venturacountyteaparty

Will YOU Save Freedom? Catch The Tea Party Wave

 

Useful information

 

Copy of U.S. Constitution

Copy of Declaration of Independence

Copy of Federalist Papers ... and more   another source

Historic Documents

Founding Fathers Info

 

California State Constitution

 

Get your Free pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence

 

Order Multiple Hard Copies of the Pocket Constitution and Declarati...  Win more arguments.

 

Judicial Watch  Non-partisan, conservative organization that serves as an ethical and legal watchdog over the U.S. Government and judicial systems

American Center of Law and Justice is an organization dedicated to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms 

Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association stands behind enforcing the U.S. Constitution, nullifying unconstitutional laws/regulations and setting an example for appropriate law enforcement conduct.

http://www.articlesoffreedom.us/  The electrifying product of the 2009 "Continental Congress!" Also a downloadable file at the bottom of this page.

Bill of Rights Enforcement Site

Useful Constitution Site

http://www.constitutionfortheunitedstates.com/

 

See Website for Constitutional Studies

New Constitutional Studies site (ConstitionalClub)

LOADED with useful stuff!

chancellor james kent, james kent, kent commentaries, kent's commentaries, american law, commentaries on american law, commentary, commentaries, us law, united states lawsHome   -   LONANG Library   -   James Kent   -   Commentaries on American Law

 

Educational videos forwarded by Lana

About the Courts

http://www.shmoop.com/judicial-branch/faq.html

MONETARY SYSTEM

After 20 years of personal study, I released my own analysis of the monetary system, providing the essential information every American should understand about how our monetary system is responsible for the creation, growth, and perpetuation of debt, and the declining value of our money, incomes, savings, and investments. The information has been released in various forms to encourage its dissemination.

Free YouTube seminar

Book and pocketbook

o video short - 1913: The year our Republic was overthrown

 Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. an anonymous report

THIS IS A MUST READ REPORT. It is so important, in fact, a PDF version has been created. It can be viewed and downloaded from here (find the image of the report and click on it). The report documents a systematic and scientifically-operated scheme for controlling people, societies, and governments using various tools, chief among them the monetary systems of the various nations.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve 12345

GLOBAL WARMING

Lord Monckton, a former science advisors to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, gave the speech that stopped Cap-and-Trade in its tracks, at least for a while. Watch Lord Moncton's St. Paul speech in St. Paul as he explains it is not about science; it is about the sovereignty of the United States and the future of Liberty.

 U.S. CONSTITUTION

Michael Badnarik's class on the U.S. Constitution is well worth viewing. It is long, so you may want to view it a few videos at a time.

o Parts: 123456789

o Parts: 10111213141516171819

o Parts: 20212223242526272829

o Parts: 30313233343536373839

o Parts: 40414243

TAXES

Aaron Russo was the producer of Trading PlacesWise Guys, and The Rose. After befriending one of the Rockefellers and learning of the elites' plan for global governance, he dedicated his life to waking people up. He produced the Mad As Hell documentaries, and his final film Freedom To Fascism. Upon his death in 2007 at the age of 64, his website Restore The Republic was handed off to Gary S. Franchi Jr..

PROGRESSIVES

David Horowitz, a former member of the New Left and now an American conservative, has a lot to say that is worth hearing.

o David Horowitz & Glenn Beck on Obama's Communist Czars. 12

o How radical professors indoctrinate students. 12345678

COMMUNISM

Yuri Bezmenov was a Soviet spy assigned to further Communism in India. In time, he grew to love the Indian people and resent the KGB oppression, which resulted in his defection to the West. His 1980s anti-Communist lectures and books are worth studying.

o Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press: 123456789

How to Brainwash a Nation

o Psychological Warfare Techniques: 1234567

 Robert Welch gave a speech in 1958 predicting the 10-point plan to subordinate the United States to a Communist world government.

WORLD GOVERNMENT

Norman Dodd exposes a conspiracy to subjugate the United States and other nations of the world to a World Government. As chief investigator in 1953 for the Reece Committee into tax-exempt foundations, he had access to information not normally available outside government, from which he concluded tax-exempt foundations (such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rockefeller Foundations, Ford Foundation, and others) were using tax-exempt foundations to move tax-free money into tax-exempt organizations designed to bring about world government, in part through control of education. A very credible individual, well worth your time. - Norman Dodd: The Hidden Agenda for World Government. 123456

JOBS

The decline of America's economy is aptly displayed in an animated map entitled "The Decline: The Geography of a Recession."

EDUCATION

Charlotte Iserbyt talks about the dumbing down of the world. She "served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration. Ever since, she's been exposing how educational systems throughout the world have been gradually, and by design, homogenized under UNESCO coordination. The purpose has been to create a dumbed down, collectivized, easily manageable, global population that could be transitioned to a world governance system run on a Soviet type system -- a global slave plantation -- for the benefit of the dominant global hierarchy of world bankers and 'noble' families." [source: The LibertyChannel]

o The Subterfuge of America: 123

o Dumbing Down of the World, Sovereign Solutions interview: 123456

On Tax Exempt Foundations


Constitution Courses:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/02/free-college-course-meani...

 

Reading Library on America- Great- founding documents, law, history, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

We have  a lot of documents that Affirm your rights!  Now, here are some that endeavor to ROB you of your God-given rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution and the govt. it authorized:

 

 A shocker: The Treason Documents:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106417338/The-Treason-Documents

New States Constitution   USSA Fascist dream constitution

 

The unconstitutional ICLEI (Agenda 21) charter


Note to readers/posters: Reader comments are in chronological, indented sequence, with the newest ones on the higher-numbered pages below.  You must be registered on this site to post.

Views: 7018

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Rep. Pierce challenged on constitutionality of gun background checks

Dear Representative Pierce;

 

Thank you for your prompt response.  If you in fact believe in constitutional due process, as set forth in the amendments to the constitution, perhaps you can explain why are you doing your level best to destroy it with your HB 2322?

