court - ACTION - Command Center2024-03-28T18:57:47Zhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/feed/tag/courtOklahoma Opioid Crisis and Now Your Freedom is in Crisishttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/oklahoma-opioid-crisis-and-now-your-freedom-is-in-crisis2019-08-29T13:24:07.000Z2019-08-29T13:24:07.000ZJustin Woodhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/JustinWood<div><p>August 26, 2019, may go down as a day in infamy when the courts allowed a frivolous lawsuit to squeeze through the bench on its way to attack the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This has been a long-standing battle for the right to “keep and bear arms” as written and so vehemently defended by our Founding Fathers. The Honorable Judge Thad Balkman of the Cleveland County District Court just sent a volley of serious attacks against our freedoms that will forever change history.</p><p><strong><em>Background</em></strong></p><p>The Cleveland County District Court was destined to hear the case on Oklahoma’s opioid crisis, between the Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter (R) and the Conglomerate Johnson’s & Johnson’s subsidiary Jenssen. This has been a long-running trial now for over two years. Evidence was heard on both sides, documents, and witnesses from parents and partners of deceased opioid users.</p><p>After some intense deliberation, the Honorable Judge Thad Balkman handed down a verdict citing that the Defendants’ “actions caused harm” (1) “because those actions annoyed, injured or endangered the comfort, repose, health or safety of Oklahomans” (1). He ruled that the “drugmaker Johnson & Johnson helped ignite the state’s opioid crisis” (2). The judge then ordered $572 million to be paid by the Defendants, stating from the bench, “The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma and must be abated immediately” (1).</p><p><strong><em>From the Trial</em></strong></p><p>Before the trial was even set, the Oklahoma Attorney General asked the manufacturer to pay huge sums of money to settle the case outside of court. This is customary for many cases, as 97% of all civil cases settle before trial. The Oklahoma Attorney General asked for a sum of $17.5 billion in his lawsuit, far greater than a reasonable settlement. In mediation, this tactic is called the extortion offer.</p><p>I, for one, was watching most of the trial unfold, and am alarmed at how this verdict was reached. Witnesses were crying and sobbing as they remembered their loved ones slipping away or recounting how their loved one “didn’t want to die.” Playing on every channel during the trial were commercials touting these same losses and heartbreaks. This is sad and extremely painful to watch, but even more so for those that live through this catastrophe. </p><p>But is it Johnson & Johnson’s fault?</p><p>One individual recounted how their adult child started using pain killers (opioids) and continued even after they recovered. Another described how their loved one couldn’t get the opioids from the prescribing physician, so they resorted to stealing prescriptions and buying prescription medications illegally.</p><p>Every day, the trial showcased people who have suffered from the opioid epidemic, while also railing against the carelessness of Johnson & Johnson to allow people to become addicted to opioids.</p><p>One such commercial told a story of how their son started taking opioids after an injury and then continued to take the opioids afterward to get “high.” They go on further to say their son “didn’t want to die.”</p><p><strong><em>Reality Check</em></strong></p><p>How did the Honorable Judge Thad Balkman conclude that Johnson & Johnson was at fault for people unlawfully obtaining prescription medications and subsequently overdosing on them? Where was the prescribing physician? Was the physician still prescribing the opioid to the patients?</p><p>Where is the connection that led the Honorable Judge Thad Balkman to realize that Johnson & Johnson or its subsidiary Jenssen were in some manner giving out or prescribing a class 2 pharmaceutical?</p><p>When did a person “knowingly” allow their son to continue taking a high potent prescription medication to get “high” become the standard to penalize the manufacturer? This comes down to personal responsibility. If you eat MacDonald’s every day while not exercising, is it MacDonald’s fault for your potential health problems?</p><p>I have grave concerns that a Republican Attorney General and a Republican District Judge were moved by emotions rather than facts. Even if the manufacturer did not admit to the total addictiveness of the pharmaceutical, the facts do not link the manufacturer to the distribution, nor does they link the manufacturer to the prescription.</p><p>Opioids must be prescribed by an attending physician who is licensed and trained for years on the addictive nature of opioids. The medications can only be obtained by a prescription taken to a pharmacy to be dispensed. There have been more restrictive laws and double-checks in place for years to prevent unethical physicians from prescribing opioids. Removal of licensure, lawsuits and prison sentences have been handed down for medical physicians improperly prescribing high-level narcotics. Have we forgotten the Michael Jackson case?</p><p>Neither the unlawful purchase of someone else’s medication, the theft of another person’s prescription, nor the theft of personal property to sell or barter to obtain a class 2 pharmaceutical narcotic constitute a manufacturer’s liability to warn about addictiveness. It also doesn’t point to the manufacturer helping “ignite the state’s opioid crisis” (2).</p><p>The standard as stated by the Honorable Judge Thad Balkman, “actions annoyed, injured or endangered the comfort, repose, health or safety of Oklahoman’s” (1) is quite a slippery slope.