Why? Because they met ex parte with a litigant before them
on the VERY MATTER which would have prevented him
from attaining office improperly through the
subornation of perjury by Pelosi and Reid.
Posted on 05/23/2012 7:55:28 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling. As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’ Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.
And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Why? Because they met ex parte with a litigant before them
on the VERY MATTER which would have prevented him
from attaining office improperly through the
subornation of perjury by Pelosi and Reid.
Yes, he is, at least in all major matters of policy.
The ONLY difference that I can see is that Romney isn't a product of the "Chicago Machine," that itself is small consolation considering that never in my political lifetime have the Republicans as-a-party reduced the size or scope of the federal government; therefore, I fully expect that the "Chicago Machine" elements introduced into general government by Obama will be used by Romney should he gain the Presidency.
And if that replacement should be Romney then we've gained nothing while losing the only good thing about Obama: the polarization effect he has on opponents.*
* It is worth noting that the Republican party is not polarized against him, therefore they are not in actuality his opponents.
I keep wondering though...surely in one of the many middle of the night, back-room planning sessions that happened in the White House or Congressional chambers, there was a scenario that unfolded where someone said, "Ok, after all the deal-making, half-winks, and shennanigans...we can get the votes to pass the bill. What's our plan if this law goes before the Supreme Court?
Someone must've had an answer for that--I wonder what it was? Did they make an assumption it would never get that far? Did they think public pressure would be too great for the SCOTUS to go against it? Did they assume that by the time a ruling occurred, it would be too late to undo anything?
This looks a little dated.
How long has this revelation been around? I think the evidence has been on Youtube since early 2009.
“refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks”
The ONLY way Obama gets Taken Down is if the MSM deems it expedient and starts an all out Media Blitz
and even then the National Guard better be prepared to head into the cities
” - - - the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.”
Ouch! This kind of RACIAL PROFILING extermination policy today would not have been popular with Obama’s Grandma back in the 1960’s.
BTW, isn’t Obama’s DOJ in charge of RACIAL PROFILING threats, bullying and the latest in Politically Correct Social Behavior (PCSB) ?
Holder will probably need more regulators, lawyers and PR people.
It is amazing how Obamanation, the Perpetual Debt Machine (PDM), just keeps on creating “more good-paying” Federal Government Jobs!
Jobs, Jobs, JOBS!
So yes, it is a tad dated.
An innocent question:
Until now, I have never heard of “Patriot Army of America “
Are they reliable to quote?
Their news is not exactly “up to the minute” and appears to be a rehash of many aricles.
Thank you.
And yes, it does appear to be something of an amalgamation of news, but some of it was new to me, and, again, I didn't realize the original date was in September.
He’s not eligible to be president, he hates America, he promised the Russians a good deal “after the election” and he will extend that promise to many other bad guys, both foreign and domestic.
For those reasons I want him out. But that’s just me. I’m biased against an ineligible president holding office illegally while hating America and making “after the election” promises to our enemies. It’s a personal bias. I understand that. I’m not trying to convert anybody to my bias. I’m just confessing it here.
“White guilt” is quoted as being the main motive for white people electing and apologizing/supporting him. I think it’s deeper. I think it’s pity. Misguided, yes, but still pity. Look at what’s known about his life and childhood; probable sexual abuse, abandonment, shame etc..
Mixed messages about his worth as a human being resulting from that stuff plus special treatment in schools and so forth. This is a perfect setup for an egomaniac with a deep inferiority complex.
“And yes, it does appear to be something of an amalgamation of news, but some of it was new to me, and, again, I didn’t realize the original date was in September. “
Thank you.
In no way was it meant as a slam. I was just curious in the event my brain was going out on me.
It was still a good article as a recap of events, but I hesitated to send it on.
Thank you for your time.
With any luck, some of the stuff in the article will come as a surprise to someone other than me.
“I’m just annoyed with myself for not paying closer attention to the date.”
Please do not be annoyed with yourself. I myself did not look at the date of the article, and surely a zillion more did not do so either.
Most Freepers are not readers; and in this case, neither was I.
Continue on with your good work.
We need you.
My wonderful and best to you.
It's not a personal bias; it's rational. Consider the military-man, with an ineligible president his entire chain of command is violated and has no integrity: this is due to the nature of authority, which is delegated from the Constitution to the president and from thence to the officer and from the officer to the NCO. As it stands, there is virtually no such thing as a [lawful] legitimate order. The notable exception would be those orders stemming directly from the Constitution; the General for the continental US could issue orders to his men to secure with deadly force the AZ border because Art 4 Sec 4 requires the federal government to protect states from invasion.
That said; we have a military whose justice system is so compromised that it will not allow an officer to even question the legitimacy of the president to be Commander in Chief.
But that is par-for-course, we have a congress which refuses to rip open the ATF/DEA/FBI over unauthorized acts of war, conspiracy, sedition, and [arguably] treason. {murdergate/fast & furious}
We have a judicial system which refuses to allow challenges to statutes that are clearly contrary to the respective constitution by denying 'standing'.
We have an executive whose "law enforcement" officers view the general population as unconvicted culprits and disregard the 4th amendment on such a regular basis that I'm almost surprised when I hear of a 4th Amendment win.
So then, I have to conclude that Obama is exactly the President that we-as-a-nation deserve, given that we-as-a-nation allow and in many cases condone the illegitimate actions of the government. (A good example would be the "prohibited class" or persons in firearm law: felons who have served their time, people convicted of misdemeanors in "domestic violence," and even those who are unconvicted but have only a restraining order placed on them for alleged domestic violence.)
If we want it different, then we need to really humble ourselves and "turn from our wicked ways" seeking real Justice.
You’re very kind, Gatun. Thank you very much.
Good post #38. Very good ideas there, in my opinion.
On the question of what I call my personal bias, I understand what you are saying but I prefer to continue calling it a bias because it’s my way of opting out of the argument of whether or not conservatives should support Romney.
I don’t want to argue that issue, so when it comes up I just state what I think about Obama, why I think he must be removed from office no matter what, and label my reasoning on the subject my personal bias.
I really don’t want to get into an argument with anyone who prefers to focus on the problems with Romney instead of the problems with Obama. I just don’t want to get in that argument. I prefer just to state my personal bias, that I don’t want Obama to be president anymore because he’s illegal, hates America and is making “after the election” promises to our enemies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.