posted
Seriously.... I want whatever this guy is smoking.
quote: Sources Say Smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court May Be Inevitable July 9, 12:03 Examiner.com Anthony G. Martin
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
posted
There will be lawsuits for sure. Of course, I doubt he'll get "smacked down"
Health care is constitutionally a states issue. If the court can rule that AZ can't enforce federal immigration law, healthcare is certainly an issue "left to the states" by the constitution. But, the same court that ruled against AZ also ruled that police can put tracking devices on your car without a warrant.
I don't trust the courts to intervene to protect the constitution. They wont even force Obama to show his birth certificate.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you label this opinion piece as "neocon," what exactly do you mean? Every administration has some policies and initiatives which end up scrutinized by scotus, but how do you get that the 3 issues here are being challenged on a "neocon" basis (versus "paleoconservative," or just plain conservative)?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's abysmally sad that the Constitutional challenges this guy thinks our horribly useless Court might pose Obama involve Birther crap and ObamaCare, as opposed to the very serious and legitimate issues attached to the arrogation of executive power.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mentioned earlier that the Project for the New American Century guys screwed up so badly that the words 'neoconservative' or 'neocon,' previously a label they adhered to with pride, has been reduced to a pejorative that neoconservatives desperately avoid and which is only really used anymore as a pejorative label.
however, it still has historical use in describing a movement, an ideology, and the persons who, while trying to escape the name, lived by it and are identified by it.
Not that it's related to the article at all, which is only really 'neocon' in the sense that many liberals use it. In effect, "republicans as disgusting and nasty as I am inclined to think they all are."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's abysmally sad that the Constitutional challenges this guy thinks our horribly useless Court might pose Obama involve Birther crap and ObamaCare, as opposed to the very serious and legitimate issues attached to the arrogation of executive power.
these issues can't be solved outside of fixing the morass of our legislature. The more impossibly locked up the legislative branch gets, the more authority will necessarily and intractably seep to the executive, a process which is nearing a decade of accelerated severity.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if "neocon" is meant here as a generic pejorative, the I shouldn't look at the issues the this Anthony Martin poses as being all of a "neocon" perspective.
There is so much in this essay which doesn't make much sense, it's not really worth addressing. This examiner.com site seems to be a site in which amateurs can post essays. Blayne, I think you might get more out of going to realclearpolitics.com once a day and looking at the opinion pieces linked-to there. You'll be less likely get "I'll have what he's smoking" envy if you read opinion pieces from people who don't think that scotus is sending "very subtle" signals that they are going to go after "pay-to-play" and "cronyism" malfeasance (those sort of things would be more likely to be investigated by congress or special prosecutors, if inside doj), and who don't imagine that when a President's administration loses a few Supreme Court decisions, that administration is "Crippled" and the "entire house of cards goes into free-fall."
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I can't really say Conversative propoganda because actual conservatives are actually sane.
IP: Logged |
posted
Utterly false. There are many conservatives that are off their rocker. Just like every other group out there.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I make the distinction between those who are "real" conservatives, people who'ld like minimal government or to keep the status quo, people who act as a damper on the enthusism of popular progressivism, the people who call themselves conservative but are akin to Glenn Beck or believe in the "Left wing conspiracy" are actually reactionary not conservative.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I make the distinction between those who are "real" conservatives, people who'ld like minimal government or to keep the status quo, people who act as a damper on the enthusism of popular progressivism, the people who call themselves conservative but are akin to Glenn Beck or believe in the "Left wing conspiracy" are actually reactionary not conservative.
I actually wouldn't put Glenn Beck in the same category. While he may be overly dramatic and he does certain things because they have shock value, most of the information he presents is pretty well researched. What he does with the information is a different story.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes me think so? On his radio show (I don't know about his TV show, I don't watch it) he cites his sources. He tells people exactly where he gets his information and tells them where he found it. I don't enjoy his politics much, but I appreciate his historical bits. A few weeks ago he had some interesting information on some ancient american civilizations and some of the discoveries that have been made. It was pretty interesting.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I actually wouldn't put Glenn Beck in the same category. While he may be overly dramatic and he does certain things because they have shock value, most of the information he presents is pretty well researched. What he does with the information is a different story.