</p><p>You can claim: the cashier was rude and this “annoyed” me — sue the produce manufacturer, the tire blowing out from a passing car “endangered my comfort” — sue the automotive manufacturer, or the steel manufacturer uses to produce the automotive, the smoke blown outside the door harmed my “health and safety” — smoke was from a jet flying above — sue the jet fuel manufacturer, and the alarm clock disturbed my “repose” — sue the plastics manufacturer who supplied the alarm clock housing.</p><p>The standard is too vague and broad, creating an umbrella law to attack anyone for anything, regardless of their connection to the “action.”</p><p><strong><em>Our Court System</em></strong></p><p>Our courts are made up of laws passed by the legislature for the betterment of society. They are made to uphold our Constitutions, both state and federal. The most noted of all laws are not cited; they are bench laws or precedent. Precedent is when a judge makes a ruling on a case.</p><p>These are our most dangerous and harmful laws we have in the country and why we are in such grave danger now. When a judge sets a precedent, every case coming afterward seeks to hold by that ruling. Once lawyers find a favorable precedent, they can appeal to the former judge’s findings and how they ruled. Now, that judge can choose to ignore the previous litigation, which will end up in an appeal for not following precedent; affirm the precedent and award in line with the former judge, which most commonly happens; or overrule the former judge’s ruling, creating the opportunity for further appeals to the superior court.</p><p>This is not easy as most litigants, present case excluded, do not have the tens for thousands of dollars to fight a case to the superior courts or all the way to the United States Supreme Court. People accept the ruling by precedent and are forced into servitude or bankruptcy.</p><p><strong><em>A History of Fruitless Attacks on the American Constitution</em></strong></p><p>Everyone remembers the MacDonald’s case where the person was burned with a scorching cup of coffee. What people do not understand is the case was not about hot coffee but under-insulated cups and improper lids when handing out 120-degree beverages. All we remember is a person was burned by coffee, and they were awarded a huge sum of money. This case has been cited as precedent in many later cases to justify penalizing companies for actions that may or may not truly be the Defendant’s fault.</p><p>This same burger giant was targeted again years later for “making people fat.” This spawned videos and antics where healthy people who worked out daily, ran marathons, and ate a moderate green diet went on an eating binge to consume thousands of calories more than usual. This led to ignorant findings that were touted to prove that the fast-food chain was knowingly harming the citizens.</p><p>We have all heard of the attacks on the auto manufactures for a half-century. When the vehicle is made improperly or defectively, the manufacturer absolutely bears responsibility. When the manufacturer knows of a defect and chooses to ignore the danger, the manufacturer is certainly liable. But it has been ruled many times that the automobile manufacturer does not bear guilt for driver error and weather conditions that exceed the manufacturer’s intended purpose. This case now opens the door for lawsuits against automobile manufacturers when someone drives 200 miles on the doughnut spare, and it blows out.</p><p>Everyone remembers the lawsuit to sue the ammunition manufactures for causing death because someone was shot and killed by a bullet built for “one purpose, to kill.” Well folks, all bullets are made to kill, not just some.</p><p>Now, certain groups are looking to sue the gun manufactures for someone deciding to commit a deadly act with a firearm. It wasn’t until later we found out the weapon was, in fact, illegally obtained by a person and then was used in an illegal act. I do believe this case was dropped due to lack of, you guessed it, precedent.</p><p><strong><em>How this Affects Our Freedom and Second Amendment</em></strong></p><p>There has been an attempt to hold gun manufacturers liable for mass murders and open the door for Red Flag gun laws for decades. Until now, they have not had a precedent for the extermination of our Second Amendment rights. This precedent has far surpassed the previously discussed attempts from the left to seize and prosecute law-abiding American manufacturers for acts outside of their control.</p><p>This dangerous precedent places an independent fifth-party manufacturer as liable for the actions, whether legal or illegal, of people whom the manufacturer has zero control over. Further, the manufacturer has no oversight, supervisory control, prescribing directive, or ability to consult before a prescription for the manufacture’s product is dispensed. Not only this, but there are a second-party intermediary (physician) and a third-party intermediary (pharmacist) who prescribe and procure the product for the user under the direction of established fourth-party healthcare regulatory bodies which lie outside the direction, control, supervision or oversight of the manufacturer.</p><p>With this awful tragedy of justice, anyone injured or killed from a firearm, whether that be an accident, suicide, or murder, now has precedent for claiming the manufacturer, not the actor nor seller nor distributor, was at fault for the injury or death, whether or not the firearm was obtained lawfully or illegally nor was the obtainer of the gun legally allowed under law to be in possession of a deadly weapon. This puts in place the direct link to attack the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and our God-given right to keep and bear arms by extortion or trial.