It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better
still to be a live lion. And usually easier. - Robert A. Heinlein
Fellow patriots,
I fear that dark days lie ahead for America. The
inauguration of presidential usurper Barack Hussein Obama marks an
unprecedented constitutional crisis in which for the first time in our
nations history, America no longer has a lawfully-elected President. In
addition, our great nation is entering into dark times with the inauguration
of the most radical, Marxist President in US history. For the first time in
American history, we will have an illegitimate President who has spent his
entire life associating with terrorists and black liberation theologists
whose hatred for America is not exceeded by the Islamic terrorists we fight
in our just war against Islamic terror implying he may well feel similarly.
The extent to which Americas Communist and Islamist enemies
both at home and abroad have cheered his victory is without parallel. His
inauguration as President conveys to our enemies the clear message help is
on the way. We are truly entering into uncharted territory as we begin four
years of America being held hostage with our only hope being the
liberal-majority US Supreme Court which to date has rejected every appeal to
compel our new illegitimate President from providing a birth certificate
showing his eligibility to serve as our President. Obama is now subverting
the very Constitution he just swore an oath to preserve and protect.
I hope that all patriotic Americans will unite and join
together in praying for Obamas radical agenda for America to fail, that our
great nation and its God-given Constitution and the freedoms and liberties
it guarantees to us all might be preserved for future generations. If he
succeeds in implementing his cultural and fiscal Marxist agenda and program
for unilateral disarmament of our country, then I believe our nation has but
four years left before we suffer a catastrophic attack by our enemies so
severe that our government collapses and our fellow citizens are plunged
into anarchy and very probably civil war.
David
Obama, oaths and the end of constitutional
government
Exclusive: Alan Keyes and John Haskins warn of inaugural splendor
replacing eligibility
________________________________
Posted: January 20, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
________________________________
Now steps onto the stage of world history a man apparently
quite conscious that the Supreme Law of the United States prevents him from
being president of the United States.
For why else would anyone hire lawyers and expend millions of
dollars to avoid producing a $12.50 birth certificate to show eligibility
under the Constitution? 'Midst the rhythmic chants of a delirious,
sycophantic media, inaugural splendor will substitute for simple proof that
the United States of America will have a constitutionally legitimate
president.
If Obama is not eligible, legally, the United States of America will
have no president <http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm> . A
usurper will wield such power as few men have ever held, having no
constitutional warrant. However beloved of the media or adored by racialist
groupies, and irrespective of public support, Obama will be a tyrant, in the
original sense of the word (from the Greek tyrannos meaning one who wields
power to which he has no lawful claim). As he sends young soldiers to die,
even the appearance of his usurpation of presidential powers will insult
their sacrifice and thwart the Constitution they give their all to preserve.
Even as he utters the oath hand on Lincoln's Bible he will betray it,
not upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution, but subverting it.
The elites insist that we should pretend to be convinced by an
exhibition of a "certificate of live birth" via the Internet, lacking the
very information the Constitution requires. On the strength of this we are
to exercise blind faith and risk the consequences of an unconstitutional
usurpation of the presidency?
"Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of
the constitution, " Jefferson warned us. Caesar rose to power on the
passions of men, and killed a republic. Napoleon did the same. So did
Hitler, with strong support from the secularized, university-educated elite.
But the elites approve as Obama whistles past the Constitution. They regard
the Supreme Law of the United States as a dead letter, "living and
breathing" of course, which is their code for dead and buried.
Like the sophisticated, educated elites in Weimar, Germany, they
long to live under what they presume will be a benevolent dictatorship. This
one will be different, they are quite sure: soft, touchy-feely, agreeably in
tune with the restless, ever-mutating consensus of the chattering class.
Thus was it in human history, until the Declaration birthed our state and
federal constitutions, now just archaic platitudes, to shape naïve youths in
American History classes as docile subjects of bureaucratic tyranny.
(Column continues below)
It would not be hard to clarify Obama's eligibility to be president.
The Constitution provided an entire branch of government to adjudicate
constitutional questions. But judges have concocted various "rules" over the
years that they cite as their license to violate the Constitution and to
excuse their failure to uphold it. These they now use to claim that
Americans lack standing to ask their courts for a judgment of fact required
by our Supreme Law. They dismiss lawsuits that ask only that judges fulfill
their oaths and uphold the Constitution. Are solemn oaths now meaningless?
Whether rooted in incompetence, cowardice or calculated cynicism,
these dismissals of valid lawsuits are willful subversions of the
Constitution, the inevitable result of legal education that substitutes
judicial decrees for the authority of real laws and constitutions.
'Discretion' to violate one's oath?
An article in the Michigan Law Review
<http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm>
rehearses the legal gibberish being used to obscure a simple issue. It boils
down to this: Constitutional law makes the Constitution unenforceable. By
what anti-logic can a Constitution make itself unenforceable?
Clearly solemn oaths to uphold the Supreme Law of the United States
are now meaningless. "We've washed our hands," the judges are saying.
Politicians are on the honor system now, they say.
But among those who claim that "prudential" or discretionary
considerations prevail over solemnly sworn non-discretionary oaths, honor is
obsolete. What remains is the law of the jungle, tarted up in lawyer-talk.
It's every man for himself. The strong versus the weak.
The article relies on the hidden presuppositions and circular legal
reasoning that lawyers and judges use in totalitarian regimes. For example,
a claim that citizens have no "standing" to demand that the law be carried
out:
The three requirements for Article III standing are
well-established.
