Tuesday, July 26, 2011

American Constitution faces 'progressive' threat

The treason pill is sugar coated--in this case it promises jobs, decent income, homes, medical care, everything but the right to be left alone.  And all the things it promises, but has never and never will deliver, could be provided by a full employment policy of ending outsourcing, offshoring and illegal immigration.  See more at fepcat.blogspot.com



from world net daily

THE USUAL SUSPECTS



Look what Obama's buddies plan for founding document



Posted: July 03, 2011
5:37 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND
Attorney General Eric Holder
Still more White House officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, "progressive" U.S. Constitution.
WND previously reportedhow President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, maintained extensive ties to Soros' funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus on what the U.S. Constitution should provide by the year 2020.
Now, it has emerged that Lisa Brown, Obama's staff secretary, served as executive director of the Soros-funded American Constitution Society, ACS, a progressive legal organization that was behind the Constitution scheme.
Brown's White House responsibilities include managing the flow of information, advice and decision-making between staff members and Obama.
Also, Holder has been closely tied to the ACS, serving on the group's board of directors and even keynoting their 10th anniversary national convention earlier this month.
In 2008, Holder also keynoted their convention. At that event, he reportedly urged young lawyers to get involved in the liberal legal network, saying America would soon be "run by progressives."
"The pendulum is starting to swing. America run by progressives. Really. It's about to happen. So we're going to be looking for people who share our values," he stated, ascaptured in a YouTube video.

The event was sponsored by Soros' Open Society Institute and the Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team. Podesta's center is said to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.
The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the ACS, which has been described as a group meant to counter the work of the Federalist Society, which has been at the forefront of the push for a more conservative judiciary since its launch in 1982.
The ACS is the main organization behind the movement to ensure a more "progressive" Constitution. It has received more that $2.2 million from Soros' Open Society since 2002.
Brown, Obama's staff secretary, wrote an entry on the blog for the "Constitution 2020" conference at Yale Law School in which she decried conservative interpretations of the Constitution.
She wrote: "Conservatives have captured the intellectual initiative in popular and even much elite discourse. Their success in framing and communicating fundamental conservative principles has contributed to real legal and political change over the last two decades. Will we allow narrow and sterile conservative interpretations of our Constitution's vital principles and protections to reshape our national character and control our daily lives? Our answer, on this weekend and on every day of the coming years, is a resounding No."
Like Holder, Sunstein, meanwhile, has spoken at numerous ACS events. For example, he was a speaker at a November 2003 symposium by the American Constitution Society of the University of Chicago School of Law, where Sunstein was a professor.
But it was the 2005 Yale event led in part by Sunstein that has been described as jumpstarting the movement for a "progressive" constitution.
Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in a 2009 New York Times Magazine piece about so-called liberal justice: "If this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called 'The Constitution in 2020.'"
New 'Bill of Rights'
The Constitution 2020 movement has plotted a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the Yale conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
Sunstein has also been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.
According to Sunstein's new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return while the government is granted power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.
All this and more is contained in Sunstein's 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever."
In the work, Sunstein advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of rights.
In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
His mandates include the following:
  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."
With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens

     I wonder, if just for good measure, if President Obama should take the Oath of Allegiance. Probably not, his tongue would break in two half way through the oath. -----lee 

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.[1
For more ...

Friday, July 15, 2011

Former impeachment manager James Rogan:

Posted: July 10, 2011
1:47 am Eastern


     Former House impeachment manager James Rogan was interviewed by Conan Nolan of KNBC-TV in Los Angeles, discussing his tell-all page-turner "Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment."
     Even though the impeachment of President Clinton cost Rogan his congressional seat, the author told Nolan more than 10 years of hindsight hadn't changed his mind, that he still believes trying the president before the Senate was the right thing to do.
     The interview will air twice later today, but can also be seen on the television station's website.
"Catching Our Flag" is a WND Book publication based on Rogan's extensive journaling through the historic impeachment and trial of President Clinton – an experience from which he believes Barack Obama cut his political teeth.

For more ...

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Rep. Tim Scott Floats Impeachment If Obama Invokes 14th Amendment On Debt Limit (VIDEO)

First Posted: 07/6/11 04:12 PM ET
Updated: 07/6/11 06:07 PM ET           

     WASHINGTON -- While some have asserted that the debt limit might be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, and therefore President Obama does not need congressional approval to raise it, Republicans have been quick to express skepticism over the idea. On Tuesday, a Republican congressman went a step further, saying that if Obama were to use that argument to bypass Congress on the issue, it would be an impeachable offense.
     "This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act from my perspective," said Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) at a meeting sponsored by the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12 Project on Tuesday, first reported by Lindsay Street on Summerville Patch.
     His comments were met with enthusiastic applause.
     "There are a lot of things people say, 'Are you going to impeach the president over that?' -- No. But this? This is catastrophic," continued Scott. "This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant."