</p><p>Once someone is killed or injured, the prosecutor or litigating plaintiff will try to settle for millions or even billions of dollars from the manufacturer. This will be touted; “you see what happened to Johnson & Johnson.” This extortion is used in mediation cases every day as a bargaining chip.</p><p> It’s a “do as I say or else” threat that has teeth when there is precedent. Once the Honorable Judge Thad Balkman’s gavel cracked, people started lining up to extort funds from all types of manufacturers. It is said there are 30 other states’ attorneys general waiting for the ruling on the Oklahoma opioid case. They now have precedent for extortion of millions of dollars or retry Oklahoma’s Attorney General Mike Hunter’s extortion of $17.5 billion. </p><p>If extortion does not work, the legal team goes to work to set in place the precedent that “because those actions annoyed, injured or endangered the comfort, repose, health or safety” (1). This is a slippery slope that has devastating implications. You can now, theoretically, sue or extort money from an electric company because they manufactured the electricity that burned your hand off while you were stealing copper from a city transformer during a rainstorm.</p><p>We will see a surge in attacks to extort money from anyone and everyone in mediation and settlement conferences dealing with manufacturers from this date forward. Once they can attach a claim to the manufacturer for the production of a product, then they will have legal right to further restrict the purchase, use, access and carry of all weapons as a dangerous and harmful manufacturer is at fault for manufacturing (drugs, guns, ammo, cars, gasoline, etc.).</p><p>There have already been attacks on our gun manufacturers, especially Armalite, the manufacturer of the AR-style rifle. These attacks have waned even to get started because there was no precedent of a removed party manufacturer liability for the use or misuse of a product by an actor who obtained a firearm, whether legally or illegally, and acted with this firearm outside the manufacturer’s guidelines, but that has changed to society product. Once someone is injured or killed in a shooting, it will be open season. If you can claim the manufacturer was a fault for building the product, you can theoretically claim the school was at fault for being the place of the attack, the police were at fault for not stopping it, the parents were at fault for sending their children to school and the bus driver was liable because he transported the student with a weapon. These are all removed party unrelated uninvolved actors.</p><p><strong><em>Conclusion</em></strong></p><p>The first attack on our society, if this ruling is not quickly eviscerated, is the gun and ammunition manufacturers. They will extort billions for suicides to mass shootings touting this precedent. These cases are “bad law” and should not be upheld by the superior courts. This precedent has such a range of implications that we will see frivolous lawsuits and extorted mediation settlements for decades ranging into the billions on removed party product manufacturers whom will have no choice but to shut down due to liability or charge astronomical prices.</p><p>Our rights as citizens of the United States, especially here in Oklahoma, just took a back seat as we can no longer pursue happiness as entrepreneurs. We will forever be looking over our shoulder to see if the candle we made and sold to a distributor, who sold the candle to Walmart, bought by a person in another state, was left burning in a window with drapes when everyone left for ice cream and the wind blew the drapes over the flame and the stray cat under the porch died. This is the dangerous precedent that was set today in infamy.</p><p>(1)<u><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/johnson-and-johnson-is-responsible-for-fueling-oklahomas-opioid-crisis-judge-rules-in-landmark-case/2019/08/26/ed7bc6dc-c7fe-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html?noredirect=on">https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/johnson-and-johnson-is-responsible-for-fueling-oklahomas-opioid-crisis-judge-rules-in-landmark-case/2019/08/26/ed7bc6dc-c7fe-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html?noredirect=on</a></u></p><p>(2) <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/26/754481268/judge-in-opioid-trial-rules-johnson-johnson-must-pay-oklahoma-572-million">https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/26/754481268/judge-in-opioid-trial-rules-johnson-johnson-must-pay-oklahoma-572-million</a></p><p>(3)<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/health/oklahoma-opioid-judge-thad-balkman-profile/index.html">https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/health/oklahoma-opioid-judge-thad-balkman-profile/index.html</a> </p><p>(4)<a href="https://apple.news/AJ2adPgN0TRy6tOOlVEk8QQ">https://apple.news/AJ2adPgN0TRy6tOOlVEk8QQ</a></p></div>9th Circuit's Judicial Tyrannyhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/9th-circuit-s-judicial-tyranny2017-02-13T21:16:04.000Z2017-02-13T21:16:04.000ZJim Delaneyhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/JimDelaney<div><p>Let me be as crystal-clear as I can be. Madison and Jefferson–and even super-nationalist Hamilton– warned us against an unregulated judiciary.</p><p>Per the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, Trump’s within his constitutional authority to IGNORE lawless judicial “rulings”. This also extends to constitutional Congressional acts somehow divinely deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional. </p><p>We have forgotten that court rulings are NOT enforceable rulings or law. They are unenforceable OPINIONS, and nothing more. Their opinions don’t have the force of law, but of “moral authority”. Drill that paragraph into your head.