DHS insider: Its about to get very ugly (Page 3): hemorrhoid, I had not heard this one yet but wouldn't for a milli-second doubt it what with the obozo's Arab Jihadists support. And I...

The Dutchman

hemorrhoid wrote:

Whistleblower or hero? Decide, but he is not, as several widely circulated emails of late have suggested, an Obama front man to feed Classified info to Kenyan Mao-Maos or Arab Jihadists.

hemorrhoid, I had not heard this one yet but wouldn't for a milli-second doubt it what with the obozo's Arab Jihadists support. And I also don't doubt that it is just another of his well planned distractions in an attempt to distract attention from the Benghazi murders he should be held personally responsible for and he knows it!

patriot47

"He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither."

The subjugation of the American people crosses ALL party lines.

The only question is do you serve your government or do they serve you, and are you strong enough to enforce the answer?

russ1945

AvJoe wrote:

If we are to take your definition seriously than George W. Bush would have to be considered an Obamunist as well. As a matter of fact almost every President Republican and Democrat since the end of WWII has attempted to move the balance of power from the other two branches to the executive branch. Now The Judicial Branch is being challenged as carrying their power too far. This should be very interesting.

Does the term Capitalism come to mind. If you don't see Obama for the anti-capitalist that he is then you have over done it with the kool aid. The Obama Executive branch has far exceeded any administration in recent history and if they get the majority on the Supreme Court then it is game set match.
Seriously, Obama stands out heads and shoulders above those prior administrations you refer to regarding power grabbing. The DOJ, HHS, IRS, on and on, this is an administration gone wild. Every Presdent has to stand on his own record, Obama can't even stand on his own two feet. In retrospect no POTUS has ever done as much to divide a nation than Obama has.

LAwrence

The question for everyone especially those in government who take an oath of office is are you in allegence to the government or the constitution?

russ1945

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

AvJoe

AuntiE wrote:

An honest question to you. Do you believe the Judicial Branch is going beyond their defined roll?

That in its self is a complicated question. Some will say that the judiciary has/is attempting to increase their power
in relation to the other two branches of government. My opinion is that the court has become so politicized that it is not a matter of additional power, the court has shown constraint up to recent times, but the placing politics over law in interpreting Constitutional law and other issues which come before the court which is creating a danger of harming this country.

Yankee Clipper

AvJoe wrote:

That in its self is a complicated question. Some will say that the judiciary has/is attempting to increase their power
in relation to the other two branches of government. My opinion is that the court has become so politicized that it is not a matter of additional power, the court has shown constraint up to recent times, but the placing politics over law in interpreting Constitutional law and other issues which come before the court which is creating a danger of harming this country.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court's duty is to determine if laws and legislation conform to the what is the "master plan" of our country, the Constitution. No laws, legislation or international treaties can over ride or change the Constitution, only amendments can do that.

In other words, neither Supreme Court nor any other of the courts cannot twist or interpret the words in the Constitution to fit their ideology so they can shape a ruling in their favor. That is the problem we have now because ideology has been allowed to twist the original intent in favor of certain ideologies. We the people need to demand all judges either use the original meaning of the Constitution or they (the judges) will face impeachment proceedings.

The Marxist/democrats on this site and seemingly everywhere one looks want the Constitution to be a "living" document that can be change at a whim. I submit that we do have a "living" Constitution and it is readily changed by the given Amendment process written right into it.

PS, to NSA, DoJ, FBI, DHS and any other government entity who may be reading this, mind eigin fyrirtæki þitt and of course, Ascendo Tuum!

Come on everyone, poke a stick in in the eye of those watching what we write and say. I call it "lawful resistance" to an out of control Marxist/democrat regime, and the Republicans have not been much better either.

