Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches'
Dereliction Of Duty
America's Constitution
Being Scoffed & Sold Out
By Top Levels Of Government
They that forsake the law praise the wicked:
but such as keep the law contend with them.
Proverbs 28:4
Kennedy Knighting: Dodd Laughs at Constitution
March 8, 2009
Kennedy Knighting: Dodd Laughs at Constitution
by Brainflation
http://www.infowars.com/kennedy-knighting-dodd-laughs-at-constitution/
I attended the Health Care Forum down at the Coast Guard Academy today. Overall it was about what I expected, much hot gas was released but no cogent ideas were formed. While I didn’t get the opportunity to unleash my health question trifecta on Dodd during the forum I did catch up with him afterward. I asked Mr. Dodd when Congress authorized Senator Kennedy to receive his honorary knighthood from England. He honestly enough told me that no such authorization came out of congress. When I then informed him that Senator Kennedy is in violation of Article I section 9 of the Constitution and asked when the Senate intended to remove Kennedy he had only laughter.
It is clear that Senator Dodd has no interest in upholding his own oath to defend the Constitution in response to Senator Kennedy’s violation of his oath of office and the Constitution. It is obvious that we need to get rid of this clown because he has no intention of ever doing what he was elected to do, uphold the constitution. From Article I Section 9: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Another Attack on the Constitution: Obama Hijacks the Census
Feb. 10, 2009
Another Attack on the Constitution: Obama Hijacks the Census
by Kurt Nimmo
http://www.infowars.com/another-attack-on-the-constitution-obama-hijacks-the-census/
It’s another shot across the bow of the Constitution: the White House has announced it will micromanage the census. It is said Obama and crew — you can almost hear Rahm Emanuel cracking his knuckles in Obama’s ear — decided to lord over the census after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House about Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head the Commerce Department. Lee, the Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained Gregg couldn’t be trusted to conduct to run the census, at least not to their liking, and in response the Obama administration hijacked the census.
On February 6, White House spokesman Laena Fallon said: “From the first days of the transition the census has been a priority for the president, and a process he wanted to reevaluate. There is historic precedent for the director of the census, who works for the Commerce Secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management — given the number of decisions that will have to be put before the president. We plan to return to that model in this administration.” In short, the Obama administration plans to violate the Constitution and the law. According to Article I, Section 2 the Constitution: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” As for the Law, Congress decreed the following:
The Secretary [of Commerce] shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.
Title 13 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 1, Subchapter I, § 2, entitled “Bureau of the Census,” states: “The Bureau is continued as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce.” Not under the jurisdiction of Obama and Rahm Emanuel, but the Department of Commerce. The Director of the Census by law must be within the Department of Commerce and under the direction of the Senate approved Secretary of Commerce who then reports to the president. According to the Chicago Daily Observer, the Secretary of Commerce will not report directly to Obama, but his designee — feared by Republicans to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Last week, Mary Ann Akers of the Washington Post cited a senior Republican Senate aide, who declared that letting the census “be run out of Rahm’s office is like putting PETA in charge of issuing hunting permits.”
For the Democrats, all of this is exceedingly important because census results will determine the redrawing of congressional districts and electoral college numbers and may impact the 2012 elections when Obama could be fighting for reelection and Democrats fighting to hold on to the House and the Senate. In such matters — considering the composition of government — the integrity of the Constitution and the letter of law come in dead last. Obama is said to be a constitutional scholar. In fact, he has about as much reverence for our founding document as George W. Bush, who infamously said during a meeting with Republican congressional leaders in 2005 that the Constitution is “.....just a g _ _ _ _ _ _ _d piece of paper.”
Obama may indeed have a soft spot in his heart for the Constitution, not that it matters — he is little more than a front man for the ruling elite who call the shots. Sabotaging the Constitution has nothing to do with Democrats, Republicans, congressional districts, or the Congressional Black Caucus and Hispanic groups — it has to do with control exercised by our rulers. If the census needs to be fiddled with in order to make sure the globalist agenda remains on track with the current spate of factotums in place, the act of treading on the Constitution is of no account.