</p><p>In short, since officers in each branch of the federal government take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, by these officers’ permitting unconstitutional judicial opinions to be treated as law they are VIOLATING their oaths of office.</p><p>Trump should have the moral clarity to nullify/ignore judicial rulings/opinions which are, like the 9th circuit’s recent “ruling”, blatantly lawless usurpations of the Constitution and of Executive authority.</p><p>People, read Art III and Article VI para 2 of the Constitution.The supreme law of the land are NOT the presumably divine pronouncements of the federal judiciary, but the CONSTITUTION itself. And until we understand this, judicial tyranny will continue.</p><p>As for me, I don’t want a gaggle of unelected, entirely mortal, corruptible, black-robed unaccountable jurists to continue ruling our country and our lives.</p><p>The final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional are We the People, and that’s precisely how our founders saw it. If we continue to permit judicial tyranny to rule our lives we are unwitting–or willing–agents of our republic’s self-destruction.</p><p>Finally, it is well past time to initiate an amendment to tighten up restrictions on the judiciary by returning the federal judiciary, top to bottom, to its original role as clearly expressed by our founders. But, first, we must all READ THE CONSTITUTION and the words of Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson–not revisionist case law which has served only to subvert original intent and meaning.</p><p>Until we get this right, this republic remains but a fiction.</p></div>Protect our Electoral College inside our US Constitutionhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/protect-our-electoral-college-inside-our-us-constitution-12016-11-22T21:50:18.000Z2016-11-22T21:50:18.000ZOscar Y. Harwardhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/OscarYHarward<div><p><b><i>Below is an edited personal Op Ed first published on March 31, 2008.</i></b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>November 15, 2015</b></p><p></p><p><strong><span>Protect our Electoral College inside our US Constitution</span></strong></p><p></p><p><b>By Oscar Y. Harward</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>America, please listen carefully! Do not allow any of our elected politicians on Capitol Hill or anywhere else in America to tamper with and/or destroy our Electoral College as our process of electing our President and Vice President of our United States. Our current electoral process is sacred. Our Electoral System is not broken, or for that matter, not even stretched, except for those who may hate America and choose to break our Electoral College system and/or our Democratic Republic system of government.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>There are some elected left-wing Liberals on Capitol Hill who are now starting the process to introduce and ratify legislation of eliminating the Electoral College process and of altering our election of our President and Vice President of our United States. Unfortunately, there are a few elected left-wing radicals who hate America and desire to destroy our Democratic Republic system of government. Recent reports now show three (3) Congressmen visited Iraq in October, 2002, at the request and expense of now deposed, convicted of war crimes, and executed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. What would George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, James McHenry, James Madison, or James Wilson, the Electoral College presenter, or so many others say to these current members in Congress and/or these currently proposed changes to our US Constitution and its’ potential corruptive changes? What about John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, Samuel Adams, John Adams, or any of our other authors? God Bless our forefathers’ leadership, their insights, their Wisdoms!</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>It is for certain our forefather authors of our US Constitution discussed the ideas of voters’ corruption and other corrupt ideas which could lead to a near never ending of counting and/or recounting votes for the President and Vice President. Over the years, we have so much history of alleged voter fraud.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Under our current Electoral College, voter fraud usually can he dealt with in a local precinct, local county, or at worst, in a single state, rather than by so many multiple precincts, counties, and/or states. Eliminating the Electoral College and changing to a total plurality vote could throw the electing of our President and Vice President into an election chaos all throughout America. The Electoral College nearly eliminates multiple corrupt precincts, counties, and/or states from perhaps, changing the final entire election results for President and Vice President of the United States after an extended term in our State and Federal Judiciary.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Our founding fathers had the wisdom to foresee the importance of an Electoral College system which may prevent corruption from destroying the entire election process in the Executive Branch as the President and Vice President of our United States.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Our forefathers set up the Electoral College system to give each state representation based for one vote for each of the two US Senators and one vote for each of its respective members of the US House of Representatives (Congress), based on their population in their respective states.