Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category
Ted Nugent was at the NRA Convention this past weekend and created a firestorm when he spoke out candidly against the current administration. As a result of his comments, he is being investigated by the Secret Service. In fact, today he is meeting with the Secret Service, what Ted calls “a BBQ”.
At the NRA Convention Ted was supporting Mitt Romney and voicing his frustration with this current administration. The main comment that got Ted in trouble was when he said that if Obama is elected as our President again he will be dead or in jail this time next year. A couple of other comments that he made were; we need to clean house in this vile, evil, American hating administration, and as patriots we need to ride into the battle field and chop their heads off in November.
Now I think we all know what he means. And I think we share the same frustration. Maybe Ted went a bit too far when he said that he would either be dead or in jail this time next year if Obama is re-elected, but aren’t we all extremely frustrated with the state of things in our nation right now?
Watch the video with Ted’s comments.
Now you need to compare what Ted said with what Louis Farrakhan said this week. Farrakhan isn’t being investigated by the Secret Service. Why not?
Following is a link to a segment on GBTV where Glenn Beck shares about the real Ted Nugent.
A new law, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (H.R. 347) was signed by Obama in early March 2012 which makes it illegal to protest in his presence.
Regardless of where you stand politically, this is very scary. This is Germany 1933!
The new law signed in secret means that wherever Obama is you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like or doesn’t want to answer. This sounds as if he’s becoming more like Hitler than Lincoln. THIS IS HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKE OVER OF AMERICA.
May the Lord have mercy on us!!!!
Posted in Colorado News, Constitution, Occupy Denver, Occupy Movement, tagged Corporate Personhood, Fourth Amendment, Occupy Boulder, People's Republic of Boulder, reasonable expectation of privacy, tents on January 27, 2012| Leave a Comment »
In another moment of sheer Boulder genious, a judge has ruled that sleeping protesters inside a tent placed illegally on public property have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Prior Colorado decisions recognize an expectation of privacy inside camping tents. Therefore, Occupy protestors can pitch tents on public property and obtain Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable” searches and seizures by the dirty cops who try to enforce the law against camping.
Keep in mind that Boulder is the same community that voted in November symbolically killed corporate personhood. In the People’s Republic of Boulder, evil corporations have no constitutional rights–by citizen fiat. Thus, if these same hippies incorporate, law enforcement could contend that the Fourth Amendment can never apply to their activities.
Lefty corporations that supported the November 2011 ballot measure included Moveon.org and the Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center. These evil corporations organized an Occupy Boulder rally to favor Boulder Ballot Issue 2H. In fact, Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center has been incorporated in Colorado since 1983. Furthermore, under the terms of their incorporation, this organization claims “perpetual” existence. In other words, this group is immortal.
No Justice, No Peace until this closet corporation is shut down. I hope the City of Boulder’s appeal will assert that law enforcement reasonably believed the persons illegally camping by the Courthouse were acting on behalf of a corporation (!!!)–and therefore have no Fourth Amendment rights. That part of the appeal would fail, but at least it would teach Occupy Boulder a lesson about double standards–and completely undermine their nonsensical views of constitutional rights.
Yesterday President Obama announced that he would disregard the U.S. Constitution and act without the approval of Congress.
Following is a link to an article written by Todd Gaziano with The Heritage Foundation. The article will explain why President Obama’s action yesterday to appoint Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional.
This isn’t the first time that Obama has gone around Congress. How about the implementation of environmental regulations, the lack of enforcement of immigration law, the selective enforcement of voting rights, and the regulation on the Internet?
As Todd Gaziano said, in an interview last month with 60 Minutes, the President gave warning of his intentions to preside over an imperial presidency for the next year. “What I’m not gonna do is wait for Congress,” he said. “So wherever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we’re just gonna go ahead and do ’em.”
Obama has been testing Congress for the last three years, and they haven’t done anything about it, and so now he is taking it a step further and acting without executive authority.
What I want to know it what is the Congress going to do about it? What are the Republicans in Congress going to do about it? President Obama has violated his oath office numerous times. It is past due for the Congress to impeach him.
It is time for another Rick Santelli moment for the Tea Party. If our elected representatives in Congress won’t address the issues that are facing our Nation, then it is time to replace them with someone who will! And that includes Rep. Cory Gardner.
On Thursday, December 15th, 2011, Congress gave Obama a new power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act empowers the President to detain anyone who “substantially supported” groups he determines are “associated forces” of terrorists.
The provision that is an issue is Section 1021, which is part of another 1800-page bill passed by Congress.
Section 1021, the bill’s discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.” None of the quoted terms are defined. We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners. The bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” either. Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the new government’s detention powers.
Section 1022, the bill’s mandatory detention provision, requires the President to detain members of al-Qaeda who have planned or carried out attacks against the U.S. or its coalition partners. Only section 1022 states that it “does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
If it was important enough to include the statement that section 1022 “does not extend to citizens of the United States”, then why wasn’t that same statement also included in section 1021? The fact is that the Senate expressly rejected a provision in section 1021 that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens.
You can read the language of both provisions in the conference report. Section 1021 begins on page 653; section 1022 begins on page 656.
The expansive, undefined, and dangerous detention power in section 1021 goes well beyond what Congress authorized in its September 2011 Authorization for Use of Military Force (9/11 AUMF), even though the bill claims it only “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF. To understand how much power section 1021 gives to the President, consider the 9/11 AUMF’s text, which Congress passed just days after the most deadly attack in U.S. history: The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
When the Senate passed the bill last Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported . . . associated forces.”
Who might that be? Do you want our President making that decision?
Interestingly, an amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states: Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that section 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codified the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.
The fact is that our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial.
Our own Cory Gardner voted for this bill. In his recent weekly newsletter he made the comment that “the bill institutes a requirement that foreign terrorist detainees must be held in military custody, but that requirement does not apply to US citizens.” That is section 1022. He makes no mention about the problems in section 1021. I thought that he was going to uphold the Constitution. Maybe he didn’t read the bill.