Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

Sorry, the press conference you linked to may be labeled "Swearing-In" by C-SPAN, but it does not show any oath of office taking place. It's an acceptance speech. Nothing more.

On 06/07/2011 07:50 AM, plainolamerican wrote:

Reasonable to assume? ---- yes  How about some factual evidence? --- http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/86467-1 start listening at 6:50  On Jun 6, 5:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

Reasonable to assume? How about some factual evidence?  John made a claim which he has as yet been unable to back up with evidence. (This happens regularly, I might add.)  Choose sides carefully.<g>  On 06/06/2011 02:53 PM, plainolamerican wrote:    

  you contention that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the Constitution is incorrect. ---- a naturalized citizen is required to swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution ... thus, it is reasonable to assume that a SS applicant, who is required to be a citizen, would be bound to support and defend the constitution 

On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, 

It is obvious you want to fight the good fight. It is also obvious you are not equipped to do so. You continually infer that which does not exist. 

Secret Service agents are not "executive or judicial officers" of either "the United States or of the several states." Therefore, you contention that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the Constitution is incorrect. 

By the way, Article VI, paragraph three (properly quoted) states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." 

On 06/06/2011 11:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Dear J. Ashley:  I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to memory.  So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI.  "... all executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States."  That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC. As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers, such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST his skinny ass for treason!  Tens of thousands in our military have died fighting socialist and communist nations.  So, why won't any one fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst?  It's because people in government value their identity with... power.  Doing WRONG makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral imperative." Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has deference over any "authorization".  The Founding Fathers erred, big time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!�  Think about the simple premise, guy.  So far, you can't see the forest for the trees! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time. Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be unconstitutional? On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote:    >    Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system, 

has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century.  If there is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved.  Nothing in the Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress! Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com>      wrote: 

Does the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers granted to the states clause rule? --- what states rights? that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick and choose their responsibilities and powers On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote: 

No, MJ!  Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations that will allow this, but not "that".  Does the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers granted to the states clause rule?  That, supposedly, will determine the constitutionality of Obama Care.  As I've explained: The Senate was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail). A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Like our Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the White House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard!  If you want 100 senile, career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution without a House of Representatives?  For running a government, I'll take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US Senate every time!  Harry Reid should be out of a job!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote: 

Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way. Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. Regard$, --MJ "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ:  What "definition" is that?  That an anti-democracy and anti- Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two?  The US senate is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth!  We could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to cross Main Street!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote: 

Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural). Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills. Regard$, --MJ Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ:  The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states. The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative Republic.  Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that constitutional!  Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those constitutional, either.  The US Senate has been a drag of fair play and democracy from day one!  For the record, the US Supreme Court, wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!  Learn, if you can, MJ.  So far you seem committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to think.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote: 

The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY.  Since there has never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy is the one which isn't FAIR.  Giving undue power to smaller population states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face.  So, the US Senate is and always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional. What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement 

 ..  read more » 

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

Is a Constitutional Convention Necessary?

Is a Constitutional Convention Necessary?
by Laurence M. Vance, June 7, 2011

The evisceration of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court in the recent case of Kentucky v. King should forever put to bed the idea that we need a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution in order to regain control of the federal government.

While seeking a drug bust after a "controlled buy" of crack cocaine, police in Lexington, Kentucky, kicked in the door of the wrong apartment after they supposedly "smelled marijuana," "could hear people inside moving," and believed that "drug related evidence was about to be destroyed." Once inside, the police found three people smoking marijuana, powder and crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. Police eventually entered the correct apartment and found the suspect whom they initially sought.

A Fayette County Circuit Court ruled that the evidence seized was admissible because the warrantless search was "justified." The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court ruling. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that "exigent circumstances could not justify the search because it was reasonably foreseeable that the occupants would destroy evidence when the police knocked on the door and announced their presence."

The U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, overruled the Kentucky Supreme Court, seeing "no evidence that the officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so prior to the point when they entered the apartment."

However, in a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took to task the other eight justices:

The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.

How "secure" do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?

Although Justice Alito said that "this Court has identified several exigencies that may justify a warrantless search of a home," the Fourth Amendment knows no such exigencies:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Do supporters of a constitutional convention to propose amendments seek to end the federal government's war on drugs that makes cases like Kentucky v. King possible?

