Posts Tagged ‘ Constitution ’

Weinergate and the American Public

This whole ‘Weinergate’ scandal needs to go away and Americans need to start getting back to real news.  OK, we all know that Anthony Weiner is guilty of being a schmuck! We need to recognize it and move on. There are wars being fought, a global worldwide depression going on and our constitution is under attack.

Scandals such as this are being hyped by the mainstream news media and are distracting us from the real issues that effect our daily lives.  If this scumbag refuses to resign his position in congress then we need not let it affect us. We need to wait until he’s up for re-election and vote him out of office and in the meantime start holding our politicians feet to the fire on more substantive issues such as exposing our corrupt politicians for trying to destroy our first, second and fourth amendment rights.

It’s already set in stone in the public consciousness that Anthony Weiner no longer holds any credibility. He self-destructed and is no longer relevant. His credibility has been severely diminished and Americans know it. So let’s recognize that this idiot is who he is and turn our focus and attention to politicians who matter.  While we are focused on this guys extra marital affairs and his weiner, America is fighting an unconstitutional war in Iraq and Libya. Unemployment continues to rise, the TSA continues to molest us as the airports, the government is fighting and information war in attempt to destroy our second amendment and corrupt law enforcement are trying to break our will by violating our first amendment rights.

McCain Dethrones the Rule of Law

Link to article

 

Sneering at the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, Senator John McCain (R. Ariz.) bugled last week, “No president has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any [60 day] deadline” to obtain congressional authorization to continue hostilities against Libya ordained by the Act.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate effused over unlimited presidential war-making, insinuating that the downfall of the Republic would come from fighting too few wars, not too many: “Any President, Republican or Democrat, should be able to deploy armed forces whenever and wherever he deems necessary.” Earlier in his political career, Senator McCain admonished that Congress has no “right to declare peace,” and trumpeted: “[T]he fact is that the President of the United States is given the responsibility, the most grave responsibility of sending into harm’s way our greatest national treasure, our young men and women.”

Senator McCain’s blather betrayed a sub-literate understanding of the Constitution and infidelity to his oath of office. The latter requires him to demand the impeachment and removal of President Obama for the greatest usurpation of congressional authority in the history of the United States. Instead, the Senator is conspiring with the president to facilitate the usurpation.

On McCain’s gospel hangs an alarming tale. The rule of law has been dethroned and the president has been endowed with absolute power as the American Empire has eclipsed the American Republic.

Eleven score and fifteen years ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation dedicated to the proposition that the law is king. They recognized that crowning the president with power to commence war unilaterally would be the death knell of the Republic. Thomas Paine sermonized in Common Sense, the Bible of the American Revolution, that “as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

In times of war, the law is silent and the executive is omnipotent. The Founding Fathers thus erected constitutional barriers against fighting too many wars. None fretted about fighting too few. Arresting portions of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the explanatory Federalist Papers were devoted to safeguards against military supremacy and the overthrow of civilian government.

The most important check against gratuitous wars that squander the lives and limbs of brave American soldiers was Article I, section 8, clause 11. It fastened on Congress exclusive responsibility for commencing war. Legislative power diminishes in wartime. Legislators have no incentive to concoct danger or other excuses to abandon peace. The president, in contrast, is strongly tempted towards war to aggrandize power and earn a place on Mount Rushmore. James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated with signature genius in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Madison amplified in a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

James Wilson underscored at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention,

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our interest can draw us into war.

Abraham Lincoln exposed Senator McCain’s Orwellian warping of the Constitution:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

John Bassett Moore, an authoritative scholar of international law, observed:

There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson voiced alarm at presidential war-making in his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer:

[N]o doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

In sum, there is nothing in the text, subtext, context or judicial interpretation of the Constitution that empowers the president to initiate war without prior congressional authorization. Yet presidential lawlessness persists and metastasizes like a cancer without provoking congressional or public rebuke.

Executive branch violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act, or the Convention Against Torture are ignored. The state secrets privilege is invoked to deny victims redress for torture or comparable constitutional wrongdoing. Suspected “enemy combatants” are detained indefinitely without accusation or trial. Military commissions supersede civilian courts. The United States claims unique authority to attack with predator drones or otherwise any nation on the planet to advance professed humanitarian causes, “regional stability,” or the credibility of the United Nations Security Council.