 

Citizens have a Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures in the absence of probable cause a crime has been committed, and in the absence of probable cause the citizen has committed the crime.  The existing compelled background check as a precondition to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is a search of a citizens’ person, papers, and effects.  It is clearly an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment on its face, and your legislation seeks to expand and amplify that illegal tyranny.  You would be well within your legislative authority to introduce legislationprohibiting background checks if imposed as a pre-condition to obtaining government permission to exercise any right.

 

Citizens also have a Fifth Amendment right to be secure from being deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  Privacy and being secure fromgovernment interrogation (search) is most certainly a liberty well-founded in the U.S. rule of law.  The existing compelled background checks are therefore clearly an egregious violation of the Fifth Amendment on its face, and your legislation seeks to expand and amplify that illegal tyranny as well.  Again, You would be well within your legislative authority to introduce legislation prohibiting background checks as a pre-condition for obtaining government permission to exercise any right. – but you are not privileged to introduce or advance or support legislation infringing upon our fundamental rights to due process and liberty from government intrusion into our affairs.

 

I would also like to point out that as a matter of long-standing legal doctrine, no government, at any level, has any delegated authority to compel any citizen to waive a right or rights (such as the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to be secure from government interrogation in the absence of probable cause of wrongdoing) as a pre-condition to exercising a right (such as the right to keep and bear arms or any other right).  To do so is extortion.

 

You might also consider the fact that no government, at any level, has any delegated authority to compel any citizen to ask permission to exercise his fundamental rights that are already his and are not issued by government.  Government is not delegated the authority to issue or deny permission to exercise a right.

 

I understand that the fundamental liberties our nation was founded to preserve and protect are frightening to statists and tyrants and their wannabes and sycophants, but they are precisely why we fought the American Revolution and two World Wars.  Certain factions of our own population and powerful individuals of international influence have been chipping away at our liberties for a couple of centuries in a relentless effort to restore our nation to the status of a feudal satrapy, and it is time to call a halt.

 

Accordingly, sir, you are herewith notified that to the extent your legislation, or any other at a local, State, federal, or international level, is not pursuant to the fundamental delegation of limited power to the federal government, or restrictions of power imposed upon the States and local governments (see Article IV Section 2 Clause 1, Article VI Clause 2 in pertinent part, and Amendments II, IV, V, IX and X), the results will be regarded as null and void color of law emanating from a rogue occupation government that has abdicated its lawful authority to govern.  Any attempted enforcement of same will be without lawful authority and by definition the actions of a criminal marauder.  We, the people, reserve the right to walk away from and to the extent possible, ignore government not remaining within its limited charter.

 

(Disclaimer:  I am a Constitutional scholar of 39 years standing, but I am not admitted to the Bar and I do not give legal advice.  The above is an exercise of my freedom to exercise political free speech.  If you need legal advice, consult your own lawdog or legal beagle.  Don’t believe anything the lawdog says, but get what the legal beagle tells you in writing so you can act on it with relative impunity.)

 

Discussion welcome.  It is time to restore our free country.

 

--Don Cline

frdmftr@frdmftr.net

www.frdmftr.net

A federal government which does not derive its lawful and limited authority from the Constitution of the United States is by definition an occupation government and criminal regime.  Its authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey it.

                                                    --Donald L. Cline

 

 

From: Justin Pierce

Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:44 PM
To: 'Don Cline'
Subject: RE: Question

 

I do believe in constitutional due process, as set forth in the amendments to the constitution.

 

 

Justin Pierce

Chairman, Committee on Public Safety,  Military & Regulatory Affiars

Arizona House of Representatives 

 

From: Don Cline [mailto:frdmftr@frdmftr.net
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 10:48 PM
To: Justin Pierce
Subject: Question

 

Dear Representative Pierce;

 

I’m wondering if you believe in the fundamental, and Constitutional, right to due process?  You know, does a private citizen have a right to be secure from interrogation and intrusion into their persons, houses, papers, and effects in the absence of probable cause of wrongdoing, as provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

 

Please let me know; I’m working on a thesis.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Donald L. Cline

 

  • SOVEREIGNTY

    Germany's Basic Law ("Grundgesetz") says, "All state authority emanates from the people." The German people are the absolute authority of Germany, not the illegitimate government.

    The German people exercise, by virtue of their Sovereignty, "this Basic Law," not by means of illegitimate authorities. The German people have been declaring "this Basic Law" since May 23, 1949.

Your 4th Amendment rights related to vehicle searches have already been severely eroded, vis-a-vis the Constitution. Here's what remains, according to anon-lawyer researcher:

NMA E-Newsletter - http://alerts.motorists.org/

Issue #265

 

 


NMA E-Newsletter #265: The Ins and Outs of Warrantless Vehicle Searches (Part 1)

By Ted Levitt, NMA Member
 
If you’ve ever been pulled over for a traffic stop you’ve probably wondered if the officer could search your vehicle without a warrant as well as how far that search could go. I decided to look into it. I am not a lawyer, but I have spent many hours doing legal research on this topic. The following two-part article lays out my understanding of the most current laws and court rulings but is not to be construed as legal advice.
 
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. It reads as follows:
 
 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
Varying interpretations of what is “reasonable” have caused most of the confusion with this doctrine. To further muddy the waters, the courts have repeatedly redefined the circumstances that allow warrantless vehicle searches. Generally, an officer can conduct a warrantless search of your vehicle under any of the following conditions:
 

  1. You consent to the search
  2. The officer has probable cause to believe there is incriminating evidence in your vehicle that directly relates to the reason for the stop other than the traffic violation (see the Chimel & Knowles cases later in this article)
  3. The officer reasonably believes that a vehicle search is necessary for his or her own protection
  4. You have been arrested for DUI or other state-specified offenses such as an accident that resulted in an injury or fatality
  5. Exigent circumstances

 
If a search is ruled as illegal, evidence or information obtained by the search may not be used to prosecute you under the “exclusionary rule” because it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (SeeElkins v U.S., 364 U.S. 643 [1960] and Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [1961])
 
In most states, search and seizure rules are less strict for a motor vehicle search than for one’s home or office. The courts generally allow an officer to search those areas in a vehicle “immediately within the driver’s reach” (Chimel v California, 395 U.S. 752 [1969]) which include the glove compartment and the vicinity of the front and back seats. This also includes the center console or other compartments on the dash, head liner, sun visor or door panels.
 
This justification has caused much confusion for police, prosecutors, defense lawyers and the public, not to mention the abuses that ensue. There are several key cases that deal with the definition and legality of what justifiable “probable cause” for a search is and is not:
 
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest ...when these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. Police must demonstrate an actual and continued threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest." (Arizona v Gant, 556 U.S. 332 [2009])
 
The key point here is “incident to arrest.” Under current case law, if the alleged offense is a “jailable offense,” the search is legal without a search warrant. Following this line of thought, since most traffic offenses are not jailable/arrestable offenses, a vehicle search without your consent, or probable cause, would be illegal. Exceptions could include DUI or other state specified offenses such as an accident that causes an injury or fatality.
 
Note that U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that your answers, or lack thereof, to an officer’s questions and your body language may meet the probable cause requirement. You are not required to answer any of the officer’s questions. You only need to be polite and show a valid driver’s license, valid proof of insurance, valid vehicle safety inspection sticker and in some states the vehicle registration.
 
Some courts have allowed the search of a vehicle’s occupants’ cell phones. The legality of this depends on where you live. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that police may search a cell phone found during a legal search incident to an arrest. States outside this jurisdiction have split on the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on this issue and a decision should be coming later this year. To avoid this situation lock your phone with a pass code, which will require the police to secure a search warrant before reviewing its contents.
 
What happens when a driver exits the vehicle and locks the doors during a traffic stop? This creates problems for the police officer. Once the driver is out of the vehicle, the officer can’t use safety concerns to justify a search. Further, if the officer orders the driver back into the vehicle it may be argued that he illegally and artificially created justification to search where no justification existed without his direct order and intimidation under his “color of law.” (US v Van Syckle, 957 F. Supp. 844 [1997], US v Williams, 419 F. 3d 1029 [9th Cir. 2005])
 
To avoid the above situation, police generally tell occupants not to exit the vehicle. The police may argue that ordering you back into the car was for everyone’s safety. If you are pulled over I suggest you have all the necessary documents ready before the officer walks up to your vehicle. That way he cannot see what is in your closed console or glove box, purse or wallet, thus preventing him from seeing something you don’t want him to and negating him from using the “for my safety” or “in plain view” justification due to your reaching for something.
 
To me, the most significant case on vehicle searches is Knowles v Iowa (525 U.S. 113 [1998]) in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police may not search a vehicle without a search warrant after a traffic violation has been written or the defendant has been placed in a patrol car. The court found that given the type of stop, there were no grounds for the policeman to believe that his safety was in jeopardy or that there was evidence in danger of being destroyed. Therefore, he had no probable cause to perform a search without Knowles’ consent.
 
The court stated, "Once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation; all the evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person of the offender or in the passenger compartment of the car."Also, since Knowles was not in custody, there was no custodial exception to permit a search.
 
Editor’s Note: Next week look for Part 2, “How the ‘Plain View’ Doctrine Relates to Warrantless Vehicle Searches”

President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013
forbes.com
The president has elevated the Constitution by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document.

From: gary 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:12 AM
To: Bruce Boyer
Subject: Re: Federal law: Driver Privacy Protection Act. 1994; worth your read!

 

Drivers Privacy Protection Act

18 U.S.C. § 2721 et. seq.

(Public Law 103-322)

 

Its much longer than this, of course but its real. Not surprising



Section 2721. Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State

motor vehicle records

(a) In General -- Except as provided in subsection (b), a State department of motorvehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor, thereof, shall not knowingly disclose orotherwise make available to any person or entity personal information about any individualobtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record.

(b) Permissible Uses -- Personal information referred to in subsection (a) shall bedisclosed for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motorvehicle emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, performancemonitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers, and removal of non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers to carry out thepurposes of the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, theMotor Vehicle Information and CostSaving Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the Anti-Car Theft Act of1992, and the Clean Air Act, and may be disclosed as follows:

(1) For use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcementagency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of aFederal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions.

Flemish roots of the Declaration of Independence?

http://flemishamerican.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-flemish-contributio...

PROGRESSIVES ARE WRONG ABOUT THE ESSENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Progressives are wrong about the essence of the Constitution

In a 2006 interviewSupreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the Constitution is “basically about” one word — “democracy” — that appears in neither that document nor the Declaration of Independence. Democracy is America’s way of allocating political power. The Constitution, however, was adopted to confine that power in order to “secure the blessings of” that which simultaneously justifies and limits democratic government — natural liberty.

The fundamental division in U.S. politics is between those who take their bearings from the individual’s right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom, and those whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected.

Now the nation no longer lacks what it has long needed, a slender book that lucidly explains the intensity of conservatism’s disagreements with progressivism. For the many Americans who are puzzled and dismayed by the heatedness of political argument today, the message of Timothy Sandefur’s “The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence...” is this: The temperature of today’s politics is commensurate to the stakes of today’s argument.

The argument is between conservatives who say U.S. politics is basically about a condition, liberty, and progressives who say it is about a process, democracy. Progressives, who consider democracy thesource of liberty, reverse the Founders’ premise, which was: Liberty preexists governments, which, the Declaration says, are legitimate when “instituted” to “secure” natural rights.

Progressives consider, for example, the rights to property and free speech as, in Sandefur’s formulation, “spaces of privacy” that government chooses “to carve out and protect” to the extent that these rights serve democracy. Conservatives believe that liberty, understood as a general absence of interference, and individual rights, which cannot be exhaustively listed, are natural and that governmental restrictions on them must be as few as possible and rigorously justified. Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification.

With the Declaration, Americans ceased claiming the rights of aggrieved Englishmen and began asserting rights that are universal because they are natural, meaning necessary for the flourishing of human nature. “In Europe,” wrote James Madison, “charters of liberty have been granted by power,” but America has “charters of power granted by liberty.”

Sandefur, principal attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, notes that since the 1864 admission of Nevada to statehood, every state’s admission has been conditioned on adoption of a constitution consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration . The Constitution is the nation’s fundamental law but is not the first law. The Declaration is, appearing on Page 1 of Volume 1 of the U.S. Statutes at Large, and the Congress has placed it at the head of the United States Code, under the caption, “The Organic Laws of the United States of America.” Hence the Declaration “sets the framework” for reading the Constitution not as “basically about” democratic government — majorities — granting rights but about natural rights defining the limits of even democratic government.