Not at all. They want to amend the Constitution for generalities like the federal government's increased power and growth, the federal government's abusing or exceeding its authority, or the federal government's mounting deficits. One organization has proposed The National Debt Relief Amendment: "An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States." Constitutional scholar Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute has authored a three-part series on Amending the Constitution by Convention. He seems mainly concerned about the growing national debt and out-of-control spending. His report recommends that "states seriously consider initiating the Article V constitutional amendment process to restrain the federal government." Libertarians have gotten into the act as well, with law professor Randy Barnett making the case for a federalism amendment.

The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, always beginning with an amendment proposed by Congress. Six other amendments sent by Congress to the states were not ratified. Although the other procedure for proposing amendments has never been used, Article V of the Constitution does allow for the states to apply to Congress for an amendment-proposing convention:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Without getting into the debates among conservatives over the feasibility and desirability of a "con-con," there are several reasons why the whole idea is just a big waste of time.

First of all, as I previously mentioned, supporters of a constitutional convention are not outraged about flagrant abuses of federal power like the war on drugs, the war on terror, and the U.S. empire. If they're not going to strike at the root of problem, then why bother.

Second, although the states should be bulwarks of liberty against federal tyranny, they can't be relied on to check the power of the federal government when they themselves are fiscally irresponsible and violators of individual liberty and property rights just like the federal government.

Third, the original constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was supposed to be "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." But what happened? The Articles of Confederation were scrapped and the present Constitution was put in its place. The Philadelphia Convention was hijacked by those who desired a consolidated government instead of a confederate one. Who knows what evil would befall us this time?

Fourth, the federal government has tried to circumvent the Constitution since the very beginning. In the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which involved the authority of Congress to set up a national bank, Chief Justice John Marshall paved the way for the growth of the federal leviathan:

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described.

This is the national bank that future president James Madison, then a member of Congress, argued against because the power exercised by the bank bill was condemned by "the silence of the constitution," "the rule of interpretation arising out of the constitution," and "its tendency to destroy the main characteristic of the constitution."

Fifth, as is evident from the Supreme Court's evisceration of the Fourth Amendment that I previously mentioned, the federal government doesn't follow the Constitution and its amendments now. What makes anyone think it will follow any additional amendments? As constitutional scholar Joe Wolverton has well said:

Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states.

The case could be made that over 90 percent of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. You know, things like funding education, the arts, foreign aid, scientific research, and medical care. We don't need another constitutional amendment; we need congressmen to follow the plain language of the Constitution.

Sixth, even those politicians that say they revere Constitution don't follow the Constitution. Here is the House Republican " Pledge to America":

For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

What they should have said, of course, is that Republicans in Congress have ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, shown a lack of respect for clear constitutional limits and authorities, and allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year.

On the very day they published their pledge, House Republicans voted in overwhelming numbers with Democrats to pass four pieces of legislation that violate the very pledge that they promised to adhere to: The Family Health Care Accessibility Act, The Emergency Medic Transition Act, The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act, and the Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act.

Seventh, the Constitution has utterly failed and failed utterly to do what it was intended to do: act as a check on the federal government. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

No statement in The Federalist has turned out to be as false and laughable as this one.

And eighth, the Constitution has been a dead letter since the so-called Civil War. In the words of Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993), in a speech at the annual seminar of the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association in 1987 on the occasion of the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution:

While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.

Our federal system of divided authority was destroyed by Lincoln's war. In his book Constitutional Government in the United States, Woodrow Wilson maintained that Lincoln's war to preserve the Union established the principle that "the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers."

Although the Constitution cannot be considered a libertarian document, actually following it would be a tremendous improvement over the situation we are in now. Following it, not amending it.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106f.asp

Anthony Weiner's Apology Speech (Presented By Guilty Looking Dachshunds)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/anthony-weiners-apology-speech-presented-by-guil

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Return of the Anti-Interventionist Right

The return of the anti-interventionist right is welcome news. It may
assure a real debate on foreign policy in the Republican primaries of
2012.
----
Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version
of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated
February 18, 1992) authored by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.
Not intended for public release, it was leaked to The New York Times
on March 7, 1992, and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign
and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist
as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive
military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and
prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.
Such was the outcry that the document was hastily re-written under the
close supervision of U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell before being
officially released on April 16, 1992.

