[sparkscoffee] Re: Obama & Holder Destroy the Constitution
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "sblumen123@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:11:45 -0400
JS
Be a bit careful, people will think you are a hero worshiper? Perhaps you
should do a little research on Winston, you might find some negative things
about him as you did on FDR?
Comrade B
-----Original Message-----
From: schalestock <schalestock@xxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 12:33 pm
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Obama & Holder Destroy the Constitution
RR
Well, as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for
all the others." I think what he was really getting at is that democracy,
illusory or otherwise, is a vicarious substitue for violence and anarchy.
Which fits nicely with Jefferson's observation that American democracy can only
work if the elected have some modicum of integrey. We see the proof of that
with Obama - albeit the negative side of the coin.
JS
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Obama & Holder Destroy the Constitution
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 10:00:36 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
JS,
It seems to me that anybody who votes for one party or another, Democrat or
Republican, is a socialist since voting for any party is collectivism. I see
no fundamental differences between the two parties. They only pretend to have
differences.
I agree that things are going to get a lot worse. I see no other possible
outcome, at least for the vast majority of Americans. The new definition of
success will be just to survive.
-RR
-----Original Message-----
From: "schalestock@xxxxxxxx" <schalestock@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Oct 4, 2014 5:04 AM
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Obama & Holder Destroy the Constitution
RR
A thoughtful and interesting post. Personally, I think the rising tide of
lawlessness in this country can, in part, be laid at the feet of the
Obama/Holder dictatorship. People sense that the law is meaningless anymore -
Or as Obama is positing, the law is what I say it is.
One only has to read Obama's book, Dreams of my Father, to gain an insight into
his mindset. His absent, psychopathic racist father told him that he believed
in 100% taxation with the "government" dispensing favors to the compliant. This
is the classic African tribal chief mentality - all power, all privilege, no
responsibility. When you couple this with Obama's neurotic ditsy mother and
his hard core Socialist grandparents, its little wonder he thinks and acts as
he does.
But the supreme irony is that enough of the American people bought into his
bullshit about "fundamentally changing America". Just the statement alone
should have been enough to raise the red flag. But the voting demographics that
elected him tell the whole tale. 90% African Americans (not surprising), the
stupid white (educated) females and their wimp eunuch cohorts, and of course,
the cynical democrat politicians that don't give a rat's ass about the country
as long as they stay in power.
I'm afraid things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better -
if in fact they ever do before we are irrevocably and "fundamentally changed".
JS
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Obama & Holder Destroy the Constitution
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:34:35 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
Posted on October 3, 2014 by Martin Armstrong
I have studied Constitutional Law intensely and I can say with conviction that
history will indeed remember Eric Holder and his mentor Obama for much more
than merely the top 9 controversial issues everyone writes about. Mr. Holder’s
more than five years as the nation’s chief legal officer has been absolutely
devastating to the future of the nation and the Rule of Law. This goes far
beyond merely the NSA, IRS scandal and the State Department scandals.
Barack Obama ‘s White House has done serious long-term damage to the world
economy and the civil rights of every American. Obama and Holder pushed the
authority of the executive branch of the federal government far beyond any
democratic process. The administrative agencies under the Executive branch have
gone well beyond the edge of the Constitution and law in a systemic manner that
is truly breath-taking. Unlike previous presidencies where there was just one
controversial instance, the Obama-Holder team have embarked on virtually a
dictatorship under the pretense of democracy. I do not say this lightly nor as
a political partisan.
Everyone who has ever studied law had basic rules that government simply could
not go beyond – they just can’t do that! Everyone in the legal community if
they spoke freely has now learned that what they took for granted as clear
meaning of existing law just no longer applies. Once you undermine the Rule of
Law, everything else collapses for in the end game, you cannot even prove you
own anything when it is subject to interpretation and discretion.