Can you be sure of the authenticity of his information when it's spun so wildly?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Citing sources doesn't necessarily mean well researched. Ann Coulter, for instance, is notorious for providing lots of footnotes in her books but examination of that material shows that generally it is either not actually a good primary source or doesn't actually support the point she's trying to make or she has otherwise misunderstood it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: [QUOTE]Can you be sure of the authenticity of his information when it's spun so wildly?
Well, yes. Again, if you read my post you would see I was referring to his segments in which he deals with history, not politics.
I am fairly surprised that you think that just because someone has a political talk show, it automatically means that every source they cite will be biased.
It also shows that you have probably never even heard his radio show. If you had, you would know that the show is more than just politics. There are some excellent historical topics and discussions.
I've read through a few historical books that he has cited on his radio show, and I found nothing biased or political about them. There was even a DVD I found interesting called "Lost Civilizations of North America" that deals with discoveries in places such as Ohio in which ruins of ancient civilizations has been found. I found it fascinating. If you get a chance to rent it, it is worth watching.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That DVD was produced by a couple of LDS activists. Is there any peer-reviewed research behind it? I tend to get a little suspicious about LDS claims about ancient US history.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: That DVD was produced by a couple of LDS activists. Is there any peer-reviewed research behind it? I tend to get a little suspicious about LDS claims about ancient US history.
Absolutely, in fact more than a dozen of the archaeologists, anthropologists, museum directors, geneticists, historians and Native Americans that contributed to the research were not LDS.
When I watched it I didn't even know that the producers were LDS. Interesting to know.
A lot of it is about the Hopwell Settlement in Ohio.
There is some interesting information on what they have found there. The settlement predates the Mayans and Aztecs.
One idea put forth in the DVD is that settlements and finds like this were common a few hundred years ago, however the religious advocates at the time spent time and money covering these up or discrediting them as hoaxes. Since they were advocates of "Manifest Destiny" they did not want the people to know that the Native Americans had knowledge in carpentry, stonework, or mathematics. If people were to know the Native Americans had these things it would not be as easy to convince the people that the Indians were nothing but savages.
I don't know how much I buy into that theory, but the findings are still pretty amazing.
In 1860 a stone was found that dates back to around the same time as the Hopewell settlement. The stone had a version of the 10 commandments written on it in the Hebrew language.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Can you be sure of the authenticity of his information when it's spun so wildly?
Well, yes. Again, if you read my post you would see I was referring to his segments in which he deals with history, not politics.
I've seen (and no, never listened to his radio show) enough of Glen Beck to understand that he has some strange agendas and messages. I feel that he's so motivated by this agenda that, even if he was trying to be objective, or historical, it would have residual spin. It's his overall worldview that I doubt (severely). Not the fact that he uses facts.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: That DVD was produced by a couple of LDS activists. Is there any peer-reviewed research behind it? I tend to get a little suspicious about LDS claims about ancient US history.
Absolutely,
Do you know where to find any of this peer-reviewed research?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: In 1860 a stone was found that dates back to around the same time as the Hopewell settlement. The stone had a version of the 10 commandments written on it in the Hebrew language.
posted
The stone's creation dates back to a similar period (assuming that page is accurate). The time of deposit in the area, almost certainly not. Indeed, per that page linked, it was dug up near a stone pretty incontrovertibly created at absolute earliest in the mid-6th century AD (by someone familiar with changes in old world Hebrew writing).
In other words, the stones are deposits into the area from a much later date, or there was a mysterious incursion by Jewish artifact-carriers sometime in the vague vicinity of 1000 AD (and I suspect nobody is proffering that explanation).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