The perennial conflict in American politics, Sandefur says, concerns “which takes precedence: the individual’s right to freedom, or the power of the majority to govern.” The purpose of the post-Civil War’s 14th Amendment protection of Americans’ “privileges or immunities” — protections vitiated by an absurdly narrow Supreme Court reading of that clause in 1873 — was to assert, on behalf of emancipated blacks, national rights of citizens. National citizenship grounded on natural rights would thwart Southern states then asserting their power to acknowledge only such rights as they chose to dispense.

Government, the framers said, is instituted to improve upon the state of nature, in which the individual is at the mercy of the strong. But when democracy, meaning the process of majority rule, is the supreme value — when it is elevated to the status of what the Constitution is “basically about” — the individual is again at the mercy of the strong, the strength of mere numbers.

Sandefur says progressivism “inverts America’s constitutional foundations” by holding that the Constitution is “about” democracy, which rejects the framers’ premise that majority rule is legitimate “only within the boundaries” of the individual’s natural rights. These include — indeed, are mostly — unenumerated rights whose existence and importance are affirmed by the Ninth Amendment.

Many conservatives should be discomfited by Sandefur’s analysis, which entails this conclusion: Their indiscriminate denunciations of “judicial activism” inadvertently serve progressivism. The protection of rights, those constitutionally enumerated and others, requires a judiciary actively engaged in enforcing what the Constitution is “basically about,” which is making majority power respect individuals’ rights.

Systems of government

Introduction to Common Law

     
Dear George,
Supreme Court
Happy Fathers Day to all the fathers out there.  (And Happy belated Mothers Day to all the mothers; I'm a bit behind on my newsletters.  Come to think of it, I'm so far behind that I guess happy St. Patrick's Day, Valentine's Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, New Years, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Halloween are in order as well.  Guess we've been busy here at the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence!).

There are two weeks left in the Supreme Court's October 2013 term.  Of the 70 cases the Court has heard this term, 17 still remain to be decided.  Many of the most significant and contentious cases are among them because.   Here's a brief preview of the major cases still to be decided before the end of the month and also some initial commentary on a couple of the significant cases already decided.

But first, a note about timing.  T  he Court has sessions scheduled each Monday and Thursday for the next 2 weeks, including Monday, June 30.  With 17 cases still to be decided, that means we will probably see 3 or 4 cases handed down each session.  My guess is that they're going to try to finish up by Thursday, June 26, though, in order to avoid having to come back 4th of July week.  So we might have all the final activity compressed into 4 hand-down days.

For those of you who like inside baseball, here's a prediction trick that Supreme Court watchers often use.  Opinion assignments are made after each 2-week session of oral argument, and they are pretty evenly distributed among the Justices.  That means that you can make a pretty well-educated guess as to who is writing the majority opinion in any given case once the other cases from a particular oral argument session are already decided.  For example, it was a pretty safe bet that Chief Justice Roberts was writing the majority opinion in last week's Bond v. United States case, because he was the only Justice who had not written an opinion from the November sitting.  It was also a pretty safe bet that there was going to be one or more opinions dissenting (or at least concurring only in the judgment), because the case had been argued all the way back on November 5, nearly seven months earlier.  That usually is a red flag for a contentious decision.  More on this important case below.
 
Now for the substance of the most constitutionally important of the cases that will be decided over the next two weeks.

From the January sitting, we still have 3 important cases yet to be decided (and our Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is involved in all 3!--click the case names below to jump to our briefs):

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.  This is the case challenging the constitutionality of President Obama's use of the "recess appointments" power to appoint members to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate was not actually in recess.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit slapped the President down pretty hard with a strong originalist holding on the meaning of the recess appointments power (which, not surprisingly, was designed to fill vacancies in an emergency, not to give the President a way around the Senate confirmation process).  Our brief argues strongly that the recess appointments were clearly unconstitutional.

McCullen v. Coakley.  This case involves a First Amendment free speech challenge to a Massachusetts law that makes it a crime for anyone other than abortion clinic employees to speak on a public sidewalk within 35 feet of the entrance of an abortion clinic.  Time, Place, and Manner restrictions on speech -- and this one seems to be a "place" restriction, are generally permitted if they serve important governmental interests, but only if they do not discriminate on the basis of the content or viewpoint of the speech.  By permitting abortion clinic employees, but not abortion protestors, to speak, this law certainly looks like it was aimed at suppressing particular content or, worse, a particular viewpoint, and that's a big constitutional no-no.

Harris v. Quinn.  The State of Illinois, apparently wanting to give a sop to its public union allies, requires people who provide in-home care to Medicaid recipients to join the SEIU, a public employee union (even those in-home care givers are not actually public employees).  The SEIU lobbies the government for greater Medicaid reimbursement and, of course, extracts significant sums in union dues from the forcibly unionized in-home workers.  The workers challenge this scheme as an unconstitutional infringement on their freedoms of speech and association.

I'd like to say that the positions advanced by the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence will win handily in all three cases.  They certainly should.  But I must confess my "inside baseball" reading makes me nervous.  The public union and abortion speech cases both follow closely-divided cases decided by the Court over the past decade or so, and the subjects remain highly contentious.  The recess appointments case is sui generis, but just given the politics of it, I expect that it has been contentious at the Court as well.  The three Justices who have yet to write a majority opinion from the January sitting are Justices Breyer, Alito, and Kagan--two from the left side of the bench and only one from the right.  On the surface, that doesn't bode well for a 3-case sweep for the CCJ position, but the peculiarities of the cases make it less predictable than the ideological line-up might otherwise suggest.

The public union case has lurking in its background a recently-decided, closely-divided and still contentious Supreme Court decision, Knox v. SEIU, decided in 2012.  In that case, Justice Alito strongly hinted that compelled payment of union dues was unconstitutional in all contexts, not just in the context of the supplemental dues assessment that was at issue in the case.  That part of Justice Alito's opinion garnered 5 votes--a majority--and it also drew a strident dissent. If the 5-4 lineup holds, and I suspect it will, the unions will lose Harris v. Quinn, with Justice Alito writing the majority opinion.