The author's passing reference to Article III in the Constitution is
a lawyer's head-fake. Revealingly, he's forced to take immediate cover in
judges' thoughts (which modern lawyers pretentiously call "case law") rather
than the Constitution itself:
Under current case law, plaintiffs in the cases challenging the
presidential candidates' eligibility probably lack standing. In fact, it is
questionable whether anyone would have standing
in federal court as an
initial matter, due to the prudential limitations on standing.
First, as
described in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and other cases
the Court has
said. In Allen v. Wright, for example, the Court held
The vocabulary and hidden dogma would not even make sense to those
who wrote or ratified the Constitution: "Current case law."
"Well-established. " "Probably lack standing." "Questionable. " "Prudential
limitations. " "The Court has said." "The Court held." It is all about
judges' thoughts, which over the years produce multiple layers of
self-contradiction.
Attempts to equate the modern fiction of judge-made "law" with the
ancient system of English Common Law are inept or dishonest. Those who
established our form of government left no room for the concept of judges'
opinions as law. The Massachusetts Constitution is more brutally explicit
than most: "[T]he people ... are not controllable by any other laws than
those to which their constitutional representative body have given their
consent." (Part I, Article X.)
The term "case law" did not exist and could not have existed because
it was a negation of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and
of the United States of America itself. The term had to be invented much
later by lawyers to hide their theft of power from the people. Portrayal of
judges' opinions as the law itself reveals that the Constitution has been
put out to pasture even when it is the subject of dispute. But fear not.
Judges' opinions about the Constitution are even better than the real thing.
Ironically, judges' failure to carry out their oaths and uphold the
Constitution fatally undermines the reasoning that supports their authentic
role as "guardians of the Constitution. " As Founding Father Alexander
Hamilton wrote:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province
of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its
meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the
legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance
between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought
of course, to be preferred; or, in other words the Constitution ought to be
preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of
their agents." (The Federalist Papers, No. 78, italics added)
Hamilton made clear binding principles of American law and
government then universally understood and both explicit and implicit in our
Constitutions:
* the duty of judges to faithfully defend the original intent
of the fundamental law of the United States is never discretionary, but
always obligatory;
* It is a duty to interpret, not to generate law;
* jurisprudence is original intent jurisprudence or else it is
not jurisprudence at all;
* The Constitution is fundamental, which in plain English
means simply that when not honestly interpreted and enforced the foundation
of government is removed.
Some shout that "an election" cannot be overturned, Constitution or
no constitution. This is irrational and is the road to tyranny.
A simple majority vote for any particular president can never trump
the ground rules established by the people as a whole: the duly ratified
Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the United States. Therein are
found the rules by which a simply plurality of voters may legally impose on
an unwilling remainder of the population a president by whom the remainder
do not wish to be governed.
The sovereign collective act that ordained the Constitution
determines the legitimacy of every subsequent act under its authority,
including elections by the people. If the Supreme Law establishing the rules
and boundaries of elections and government is abrogated, the legitimacy of
the government itself is undermined. If any transient majority can use an
ordinary election to bypass the Constitution, there is no Constitution, only
the tyranny of the majority. Judges are obliged by their oath of office to
declare illegal acts that violate the Constitution.
The legitimacy of government is not merely an abstract concern. Laws
are more easily enforced, and with less occasion for violence and conflict,
when government has the respect and allegiance of the people. Under despotic
government based on fear, cults of personality and sharing of the spoils,
power is the personal instrument of the rulers (res private). Under
constitutional government, power belongs to the people (res publica), whose
will and intention the Constitution declares. Loyalty to the Constitution
displaces personal fealty as the focal point of respect for law. When public
officials show contempt for the Constitution, they set the stage for an
escalation of force as the instrument of the law; and for the eruption of
civil conflict.
Throughout the history of the United States, the frequent descent of
other nations (France, Italy, Germany, Spain, India, China, Sudan, etc.)
into anarchy, violence and dictatorship has reminded conscientious leaders
in America that inculcating respect and love for our Constitution is a
matter of national survival. Enlightened self-interest made the Judiciary
one of the chief promoters and guardians of this essential sentiment. So
also public-spirited elements of the American elite were prudent enough to
fear the consequences of letting our government slip into the pattern of
devalued legitimacy that produces historic cycles of repression, violence
and perpetual conflict seen around the world.
Today, technological advances and sweeping expansion of corporate
enterprise have encouraged boundless self-satisfaction and arrogance among
our elites. Through the virtual reality of the information media and
economic manipulation, they shape perception, consciousness and behavior,
dispensing, they believe, with the practical need for moral leadership and
for education that inculcates character. They scorn character as the basis
for self-government, creating in its stead a powerful illusion of their own
infallible technical and economic competence. For now they preserve the
outward appearance of respect for the people, but as modern techniques of
despotism take their effect they will no longer need the mask of
constitutional process to obscure the end of the age of government based
upon the consent of the governed.
It is no accident that, as his hands reach for the levers of power,
Barack Obama feels safe in refusing to show meticulous public compliance
with the Constitution' s requirements. After all, among those who swear our
solemn oaths, honor has gone out of style. Cavalier disregard for the
Constitution and the authority of the sovereign People who ratified it as a
whole, suggests the imminence of the power elite's nonchalant abandonment of
the very guarantee of our liberty.
Like the dog who didn't bark in the Sherlock Holmes story, the
silent complicity of America's elites, including judges, elected officials
and others sworn to uphold the Constitution, reveals to those who are not
asleep, or blinded by selfish ambition, that the silver blaze of liberty is
being extinguished by the very guardians who ought to be keepers of the
flame.
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