On Jun 7, 11:00 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Return of the Anti-Interventionist RightbyPatrick J. Buchanan, June 07, 2011
> Late last month, when U.S. air strikes caused civilian casualties in Afghanistan, an angry Hamid Karzai issued an ultimatum.
> If future U.S. strikes are not restricted, we will take "unilateral action" and America may be treated like an "occupying power."
> That brought this blistering retort from one Republican hawk.
> "If President Karzai continues with these public ultimatums, we must consider our options about the immediate future of U.S. troops in his country. If he actually follows through on his claim that Afghan forces will take 'unilateral action' against NATO forces which conduct such air raids to take out terrorists and terrorist positions, that should result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the suspension of U.S. aid."
> Who was the GOP hawk shaking the fist at Karzai? Sarah Palin.
> Insiders attribute Palin's shift from the neocon party line to the departure from her staff of Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb, and their replacement by Libya war skeptic Peter Schweizer.
> Perhaps. But there are other straws in the wind that the GOP is coming to see that, like his "big government conservatism" ballyhooed byThe Weekly Standard, Bush II's compulsive interventionism has proven as great a disaster for his country as it did for his party.
> Last week, House Speaker John Boehner had to scramble to cobble up a substitute resolution to prevent half his GOP caucus from joining with Democrats to denounce President Obama's war in Libya as unconstitutional and to demand a total U.S. pullout in 15 days.
> The author of the end-the-war resolution that seemed likely to pass was Dennis Kucinich. That Republicans would vote for a Kucinich resolution testifies to the anger on the Hill that Obama took us to war without congressional authorization and has treated the War Powers Act with manifest contempt.
> Boehner's resolution, which gives the president longer to comply with the act and involves no deadline for withdrawal, passed 268 to 145.
> But Kucinich's resolution, which would have cut off funds for the Libyan war, still garnered 148 votes, among them 87 Republicans.
> More than a third of House Republicans voted to pull out of the NATO coalition attacking Moammar Gadhafi's forces, which would have forced a NATO withdrawal from that civil war. This is historic.
> Yet another reflection of anti-interventionist sentiment can be seen in Defense Secretary Robert Gates' valedictory tour, where he felt compelled to assure U.S. allies in Asia we are there to stay.
> In Afghanistan, Gates seemed to warn the White House not to make too large a withdrawal of forces in July, when President Obama begins to reverse the 30,000-soldier surge of 2009.
> What explains the shift in political and public sentiment away from military interventionism?
> First, the length and cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraqthe first in its 10th year, the latter in its eighthwith their endless bleedings of American blood and treasure for inconclusive results.
> Over 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and $1 trillion sunk, with a real possibility a U.S. pullout from Iraq in December could result in civil war, and a fear that the Afghan War, where the Taliban now conduct jailbreaks of 500 men in Kandahar and fight on the Af-Pak border in battalion strength, may ultimately be lost.
> A second cause is our fiscal crisis. America cannot afford any more wars, or more billions in foreign aid to balance budgets of Arab countries whose treasuries have been looted by departing despots.
> Third, there is the sense in Congress that it has let itself be steadily stripped of its constitutional power to declare war.
> Harry Truman conducted America's first undeclared war in Korea, calling it a "police action."
> Historians now believe Congress was misled or lied to when it approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing LBJ to attack North Vietnam.
> While George H.W. Bush got the support of both houses for Desert Storm, Bill Clinton launched his war on Serbia in defiance of a House vote not to authorize it.
> George W. Bush got congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq by declaring that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction it did not have. We went to war for nothing.
> Finally, the Libyan war Obama entered, egged on by Britain and France, but without the support of Congress, makes little sense.
> Though Gadhafi is a repellent figure, the architect of the Lockerbie massacre, we have no vital interest in who rules Libya. Yet when Gadhafi falls, it will now be up to us to see to it that Libya is united and repaired and has a democratic government.
> Obama has already committed us to take the lead in a $40 billion rescue of Egypt and Tunisia. Can we also afford to rescue a Yemen that is in terrible shape and a Libya that has been at war for months?
> The return of the anti-interventionist right is welcome news. It may assure a real debate on foreign policy in the Republican primaries of 2012.http://buchanan.org/blog/return-of-the-anti-interventionist-right-4770

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Check out the writeup and photos of this vacation trip

Aahhh the dlounge... I bet it beats the hospital. 

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

Dick,

I have been to all those places and it is well worth the trip !!! What
they didn't do was go to the aptly named "Whiskey Row" in Prescott
(but it was a kids trip). I love the Lizard's Lounge there. A GREAT
Blues venue.

On Jun 6, 11:33 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Don't let the tag home schooling fool you.  The photos are great and the
> trip looks like one I would love to take
>
> http://thepioneerwoman.com/homeschooling/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.