The Department of Treasury or Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve print or spend money without proper congressional oversight or direction. Annual Pentagon spending approaching $1 trillion is not audited.

Depend upon it. The day will soon come when the president usurps the congressional power to tax and to spend to address an asserted economic emergency with impunity. Most Members of Congress will meekly submit to vassalage and rejoice at their escape from responsibility for anything non-trivial.

The final destruction of the Republic can be prevented if the American people vote to oust every Member of Congress and every president unfaithful to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.

That would mark one of history’s finest hours in self-government.

While You Were Sleeping, They Abolished the Fourth Amendment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 17, 2011

Two recent Supreme Court cases have served to virtually abolish the Fourth Amendment in the United States of America, with citizens no longer being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In a precedent described by dissenting justices as “breathtaking” and “unnecessarily broad,” the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week in a 3-2 vote that doing anything to resist police busting down your door and conducting an illegal search is now a criminal act.

“[We] hold that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law,” the court ruled in the case of Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Dissenting Justices Brent E. Dickson and Robert D. Rucker made it clear that the ruling represented a total rejection of rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

“In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad,” Dickson wrote.

“In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations,” added Rucker. “There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The ruling was made under the justification that resisting a police officer had the potential to escalate and cause violence against the officer, meaning that the God-like status bestowed upon police officers now trumps both the 220-year-old Fourth Amendment and the 796-year-old Magna Carta on which it is based.

In a separate case, on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the police can now also bust down a door and enter your property without a warrant if they smell marijuana or hear sounds that are suggestive of destruction of evidence. The case revolved around the warrantless search of an apartment in Kentucky, Lexington.

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

Of course, the fact that police officers have been known to habitually lie in order to justify illegally entering a property and violating the Fourth Amendment (which is apparently now null and void anyway), was not considered.

These two cases merely scratch the surface of America’s descent into an authoritarian tyranny, which has noticeably deepened over the last few weeks. Describing the United States as a “police state” is no longer a glib or alarmist use of rhetoric, because by every measurable tenet and in every context, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are now being completely ignored by government or simply abolished altogether.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

The fact that Supreme Courts are now attacking the very Constitution they are supposed to uphold is proof that America has been hijacked by rogue criminal elements who are busy dismantling everything that once made the country a beacon of liberty for the world.

The debate is officially over. America has now entered the annuls of history as an authoritarian police state on a par with Soviet Russia, and as that virus spreads throughout all levels of society it will ultimately lead the United States to the same fate – the only question remaining is how messy the collapse will be, how many people will be incarcerated, and how many people the government will murder in the process.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

America Is Under Martial Law

You won’t hear them announce ‘We Are Currently Under Martial Law’ because they know it would stir fear and panic throughout the land.  If you think about it however, we really are under some form of Martial Law.  Just think about it:

–  The TSA’s at our nations airports are currently violating your 4th Amendment rights.  They are groping the American Public (Even babies!) without probable cause and without a warrant.  Regular Police Officers will be faced with stiff penalties and lawsuits if they conduct activities in the was the TSA are conducting themselves.  By conducting these warrantless searches you are automatically considered suspect until proven otherwise.  If you resist, you get arrested and risk being placed on a “No Fly List”.

–  We have what is called a ‘No Fly List”.  Nobody knows how one gets put on one of these things and once you are on nobody has been able to get off.  New York Senator Charles Schumer is now calling for a ‘No Ride List’ which is the same thing as a ‘No Fly List’ but it would pertain to passenger trains, subways and eventually all forms of public transportation.  Schumer is also proposing that those who are found on these lists will have their constitutional right to ‘Bear Arms’ taken away from them.  Imagine if you mysteriously are put on both of these lists? Down the road these lists will soon pertain to ‘No Work Lists’, meaning if a criminal background check is done on your for employment and your name pops up on these lists…no work for you! And there won’t be anything you can do about it!

–  Since the alleged assasination of Bin Laden the Feds have announced that Alqueda may retaliate by striking soft targets such as shopping centers, malls, retail outlets etc…and the Feds are proposing that security checkpoints be extended to these areas.  So look for in the near future TSA employees groping you as you go to the mall to do your shopping, going to the local A&P to buy dinner and to stores like Target and Walmart to update your wardrobe.

–  Yesterday the government announced that the Feds will soon be breaching your cell phones against your permission in the similar ways they do so on TV with the EAS (Emergency Alert System) to warn (Scare) you of potential safety risks.  By the end of the year New York and Washington will see this implemented and as early as April of next year the entire nation will have to be compliant.  Also they are going to put public announcement tv’s in local stores and restauraunts to inform you of the latest threats against our country.  Does this not remind you of the images we have seen on TV of pictures of people like Saddam Hussein all over Iraq and Adolf Hitler all over Germany?

–  Since the Patriot Act has been passed you may be a terrorist if you are church going person, God fearing Christian, family person, conservative, libertarian, constitutionalist, anti-establishment activist in any way etc…it’s in the Patriot Act…read it!

-The Government is well under way now of establishing a National ID card.  This will act as a sort of inter-country passport which you will need to take everywhere you go.  Inside these ID cards are RFID tracking chips (Like the ones already embedded in your drivers license, state ID’s, credit/debit cards etc..) to track your every move.

-The Government since passing the 1996 Telecommunications act has the ability to track you by your cellphone even if it is turned off.  All cellphones manufactured since 2003 by law, were made to be compliant in this manner.

– In Michigan local law enforcement are using devices to unlawfully take your cellphone during a routine traffic stop and connect it to a device which uploads all the data contained on your phone.  This is happening without a warrant or probable cause.

….This is just the beginning…I will be updating this post which you will see for yourself how our nation is moving towards full blown martial law….to be continued.

Bin Laden Hoax Exposed…It’s A PSYOPS People!

Click on this paragraph for detailed information.  The main credible source that I rely on is infowars.com and the Alex Jones radio show.  This guy is right almost 100% of the time.  This is a classic government conspiracy that has been going on for decades…just to give them more excuses to launch new wars, new false flag attacks in order to strip you of your constitutional liberties.

(NOTE CLICK  HERE OR ON THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH FOR THE VIDEO)

Exclusive: Bin Laden Dead Hoax Exposed

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

TheAlexJonesChannel
May 2, 2011

Alex Jones exposes the contrived “victory” in the War on Terror surrounding a man who many experts have said was already dead for years. After nearly a decade of “hunting” for Bin Laden, he is summarily shot in the head and allegedly dumped into the ocean (conveniently making the body unavailable). So goes the official life of Osama bin Laden (aka Tim Osman), one of the CIA’s most useful patsies and assets.

The Government Versus Their Opposition: Freedom Of The Press No More!

Obama is now limiting the press! This is a dictatorship quality. The issue here isn’t this reporters methods but the reporter covering a protest however this article kind of alludes otherwise.  This is how they are slowly infringing on the rights of the American people (In this case our first amendment rights) and disguising it under other reasons.  Don’t be fooled. America has been slowly falling into open dictatorship and it already is one hidden in plain view!

Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia

The hip, transparent and social media-loving Obama administration is showing its analog roots. And maybe even some hypocrisy highlights.

White House officials have banished one of the best political reporters in the country from the approved pool of journalists covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.

The Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci – who, like many contemporary reporters, has a phone with video capabilities on her at all times – pulled out a small video camera last week and shot some protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel.

She was part of a “print pool” – a limited number of journalists at an event who represent their bigger hoard colleagues – which White House press officials still refer to quaintly as “pen and pad” reporting.

But that’s a pretty Flintstones concept of journalism for an administration that presents itself as the Jetsons. Video is every bit a part of any journalist’s tool kit these days as a functioning pen that doesn’t leak through your pocket.

In fact, Carla and her reporting colleague, Joe Garofoli, founded something called “Shaky Hand Productions” – the semi-pro, sometimes vertiginous use of a Flip or phone camera by Hearst reporters to catch more impromptu or urgent moments during last year’s California gubernatorial race that might otherwise be missed by TV.

The name has become its own brand; often politicians even ask if anyone from Shaky Hand will show at their event. For Carla, Joe and reporters at other Hearst newsrooms where Shaky Hand has taken hold, this was an appropriate dive into use of other media by traditional journalists catering to audiences who expect their news delivered in all modes and manners.

That’s the world we live in and the President of the United States claims to be one of its biggest advocates.

Just the day before Carla’s Stone Age infraction, Mr. Obama was at Facebook seated next to its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and may as well have been wearing an “I’m With Mark” t-shirt for all the mutual admiration going back and forth.

“The main reason we wanted to do this is,” Obama said of his appearance, “first of all, because more and more people, especially young people, are getting their information through different media. And historically, part of what makes for a healthy democracy, what is good politics, is when you’ve got citizens who are informed, who are engaged.”

Informed, in other words, through social and other digital media where videos of news are posted.

The President and his staffers deftly used social media like Twitter and Facebook in his election campaign and continue to extol the virtues and value. Except, apparently, when it comes to the press.

So what’s up with the White House? We can’t say because neither Press Secretary Jay Carney nor anyone from his staff would speak on the record.

Other sources confirmed that Carla was vanquished, including Chronicle editor Ward Bushee, who said he was “informed that Carla was removed as a pool reporter.” Which shouldn’t be a secret in any case because it’s a fact that affects the newsgathering of our largest regional paper (and sfgate)and how local citizens get their information.

What’s worse: more than a few journalists familiar with this story are aware of some implied threats from the White House of additional and wider punishment if Carla’s spanking became public. Really? That’s a heavy hand usually reserved for places other than the land of the free.

But bravery is a challenge, in particular for White House correspondents, most of whom are seasoned and capable journalists. They live a little bit in a gilded cage where they have access to the most powerful man in the world but must obey the rules whether they make sense or not.

CBS News reporter, Mark Knoller, has publicly protested the limited press access to Obama fundraisers, calling the policy “inconsistent.” “It’s no way to do business,” wrote Politico’s Julie Mason, “especially [for] a candidate who prides himself on transparency.”

A 2009 blog by the White House Director of New Media states that “President Obama is committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history.”

Not last week.

Mason referred to the San Francisco St. Regis protest as “a highly newsworthy event” where “reporters had to rely on written pool reports…”

Except, thanks to Carla’s quick action with her camera, they didn’t.

I get that all powerful people and institutions want to control their image and their message. That’s part of their job, to create a mythology that allows them to continue being powerful.

But part of the press’ job is to do the opposite, to strip away the cloaks and veneers. By banning her, and by not acknowledging how contemporary media works, the White House did not just put Carla in a cage but more like one of those stifling pens reserved for calves on their way to being veal.

Carla cannot do her job to the best of her ability if she can’t use all the tools available to her as a journalist. The public still sees the videos posted by protesters and other St. Regis attendees, because the technology is ubiquitous. But the Obama Administration apparently wants to give the distinct advantage to citizen witnesses at the expense of professionals.

Why? Well, they won’t tell us.

Some White House reporters are grumbling almost as much as the Administration about Carla’s “breaking the rules.” I can understand how they’d be irritated. If you didn’t get the video because you understood you weren’t supposed to, why should someone else get it who isn’t following the longstanding civilized table manners?

The White House Press Correspondents’ Association pool reporting guidelines warn about “no hoarding” of information and also say, “pool reports must be filed before any online story or blog.” While uploading her video probably was the best way to file her report, Carla may have technically busted the letter of that law.

But the guidelines also say, “Print poolers can snap pictures or take video. They are not obliged to share these pictures…but can make them available if they so choose.”

Then what guidelines is the White House applying here? Again, we don’t know.

What the Administration should have done is to use this incident to precipitate a reasonable conversation about changing their 1950’s policies into rules more suited to 2011. Dwight Eisenhower was the last President who let some new media air into the room when he lifted the ban on cameras at press conferences in 1952.

“We’ve come full circle here,” Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Foundation’s Project for Excellence in Journalism told me today. “A newspaper reporter is being punished because she took pictures with a moving camera. We live in a world where there are no longer distinctions. The White House is trying to live by 20th century distinctions.”

The President’s practice not just with transparency but in other dealings with the press has not been tracking his words, despite the cool glamour and easy conversation that makes him seem so much more open than the last guy.

It was his administration that decided to go after New York Times reporter James Risen to get at his source in a book he wrote about the CIA. For us here in SF who went through the BALCO case and other fisticuffs with the George W. Bush Attorney General’s prosecutors, this is deja vu.

Late today, there were hints that the White House might be backing off the Carla Fatwa.

Barack Obama sold himself successfully as a fresh wind for the 21st century. In important matters of communication, technology, openness and the press, it’s not too late for him to demonstrate that.