That then leaves Justices Kagan and Beyer as the likely authors of the two remaining cases from the January sitting.  

The last time the Court considered an abortion speech case, it divided 6-3, with the speech ban being upheld in a case that led Justice Scalia, in dissent, to accuse the Court of crafting an exception to the First Amendment for pro-life speech.  Four of the Justices in the majority of that 2000 case, Hill v. Colorado, are no longer on the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter), and defenders of pro-life speech could reasonably hope that at least two of the replacement Justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito) could be expected to be more protective of pro-life speech than was the majority in Hill.  That would yield a 5-4 reversal of Hill if it was being written by Justice Alito, but if he's writing the majority opinion in Harris, that is not very likely.  Because Justice Kagan has generally been very protective of speech rights in other contexts, one can imagine a majority opinion in the case written by her, keeping Hill in place but distinguishing it, thus invalidating the Massachusetts law (perhaps on the ground that the viewpoint discrimination was more obvious than it was in Hill).  But Justice Kagen is also strongly supportive of abortion rights, and Justice Breyer was in the majority in Hill, so it is also quite possible that either one of them could be authoring a 5-4 decision upholding the Massachusetts law, perhaps with an opinion joined by the Chief Justice on the basis of stare decisis -- affirming Hill and holding that it controls the Massachusetts case as well.  I guess only time will tell.

That leaves the recess appointments case from the January sitting, with the majority opinion likely coming from the pen of either Justice Breyer or Justice Kagan, whichever one is not authoring McCullen v. Coakley.  The President's abuse of the recess appointments power was so egregious that I suspect either of them would join a majority holding that the appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional.  But if my predictions are correct and one of them (rather than Justice Alito) is writing the opinion, it will be a narrow decision, holding that the President cannot unilaterally deem the Senate to be in recess if the Senate itself says it is not.  That would not be nearly as broad and significant a revival of the original meaning of the recess appointments clause as Judge Sentelle provided at the Court of Appeals, but it would at least stop a century-long slide into obscurity of the original limits on the power.

The February Sitting is harder to predict.  Only two cases remain, but since only seven cases were argued in February (and Justice Sotomayor has already authored the majority opinion in two of them), there are five Justices who have not yet written a majority opinion from the sitting.  Very hard, therefore, to predict which two of the five are writing the remaining two cases.  One of the cases, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (which is consolidated with several other cases, including Chamber of Commerce v. EPA), raises important separation of powers questions about the regulatory power of administrative agencies.  The EPA sought to apply the rules regulating stationary sources of air pollutants to the much more nebulous (and clearly unanticipated by Congress) context of carbon dioxide--that is, the air we all exhale when we breathe.  The results of that expansion in regulatory power created so many absurd results that the EPA embarked upon the task of re-writing major portions of the environmental laws to make them fit the new context.  But as we pointed out in our brief, the Constitution very clearly says that all the lawmaking power granted by the Constitution is vested in the Congress, not in unelected administrative agencies, and it is Congress, not those agencies, that is supposed to make important (and in this case devastatingly costly) policy judgments.  Justice Thomas does not have an opinion from February, and if he is writing, we can hope for something of a revival of this important but of late all-but-dead non-delegation doctrine.  Justice Scalia also does not have an opinion from February, and if he is writing the majority opinion, we can expect a more faithful adherence to the statutory text than the EPA (and the lower court) has given.  Justices Ginsburg and Kagan are also waiting in the wings, as is Chief Justice Roberts, all of whom might be more inclined simply to side with the Government.  (The other case from February, Haliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, is an extremely important securities law case, but it turns on statutory interpretation, not constitutional law, so we'll let you read about that one elsewhere).

The March Sitting heard only six cases, and four of them still remain to be decided, likely written by any four of the seven Justices without opinion yet from March:  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan.  One of the biggest cases of the term remains undecided from the March sitting, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which considers whether the Obamacare mandate that employers provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their employer-paid health insurance plans violates the religious liberties of the employer (either as protected by a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or by the First Amendment's Free Exercise of Religion Clause itself), and also considers whether a for-profit corporation even has religious liberty rights.  Expect this one to be handed down the last day of the term (just as the Obamacare case was two years ago, and the same-sex "marriage" cases were last year).  Expect it to be contentious.  Expect it to have multiple opinions.  Hope that the Court adopts the position we took in our brief in the case, namely, that even corporations--which after all are simply the legal mechanism that people use to associate for business purposes--cannot have their religious views (or more precisely, the religious views of their owners) trampled without compellingly important reason.  Religion is more than something to be practiced only on private.  For most religious people--we used to use the phrase, God-fearing people--religion is not a Sunday-only thing, but something that shapes every aspect of life, public as well as private, business as well as personal.  The counter view, that we must leave our religious views at the church or synagogue door, is both pernicious and a complete repudiation of the high importance that our nation's founders placed on religion.

The April Sitting.  Eleven cases heard in April, and seven still to be decided.  About the only prediction I can make based on my "inside baseball" matrix is that Justice Kennedy is not likely to be writing any of the remaining majority opinions from the April sitting; he already has written two.  Justices Ginsburg and Alito already have one each, but with seven still to be decided and only six Justices without opinion, either one of them could be writing the seventh. 

There are some closely-watched cases from this sitting that may have huge ramifications.  Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, for example, considers whether post-judgment discovery against a foreign nation to identify assets that can be used to satisfy a judgment is limited to assets within the United States, or anywhere in the world.  Billions of dollars of defaulted Argentinian bonds are at stake, so the case has certainly captured the interest of Wall Street.  I have no idea what the Court is going to do with it.

Those living instead on Main Street (which is to say, most of us), might find United States v. Clarke to be of interest.  That case involves the amount of evidence necessary to get a hearing challenging whether the issuance of a summons by the IRS was done for an improper purpose.  Given all the scandals brewing over at the IRS in recent years, including the recent revelation that the government may have destroyed (er, I mean "lost") critical Lois Lerner email exchanges with the FBI, Department of Justice and the White House, the Government really wants to prevent such evidentiary hearings, and I suspect the Court is going to allow them only in a more narrow set of circumstances than the broad language utilized by the lower court in ruling for the taxpayer might otherwise suggest.  (By the way, you can watch my brief update from this morning's Fox News' America's News Headquarters show on our own IRS litigation, which we filed last October on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage for the illegal disclosure of its tax returns).