For more ...
  

Monday, July 4, 2011

What really makes America exceptional?


WHAT IS SO EXCEPTIONAL ABOUT AMERICA?
When we decry the people who deny American exceptionalism, why do we decry them?  What are they denying and what are we defending?
According to Wikipedia, “American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation",[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire.”
This is partly true but misses the central point--what makes America unique is her celebration of the common man.  There is no caste system, there is no hereditary aristocracy, there is no entrenched belief in underlings and overlords.  In America, in theory, any man, and now woman, can hope to be President someday.  John F. Kennedy proved someone other than Protestants could be President and Barack Obama proved someone other than a white could be President.
This, of course is a commonplace, and most people don’t give it a second thought.  Too bad.  It deserves very deep thought indeed.  
Do you really want to go back to a world where heredity decides your opportunities and your children’s opportunities in life?  If we go back to the Old World way of doing things, that is what will happen, over time.  Perhaps we will learn to be sensitive and tolerant of the Hindu caste system with its Brahmins and Untouchables.  Maybe we will evolve Lords, Dukes and Counts.  Maybe even a King.  
If you are one of the unlucky ones, maybe you’ll get to stand on the curb, knuckle your forehead and give a rousing cheer for the Count of New Jersey as his limo goes roaring by. 
But, you say it can’t happen here.  This is America.  And that is correct and that is what makes America exceptional.  No matter who your parents are, you have the right to go as far as your talents, drive and luck can take you.  There is no law or custom to prevent that, and we have been steadily eliminating the barriers that remain as the election of Obama proved.  (Reverse discrimination is a festering problem, of course, and must be dealt with and it’s corrosive poison removed from society.)  
And this is what the opponents of American exceptionalism are really after--a return to the rule and privilege of power and prestige for the elite and their offspring.  They want to crush the common man just as he has been crushed throughout history in every nation in the world. For them American exceptionalism is a curse, for the rest of us it is a blessing from God.
Have a happy Fourth of July.
rng

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Obama begins immediate attacks against USA and We-the-People Obama Not Subject to Charges of Treason?

Sher Zieve  Saturday, June 18, 2011
from Canada Free Press


Treason is generally defined as “betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.”  High treason is defined as “treason perpetrated by somebody against his or her own country.”  Another apt definition of treason is “any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one’s government.”




It is my contention that Barack Hussein Obama has perpetrated all of these.  It is also my assertion that our current Congress and an increasingly leftist court system have allowed—and are continuing to allow—Obama to perpetrate such treachery upon the United States of America and its citizens. 

Obama begins immediate attacks against USA and We-the-People

Prior to his announced campaign for President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama was never vetted as to his eligibility to run for the office.  Almost immediately after Barack Hussein Obama’s 2008 election to the most powerful position in the USA and, arguably the world, one of his first—if not the first—Executive fiats issued was that all of his prior records (school transcripts, passport information, his birth certificate etc) were to be sealed and summarily hidden from the American people and the world.  Since that time, Obama has produced multiple “birth certificates” that have each been proven to be fraudulent, including the ostensible long-form birth certificate released 27 April 2011.
Almost immediately thereafter and within the first week of his ostensible presidency, Obama issued Executive Orders to fund foreign countries abortions, donate at least $20Millions to terrorist Hamas (under the guise of “Palestinian relief”) and began testing his ability to censor and/or end the First Amendment by order via another Executive Order to ban showing or posting the video of his retaking the Oath of Office.  Along with myriad other mysteries, one has to ponder why this was a great concern to Obama.
Shortly thereafter, Obama issued another Executive Order that brought the Census bureau under his sole jurisdiction and control.  This strongly appears to have been affected by Obama, in order that he—alone—would have the ability to control and skew any and all census results that did not meet with his approval.  After he gained (many say “usurped”) the Office of the US Presidency, Obama—almost instantly—began attempts to unravel the US Constitution’s First Amendment.  These attempts ranged from banning and refusing to speak with reporters who asked him tough questions to actually locking them in closets!  With no one stopping him the Obama syndicate becomes increasingly bolder and more criminal every day.
Obama’s Dictatorship begins expanding (almost) exponentially