Judicial Watch: Clinton Secretary of State Appointment Unconstitutional
Jan. 30, 2009
Judicial Watch: Clinton Secretary of State Appointment Unconstitutional
by Judicial Watch
http://www.infowars.com/judicial-watch-clinton-secretary-of-state-appointment-unconstitutional/
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States.
Under the “Emoluments” or “Ineligibility” clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the “emoluments” of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected. Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides, “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.” The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
March 9, 2009
PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
WMD.Com
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
To: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authorities;
Whereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen;
Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims;
Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery;
Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed;
Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii;
Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections;
From One Assault On The Constitution To Another
Feb. 20, 2009
From One Assault On The Constitution To Another
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.infowars.com/from-one-assault-on-the-constitution-to-another/
“…the right to bear arms enables the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
The US Constitution has few friends on the right or the left. Will it turn out that we enjoyed more liberty under Bush than we will under Obama? At least the Republicans left us the Second Amendment. The Obama Democrats are not going to return our other purloined civil liberties, and they are already attacking the Second Amendment. Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D, IL) has introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. As the British and Australians learned, once firearms are registered, the government knows where they are. The government’s next step is to confiscate the firearms.
Moreover, the Act would permit the government to negate Second Amendment rights by refusing to issue a license. Any parents who bequeathed family antique or historic firearms to heirs would be in violation of the act, as it bans any transfer of a firearm other than via a licensed dealer. William Blackstone, the revered 18th century defender of liberty whose Commentaries on the Laws of England was a bestseller in colonial America, wrote that "the last auxiliary right" of free men is "having arms for their defense." Blackstone, England’s greatest jurist, said that the right to bear arms enables the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
…Why do the Democrats desire Americans to be helpless in the face of oppression by the armed state? How can it be that Democrats want Americans to be free from the threat of being thrown into dungeons and locked away without a court ever hearing evidence, but are prepared to deny Americans the ability to resist such horrendous treatment should it come their way? In response to my question, one progressive acquaintance said that he wanted to reduce "gun violence." As guns are inanimate objects, I assume he meant violence committed by people who use guns instead of knives, fists or some other weapon.
"Gun violence" is not something committed by the vast majority of gun owners. "Gun violence" is the preserve of the criminal elements, such as gangs fighting over drug turf. Criminals are already prohibited from owning guns, but criminals pay no more attention to this law than they do to laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Why do Democrats think that disarming law-abiding citizens will disarm outlaws?
England, in violation of its unwritten constitution, banned ownership of pistols and rifles. But now the police have to be heavily armed, because criminals are now armed, but not law-abiding citizens. When I lived in England, the police were not armed with firearms. I remember reading a few years after the passage of England’s gun ban that criminals were selling submachine guns on London street corners. The police discovered a warehouse in London filled to the brim with machine guns that were being sold to all comers.
So much for gun bans. They only disarm the law abiding and leave them defenseless. Gun bans also greatly increase the crime rate. When households are armed, robbers prefer houses where no one is home. In England, criminals are no longer deterred from entering an occupied home. The more people at home the better. There might be someone to rape and someone to beat up. There is little to fear from a disarmed household.
When I lived in the metro area of Washington DC, I resided on the Virginia side of the Potomac. There was no problem with owning a gun in Virginia, but in DC, until the recent Supreme Court ruling, the only way a person could have a firearm was to keep it disassembled and unloaded. The Washington "gun control" ordinance benefitted criminals. The crime rate in DC was much higher than across the river. Despite, or because of, the gun ban, DC was the murder capital of the US. Police seldom, if ever, prevent a crime (if they were able to then there would be no crime). Their job is to appear after a crime is committed and to investigate with a view to identifying the perpetrator. A large number of careful studies show that private gun ownership prevents far more crimes than police ever solve. Criminals are routinely deterred, apprehended, and sometimes killed, by armed private citizens.
If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth:
but the righteous shall see their fall.
(Pr 29:12 & Pr 29:16)
_____________________________________
Are you saved? Are you ready for the tribulation to come? Are you headed to hell without hope and God?
Click here to go to our salvation page and learn how you can become born-again and live eternally.