AvJoe

Yankee Clipper wrote:

b As I understand it, the Supreme Court's duty is... (show quote)

Well you and I can at least partially agree. It is what analysis is used and under what parameters it is governed which give a set of results. Minority opinions can result in exact mirror images of the majority decision. The Constitution by it's very construction is open to different interpretations. Please allow me to point out however the Supreme Court has allowed the reversal a bad previous decisions for instance Dred v.Scott overturned. Brown v. Board of Education arguing for the rejection of "the separate but equal doctrine. The Supreme Court has the most protected, least challengeable members in part due to the Life time appointment. Perhaps life time appointments have outlived their usefulness.

Lasher Loc: Georgia

russ1945 wrote:

The oath of office of the President of the United ... (show quote)

Obama couldn't even get that right in '08.

Doucheman and his girlfriend he rustled from the Arabs.

Yankee Clipper

AvJoe wrote:

Well you and I can at least partially agree. It i... (show quote)

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/original-intent-or-evolving-constitution/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/rein_in_the_imperial_judiciary.html

AvJoe

Yankee Clipper wrote:

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/original-intent-or-evolving-constitution/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/rein_in_the_imperial_judiciary.html

I have carefully read both of the suggested articles which were both facinating and intreging. The AvJoe court has taken these articles and your writings under advisement and have agreed to consider your case. We expect to need additional reseach before rendering a verdict.

Yankee Clipper

AvJoe wrote:

I have carefully read both of the suggested articles which were both facinating and intreging. The AvJoe court has taken these articles and your writings under advisement and have agreed to consider your case. We expect to need additional reseach before rendering a verdict.

There are lots of information out there, I particularly like Publius-Hulda. Both my sites are more right than center, however I consider them to be honest with their facts most of the time. Contact me by private email and I can give you other sources. There are also left leaning sites which mostly tout the living Constitution to which I do not adhere and that is why I did not include them.

I read, read, and read some more and have a fair knowledge of what's going on and the history leading up to it. I try to present to be honest with my thoughts, but like everyone else on here I am biased. I intensely despise and hate Marxist/democrats and what they have done to the country while I was asleep and was paying no attention to what was happening. I woke up about 15 years ago and started reading. If you look at my comments you will find I can be vulgar and nasty, to opponents and I do not care if anyone likes it or not.

Go to the topics and find my topics on Frederic Bastiat "The Law" a really good read. Then research his other writing, he pretty well has Marxism/socialism/progressivism/communism and all the other ism cousins of the above pegged over 200 years ago. I believe he was around before Karl Marx and Engels.

PS, to NSA, DoJ, FBI, DHS and any other government entity who may be reading this, mind eigin fyrirtæki þitt and of course, Ascendo Tuum!

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

OPP Newsletter wrote:

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/8562#more-8562

Pretty much confirms what I have been researching in other sources. The folks that brought us the Federal Reserve System and the IRS created Communism and Fascism and related isms. This group of bankers backed Adolph Hitler's rise to power in NAZI Germany.

Jim Marrs in his book "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" outlines how the Third Reich simply went underground after WWII. Quietly buying up banks, corporations and infiltrating governments. Remember the Swedish Death Camp survival accounts scandals of a few years back? The exact amount involved was never disclosed but ranged in the billions perhaps trillions of dollars.

The former NAZI Hitler youth George Soros aka Schwartz fingered fellow Jews for the NAZI SS Death Camps and most likely remains an active NAZI to this very day!

Fascism? Believe it because it is very REAL!

Yankee Clipper

ABBAsFernando wrote:

i Pretty much confirms what I have been research... (show quote)

I try to keep up with stuff like you talk about, but I am not familiar with some of it. Do you have any links or reference sources, I will do a little reading?

rumitoid

You guys need to read more history without a jaundiced eye. If there is a real threat of a Nazi-like take-over of the US, the Tea Party have all the traditional signs: suppression of women, anti-tradition, anti-science, anti-minority, anti-intellectualism, religious fanatics, purists, dumb, divisive, unreasonable, and angry.