In 2011, the Obama-Holder tag-team just did what they wanted anyway ignoring
the Judiciary regarding off-shore oil drilling. Believe it or not, Federal
Judge Martin Feldman found the government in contempt holding: “Each step the
government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction
showcases its defiance.” Of course nobody goes to jail for how can you order
the Justice Department to put itself in jail for contempt? This is why we need
an independently elected Roman Tribune who can prosecute anyone in government
and is outside the Executive Branch. We call that a Special Prosecutor to
investigate a president – well we need a real elected office of Tribune to
secure the Constitution and be able to criminal charge Obama, Holder, or John
Boehner .
The Obama-Holder tag-team has effectively made federal legal authority
boundless eliminating any restraint upon government as Obama justified the
actions of the NSA saying you have to give up liberty to be safe. “I think the
American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved,” Obama said
when questioned by reporters at a health care event in San Jose, Calif. He also
famously said: “It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent
security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” he
said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can
say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our
capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity.”
The question is – safe from whom? Obama stands in history directly in
opposition to those who founded this nation. In Belgium Obama clearly stated
the struggle between the state and the people. His address in Belgium to the
European Youth who are suffering unemployment levels almost three times that of
the Great Depression on March 26, 2014 obviously demonstrates he knows what he
is doing to tear down democracy.
“The belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right
to live as we choose. The belief that power is derived from the consent of the
governed, and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that
understanding. And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists
across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still
guide America today, including the simple truth that all men — and women — are
created equal.
“But those ideals have also been tested — here in Europe and around the world.
Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of
power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too
small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come
when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. …
“And just as we meet our responsibilities as individuals, we must be prepared
to meet them as nations. Because we live in a world in which our ideals are
going to be challenged again and again by forces that would drag us back into
conflict or corruption. We can’t count on others to rise to meet those tests.
The policies of your government, the principles of your European Union, will
make a critical difference in whether or not the international order that so
many generations before you have strived to create continues to move forward,
or whether it retreats.”
Obama has stated clearly that he has come full circle. He believes that right
must be surrendered to the sovereign government for only it can defend freedom
by taking it from the people. This is very strange logic.
The Obama-Holder theory of law has been mind-blowing. Essentially, they stand
for the proposition that the needs of justice supersede the law’s boundaries.
Obama has effectively stated he will take your rights and money but for a good
purpose – government power to protect your right to have rights and money? This
is precisely what Thrasymachus warned about and every law professor when
confronted with this question would have responded – that is not law.
Nevertheless, Obama has stood for the proposition that justice is merely the
self-interest of the stronger – government.
Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating this in any possible way should look at
what Obama said himself. In July 2011 over the debt ceiling, Obama said
publicly that he would like to “bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.”
He said this again in June 2014 with respect to immigration reform. This is
what one expects from a dictator – not an elected official who pretends to be a
Constitutional lawyer. The very next year, Obama then made his unconstitutional
recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Effectively, he
bypassed Congress to stuff his own people in positions without the approval of
the people. UNHEARD OF! Yet Obama also said back in 2011: ”Sometimes when I
talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and
change the law myself, but that’s not how a democracy works.”
The antics of the Obama-Holder tag-team have displayed the audacity to argue in
federal courts what difference does it make? The real curious phase is not only
used by Obama-Holder in court, when Hilary testified before Congress regarding
the attack if it was a protest of just some guys out for a walk and decided to
kill some Americans she too simply replied – what difference does it make? This
is not a legal argument in any court under any system of law that I am aware
of. It makes a huge difference for even as Hillary tried to dismiss the attack,
one is an organized terrorist attack and the other is just a random act of
violence.
I am not the only one with a problem here regarding the abuse of power of
Obama-Holder. In 2013, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh
wrote that the Obama administration’s legal claims raised “significant
questions about the scope of the Executive’s authority to disregard federal
statutes.”
Obama’s praise of Holder one would think he offhandedly saved the nation.
Certainly not from the abuse of government. The legal precedents are shocking
and very alarming. These people never get it. Obama expands the reach of the
Presidency and the next one comes in and always expands it further. Nobody ever
reforms. So unfortunately, we are headed down the creek in a boat that is
leaking without a paddle. Our children will never know the world in which we
grew up when once upon a time there use to be a friendly face behind every
badge.
-RR
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
FixYourBloodSugar.com
Other related posts:
