can expect of Obama when he orders hostile foreign fighter Muslim migration by the hundreds of thousands in a month or less to invade openly at his invitation, and forcibly redistributes wealth by dispossessing and killing the American Citizen occupant or owner, and gives everything of the household, including female family members as sex slaves to be beaten and raped and killed at leisure to the coming hostile Muslim Third World Fighter migration he will attempt upon the ARMED CITIZENRY of the United States.  

If you haven't begun preparations against such a day, prepare now, folks. 

Prepare against a day where Obama by executive fiat will pretend authority he does NOT have to force a hostile alien unarmed fighter army to invade us (and then himself calls for their being armed in protection against us before people can stop shaking their heads in disbelief and say "WTF"?), coat his criminality in pretended authority and humanitarian language toward barbarians and wring his hands against any who deny their right to rape and rob and kill U.S. Citizens, and calls all who resist as "evil", and will even publish his bullshit fiat in the Federal Register as if that makes it all legal.  

Once he initiates the full scale invasion, he will state he now has the power to institute "martial law", and use that to arrest and detain certain citizens (such as opposition politicians and various corporate and banking elites) and kill off those on his hundreds of thousands to several millions assembled by the National Security Agency "hit list".  

 Ex Parte Mulligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) @127
"Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectively closes the courts and deposes the civil administration." 

Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909) @85
“…facts that we are to assume are that a state of insurrection existed and that the governor, without sufficient reason, but in good faith, in the course of putting the insurrection down, held the plaintiff until he thought that he safely could release him.”

I would assume that in the status of Martial Law, they will probably want to do it a F.E.M.A. region at a time, of which there are 10 F.E.M.A. regions in the United States.  They who side with Obama and his fellow Communist-Socialist traitors will become proxy militias in advance or in support of U.N. Troops that will merely number in the many tens of thousands,  and spearhead attacks upon singular F.E.M.A. regions one by one, hosted by U.S. Cities that will give themselves over to United Nations Control, thinking it will give them grants in the millions of dollars and merely be a temporary rather than permanent thing. 

Patriots will pick these hostile alien invaders off by strategic tactics successfully utilizing cut - slash and run against superior forces, and at any time any invading U.N. troops splinter off from one to several  individuals, which always happens, the Patriots will either alone or in teams annihilate the invaders, and utilize these same foreign weapons against them. There are more of us than there ever will be of them.  Human instinct for survival and to keep what one owns against those trying to take it is far greater a psychological weapon in the favor of the Patriot than it ever will be for the tyrannical in any form of government or governance.  

The true United States Citizen Patriot will win any next war any domestic or foreign enemy seeks to bring amongst us on our own homeland soil, whether I live to see that day or not.   And if that invasion and war comes as Obama almost most definitely plans NOW to bring, there will be a reckoning, and a restoration of the Constitution of the United States by Patriots who will do to those attempting to destroy the Constitution and us what finality they sought to do to us until there is no longer any opposition within these United States of America.  If the invasion is called off, and the dispossession never comes, et cetera, then everything is nothing more than and exercise of the hypothetical.

Whether I live to see these times or not, it matters not as much as long as others are warned of that scenario, just in case it does come about.  there is still time for the right people in Government and in U.S. Society to thwart such a move on Obama's part.  And from what I read in the U.S. Code, Obama is not above being legally subject to a U.S. Military arrest and military tribunal in the 50 United States Code also utilizing these and the 18 United States Code, etc.  Especially since he is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen and is entirely without Constitutional authority, operating through fraud and usurpation of authority alone.  

Good and wholesome lives of strength and joy in goodness needs to one again be exemplified, lifted up, admired, and desired

There is nothing wrong with a life that exemplifies the good of human nature, of honor, bravery, fidelity, integrity, of a right and true faith in GOD and in lifting up rather than tearing down goodness and all the fruits goodness brings into our lives.  

Maybe we need to address this aspect of a more content and puritanical kind of life, one that frees and liberates while bringing joy and self-worth and respect to all who are willing to be intelligently and morally civilized, and perhaps we need to come up with examples that we can say that this or that character shows attributes we should duplicate, even if these are fictional characters much like the heroes of most in modern society.  So with an example, I leave the fictional character of a humorous but honest and decent Benton Frasier played by Paul Gross for your entertainment in two Youtube segments below.  

No comments:

Post a Comment