There are also a couple of Fourth Amendment cases still to be decided.  Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie both deal with cell phone searches--we've been searching the history books for the founders' views on that, but so far haven't found any evidence of James Madison sending tweets or texts to Thomas Jefferson!  But the big constitutional case, in which our Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed a brief is Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus.  SBA List is challenging the constitutionality of an Ohio statute that let a sitting member of Congress shut down its core political speech before an election on the claim that, in the Congressman's view, the speech was false.  SBA List had (quite correctly) contended in proposed ads that the Congressman, a rare pro-life Democrat, had cast a vote in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion by voting for Obamacare.  If Government can shut down speech, particularly speech during an election that is critical of our elected officials, then we're in deep trouble.  SBA List lost below, so it is very important that the Justices at the Supreme Court reverse that dangerous decision.  I think they will.

A Brief Word on cases already decided.  A couple of biggies are already in the books.  Here are the most noteworthy of them:

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority in this 5-4 decision striking down aggregate limits on contributions that individual donors can make to candidates.  Not how much a donor can give to any one candidate--those limits remain in place and on solid ground under existing precedent--but how much a donor can give in the aggregate to many candidates.  The reason the Court has previously upheld limits on contributions to candidates at all was because of the important governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption.  So you can't give more than $2,600 to a candidate for Congress.  But the aggregate limit ($48,600 total), meant a donor could back 18 candidates for federal office but not a 19th.  The Court held that such a limit just curtailed speech, without advancing the Government's interest in avoiding quid pro quo corruption.  A good result for the First Amendment!

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Nec....  The name of the Plaintiffs in this case, "By Any Means Necessary," or BAMN, says a lot.  The Coalition was bent on protecting race-based affirmative action by any means necessary, including challenging a statewide constitutional amendment adopted by Michigan that prohibited the use of race in college admissions.  One would have thought that the Constitution's requirement that "No State shall deprive to any person the Equal Protection of the laws" would not only allow but should require such a law as the People of Michigan adopted.  But BAMN argued that "constitutionalizing" a color-blind requirement made it more difficult for minority groups to get preferential treatment in admissions than, say, athletes and violinists, and that it therefore violated equal protect not to allow them to get special treatment.  Believe it or not, that tortured logic was accepted by the Court of Appeals, but happily reversed by the Supreme Court (although in a contentious, 5-4 decision).  See our important brief in the case here.

Town of Greece v. Galloway.  The town council of Greece, New York, decided to restart an old tradition of opening city council meetings with an invocation.  They invited every minister in town to participate on a rotating basis, but because most of the churches in town were of one or another Christian denomination, most of the invocations were (unsurprisingly) Christian in nature.  Some of them even mentioned (gasp) the name of Jesus.  So the Town was sued, but someone of the Jewish faith and an atheist.  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the invocation was too religious and struck it down as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which has been applied to the States for about the last 70 years).  But this notion that the Establishment Clause prevents any reference to religion in public bears no resemblance to what the Founders intended with the prohibition on the Establishment of Religion.  Those old establishments coerced people to adhere to a particular faith as a condition for holding office, or supported a preferred Church with taxes coerced from people who did not share that particular faith.  Modern court decisions have suggested that any government involvement that even appears to endorse a particular religious view is unconstitutional, and the result has increasingly been to expunge religion from the public square.  Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court, albeit a slim 5-4 majority of the Court, reversed the Second Circuit, upholding the invocation because the Town did not limit it to Christian prayer-givers and because no one was coerced into participating or supporting it.  That's a big step in the right direction toward restoring the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, a position we argued forcefully in our brief in the case.

Bond v. United States.   A century ago, Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes wrote in a short opinion dealing with a treaty on migratory birds, Missouri v. Holland, that anything done via a treaty could be implemented by Congress, even if Congress did not otherwise have constitutional authority over the subject.  Such a position would obliterate any notion that ours is a government of only limited powers, because whatever the federal government could not accomplish directly, it could accomplish by the mere expedient of entering into a treaty with some foreign nation that would "authorize" Congress to pass laws it had no authority to pass.  The Bond case presented the first opportunity in decades to challenge that power-expanding view.  Carol Ann Bond was excited to learn that her best friend was soon to have a baby, but her excitement turned to anger when she discovered that the father was actually Carol's own husband.  Carol worked in a chemical manufacturing plant, and took some of the chemicals to sprinkle on the door handles of her former friend's car and home door.  A small chemical burn was the result, but instead of being prosecuted by the local D.A. for assault, Mrs. Bond was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for violating the act of Congress implementing the International Treaty Against the Use of Chemical Weapons.  I kid you not!   Well, Mrs. Bond challenged the constitutionality of that law, and also the correctness of Justice Holmes's old decision in Holland.  Mrs. Bond won unanimously, but unfortunately, six of the Justices (led by Chief Justice Roberts) effectively rewrote the statute so that it did not cover Mrs. Bond's conduct, in order to avoid the very important constitutional question she had raised.  But three Justices--Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito--took up the Constitutional question and all agreed, for one reason or another, thatMissouri v. Holland was wrongly decided and needed to be overruled.  None of the other Justices took issue with their reasoning.  Our brief in the case explains why overruling Missouri v. Holland is such an important project for the return to limited government. 

That's all the news and predictions for now.  You may have noticed that the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is involved in a particularly large number of cases this year.  Actually, it has been that way for the past couple of years, and much thanks is due to my colleague, Tom Caso, who directs the constitutional litigation clinic we sponsor at the Chapman University Fowler School of Law, and to the law students in that clinic.  We like to get involved when there are important constitutional issues at stake, and that seems to be happening with increasing frequency.  If you'd like to help us in these efforts, please make "liberal" use of the Donate button below!  Or contact me directly by reply email.

And, as always, thank you for all your support and kind notes.

John Eastman

donate_now_org_btn.gif 
To support the work of the Claremont Institute's  
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Announcement

 Thank God he's gone from WH!   27 Grievances-        Updated: Read

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Things everyone should know:

http://shadowstats.com

U.S. Debt Clock.org 

Federal Budget

Spending Disaster

Derivatives Summary

The American Dream Movie

Obamacare Benefits

Tea Party Prepping for Emergencies

$16 Trillion Secret Fed Bailouts

Fed Rsrv Monetary Options

WH Executive Orders

Free Books- Gutenburg

---------------------

Member of Tea Party Action Alliance

Our Sister Tea Parties:

 

 

 RestoringPatriotism

     Santa Clarita

 

------------------- 

Latest Activity

David is now a member of venturacountyteaparty
Mar 8
James O'Brien updated their profile
Nov 10, 2020
James O'Brien is now a member of venturacountyteaparty
Nov 9, 2020
Ventura Patriot posted a blog post

Trump Gets Fifth Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

This post keeps vanishing from Fauxbook. I don't know if it's all accurate. Most seems to be but I am unable to verify some of the words attributed to Putin. http://impiousdigest.com/trump-gets-fifth-nobel-peace-prize-nomination/See More
Oct 12, 2020
James is now a member of venturacountyteaparty
Mar 26, 2020
Ventura Patriot posted blog posts
Jan 4, 2020
JERRY BALLARD posted photos
Nov 2, 2019
JERRY BALLARD posted photos
Oct 29, 2019
JERRY BALLARD posted photos
Oct 25, 2019
JERRY BALLARD left a comment for Ventura Patriot
"Thank you, been busy on Mewe.com, and Twitter, but Twitter blocked my conservative speech and Facebook don't like me either.... (I love it)  Have not been sick, just creating political Graphics and fighting Democrats whenever I can - Jerry…"
Oct 24, 2019
JERRY BALLARD updated their profile
Oct 24, 2019
Charles Wierzbicki posted discussions
Sep 20, 2019
Charles Wierzbicki replied to Ventura Patriot's discussion Open Mike
"Global Warming Hysterics, Now Push Eating Human Flesh To Cope With 'Climate Change' Climate hysteria dystopian life is imitating Charlton Heston's art, as attendees at a "summit" on food in the (climate-ravaged) future were…"
Sep 20, 2019
Charles Wierzbicki posted a status
"Hi everyone, you should all recall me , i have not been posting on for about two year.s or more now"
Sep 20, 2019

“consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution (i.e. the States), to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another--by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800, James Madison. 

If a nation can't define its boundaries, who comes in and on what terms, then it can't sustain itself culturally, financially, politically, morally and with security.  It's not a nation.- G. Miller 

McCain remarks from inside the Egy territory to the W.Post insults the Egy sovereignty.we consider him persona non grata.an unwelcome person— Egyptian Cabinet (@Cabinet_eg) August 6, 2013

"A lawyer is a person who knows the law" (Black’s Law Dictionary & other.) "It is said that all persons are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the Law excuses no one." (16 AM JUR 2D Sec. 178, 256.) Therefore all persons are presumed to be Lawyers.- Randy Due (illegally klidnapped by FBI and detained) 

A federal government which does not derive its lawful and limited authority from the Constitution of the United States is by definition an occupation government and criminal regime.  It’s authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey it.  --Donald L. Cline

When Party Loyalty Demands You Support a Creep, It's Time to Walk Away-- Jim Geraghty

Everybody is still talking about the other baby, the royal baby. In fact, I saw that President Obama released a statement congratulating Prince William and Kate Middleton on the birth of their son. Then he said, “And whatever you do — hang on to that birth certificate.” - Jimmy Fallon

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”-- Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Bounel Soebarkah

"And if you didn't know, the only difference between socialism and communism is an AK-47 aimed at your head."-  Quang Nguyen

Solution to the problem in Egypt :

They want a new Muslim leader, Give them ours. 

The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.

-          Roger Ailes, Fox News

When Satan is knocking at your door, simply say, "Jesus, could You please get that for me.

- unknown

"There are 27 amendments in the Constitution but only one says 'shall not be infringed,'" Steve Toth said. "The Second Amendment is the amendment that keeps the people free."

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” – James Madison 

"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred." - Niccolo Machiavelli

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” - "Obama", 2008

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

This country does not need to have a conversation about how many bullets should go in a clip. It does need to have a conversation about how many parents should go in a family. It needs to talk about the ghettos of Obamerica and have a serious conversation about broken families and generational dependency. It needs to have a conversation about funneling new immigrants from broken parts of the world into areas already suffering from high levels of unemployment and street violence.- Daniel Greenfield

Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants and debt is the money of slaves.- Traditional

  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

A federal government which does not derive its lawful and limited authority from the Constitution of the United States is by definition an occupation government and criminal regime.  It’s authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey it. --Donald L. Cline

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

“Disarmament of the populace is always the first step to depriving them of their civil rights and human rights…many African-Americans and women are actively assaulting the very document that first secured their own freedom... if you do not believe in the Bill of Rights, then you are not, at heart, an American.” – Mike Adams

Only in America could liberals talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.

We need to demythologize guns before the liberal attempt to create a totemic fear of them succeeds. If the gun control mentality promoting fear of guns themselves becomes our national mentality, we would turn the clock back to the days when a warrior class ruled over the people because only they had the confidence and expertise to deploy the means of defense and coercion. The gun control agenda will turn us into a people too timid to defend themselves from our would-be masters. – Alan Keyes

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture. – Larry Correia'

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person! Stevenson called back: That's not enough, madam, we need a majority.

The economy is so bad, MSNBC had to lay off 300 Obama spokesmen. - Jay Leno

'Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

“What we’re watching here today is the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate,” he said. “The mainstream media is Woodward and Bernstein. Watergate is Benghazi. Except this time, Woodward and Bernstein are helping Nixon cover it up.”-- Russ Limbaugh

Lets see if I have this straight...Former President Bill Clinton ... who lied to his own wife... was convicted of perjury ... disbarred from practicing law in his home state... an admitted philanderer ... who "Never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" ... Impeached by the US House of Representatives ... is giving testimonials for Barrack Obama's character and intentions!!!???  Is this a great country or what!?

 "Thanking Obama for killing Bin Laden is like going into McDonalds and thanking Ronald McDonald for the hamburger. It's the guy cooking the burger that should get the credit, not the clown."

referring to 10-3-12 debate: "Obama made a lot of good points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney." - Bill Maher, million dollar Obama donor

How can we stand up to someone that creates a 100 dollar Federal Reserve (FR) note for 2 cents and uses the face value of the note of 100 dollars to buy a 100 dollar U.S. Security where the government has to pay them 4% in interest at the end of the year? A yearly cost of 4 FR notes where it only cost the FR 2 cents to print.

This is the biggest Conspiracy you may ever encounter and this started sometime around 1913. Yes, your parents and their parents had so much of their time stolen from them at a cost of 2 pennies. And the National Debt is one big fraud. And this is not just in the United States but the whole world.- Steven Pattison

“Can you imagine a nation founded on the principles of God is being taken over by a party that despises God, denies God’s existence and wants to stab Israel in the back in order to support the Islamists who would kill the Jews and drive them out of the Middle East?”- - Michael Savage

"WE own this country, and when someone doesn't do the job "we have to let them go."- Clint Eastwood at RNC

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen”- Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro

“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”
- President American Bankers Association, 1924

"I think it is wonderful that Eric holder is making sure that Mexicans' second amendment rights are preserved!" - Bobby Florenz 

“My father was a hardcore conservative and a straight line Republican voter before he died. Now he votes Democrat.” (-Unknown)

Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.' Obama is under the mistaken impression that America's symbol is the bald ego." --The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto

 ‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’—Chris Kyle, former SEAL sniper

Remember just a few years ago when...

...the official unemployed was at 8.4 million instead of 12.4 million?

...the U.S. debt was at 9.5 trillion instead of 15.5 trillion?

...gas was $1.89 a gallon?

...the U.S. was friends with Isreal?

...food Stamp Recipients was at 29 million instead of 46 million?

...U.S. Astronauts didn't have to travel with Russians to go into space?

...our country's credit rating was a Triple AAA rating?

"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine."- David Burge

Rep. Randy Neugebauer put the burden into perspective: “It will take over 24 million man hours to comply with Dodd-Frank rules per year. It took only 20 million to build the Panama Canal.”

"Sixty-one percent of debt issued by the Treasury is bought by the Federal Reserve -- which is to say the left hand of the U.S. Government is lending money to the right hand of the US Government. ... Nonetheless, in a land where every mewling babe in the American nursery is born with a debt burden of just under $200,000, the president brags that only his party is 'compassionate' to have no plan whatsoever even to attempt to do anything about this, no way, no how, not now, not ever." --columnist Mark Steyn

Isn't it amazing how every facet of Sergeant Bales life,  high school, college, employment, why he left his employment, his brother’s employment, his wife’s employment, real estate holdings, a missed house payment , a missed promotion etc., is exposed within a week and the same fact finders can't find comparable info on the most powerful man in the world in three plus years ?

"We do not have a single document that proves Mr. Obama's birth in Hawaii or anywhere in the United States for that matter. The document is fake, the representation is fake.—Mike Zullo, Arpaio Posse Chief Investigator

" If they (SCOTUS destroy the Constitution, they will have destroyed that which created their positions." - Stewart Rhodes.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, NOT to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." -- Abraham Lincoln

"Quick, name something that government does better than the private sector that doesn't involve detention, killing, or eliminating freedom." ----Bobby Florentz

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."---- Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) 40th US President


“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” Obama’s lawyer Jablonski said.

 

“The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.”
--Author Tom Clancy

 

But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace. "  

- Thomas Paine.

 

"Look, the Taliban, per se, is not our enemy.”

- VP Joe Biden
December 2011

 

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and for people, equally in war and peace, and it covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of men that any of its great provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

– Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

 

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay. 

 

Calling Ron Paul "out of the mainstream" is a double-edged sword, because it also means he can’t possibly be responsible for the condition of the country today. 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-        - <!--[endif]-->Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

 A guy named Reggie Love leaving the White House to get a degree at the Wharton School of Business. I guess he realized you can't learn anything about economics in the Obama White House.

- Jay Leno

Laws and regulations which violate the Constitution are not obligatory upon any free man. 

(believed to be from George Washington.)

 

  “We’re at that awkward stage where it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

- Claire Wolf

 

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council and de fact president, had already declared that Libyan laws in future would have Sharia, the Islamic code, as its "basic source".
-       The Telegraph (good job Barack!) 

 

Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable     - Robert F. Kennedy

 

 "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -- Albert Einstein

  

The four boxes of LIBERTY:
1. soap
2. ballot
3. jury
4. ammo
.....in that order!

 

"The actual need for a service, its relevance and value is always subordinate to the bureaucracy. This is the difference from the private sector: you go into a shop, and the sales assistant asks, 'Can I be of assistance to you, sir?' You go into a government agency: 'Get to the back of the queue and wait until you are called!”'

-       Alistair Mcleod

 

 

 "Only Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words. His unadorned insistence on respect. He promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline."  

– Barack Hussein Obama 

 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

-Oscar Wilde

 

“Anyone with an Obama 2012 Bumper Sticker is a Threat to the Gene Pool”

Congressman Allen West

 

“The Only People Who Don’t Want to Disclose the Truth are Those with Something to Hide."

- Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro

 

"If it takes a village to raise your kid, you’re in the wrong country."

-  Seen by Tim Clack II

  

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

-Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah Bounel

  

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. " 

- Noam Chomsky

  

"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself." -

- Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro (we are, Barry)

 

"…whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…"

Thomas Jefferson, Federal v. Consolidated Government

 

“Better to be paralyzed from the neck down than the neck up”

Charles Krauthammer.

 

"Sublata causa, tollitur effectus" (Remove the  cause and the effect will cease)

 "Civilization and anarchy are only seven meals apart"                          

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Rate these quotes!
Click open the quote you wish to rate, and enter your comments.
Want  quotes? Click here:
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/DailyQuotes 

---------

© 2021   Created by David M Stewart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service