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>In general, for example, if there were a 304,000,000 population within the US, and with our current fifty (50) States, each state would be allocated two (2) votes as each of our fifty (50) states have two (2) US Senators. One (1) vote for each 698,851 population persons will equally represent one (1) representative for each of our 435 members of the Congress.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, Electoral College votes are, by each voting state, winner take all. In Maine and Nebraska, the winning candidates as President and Vice President get the two (2) Electoral College votes as US Senators, and as each of their respective state’s total vote. Each Congressional District Electoral College vote is given to the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate winning their respective Congressional District total votes.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Wyoming, the lowest in population (estimated at some 568,000), is the exception as each state has at least one (1) member vote in the US Congress. California is the largest in population with an estimated 36,500,000 people and which has 53 members in the US Congress.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Under a new system of electing the President and Vice President, based on a total majority votes system all over the United States, could lead to perhaps the smallest community in the US, by a very small amount of fraud, lead to corruption which may lead to counting and/or recounting votes in each and every precinct, in each and every county, and in each and every state, just to substantiate the official results.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Changes in eliminating the Electoral College for local corruption may not even change any local, district, and/or state elections; only the election for President and Vice President of the United States. The States’ and the Federal Judiciary could become overwhelmed with a newer election process. We do not need any additional legal fights throughout our entire stretched out Judicial system all over America!</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>The Electoral College process for electing our President and Vice President of our United States must be protected for our free Democratic Republic system of government. History proves our electoral system is unquestionably the very best.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>For all who would choose to destroy our Electoral College process of electing our US President and Vice President, “JUST SAY NO”! Those who force their efforts to change our Electoral College should and must be replaced, themselves, by election.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Our Electoral College has worked exceptionally well for more than two hundred (200) years. There is no need to enter into more additional voters’ corruption. Capitol Hill representatives already have more than their own share of corruption on Capitol Hill. Changing the Electoral College is equivalent to initiating a political earthquake, a hurricane, and/or a tornado combined while Americans lose their individual voting freedoms. We must save America and our Electoral College.</b></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>God Bless America!</b></p></div>The Jail for Jesus Movement is Coming Soonhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/the-jail-for-jesus-movement-is-coming-soon2015-09-12T12:29:03.000Z2015-09-12T12:29:03.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p style="text-align:justify;"><strong>By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/mart-1.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/mart-1.jpg?width=223" width="223" alt="mart-1.jpg?width=223" /></a>They have been successful.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">The far, FAR religious right, those driven by those who pretend to be Christians and Conservatives, have successfully, in their minds, fabricated a martyr out of a useful, liberal idiot…Kim Davis…and they now stand on their holier-than-thou island and claim Davis was jailed solely because of her religion. They claim she was persecuted…only because of her Christian beliefs…not prosecuted for her contempt and disorderly conduct as anyone would be had they done in court what she did there.</p><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><strong>“Jailed for being a Christian,”</strong></em> they are saying…<strong><em>”Christianity now against the law,”</em></strong> they claim.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Nothing could be further from the truth.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Christians are not being rounded up in this country. They’re not being kept from attending whichever branch of church they choose. Churches are not being shut down in our country and the people are still free to worship in their own way.</p><p>It’s not that way in other parts of the world but these holier-then-thou Christians, those laser focused on Davis, don’t give a damn. Christians MURDERED in other parts of the world…rounded up, burned alive, shot…hanged, nailed to crosses, raped, tortured, beheaded and all just for being Christians…but where ARE those who have stood…loud and proud…for the woman who refuses to issue a marriage license in the face of all of that, from other parts of the world where there really IS a war on Christianity going on?</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/09/12/the-jail-for-jesus-movement-is-coming-soon/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>First Amendment Held Hostage in Kentuckyhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/first-amendment-held-hostage-in-kentucky2015-09-08T11:48:47.000Z2015-09-08T11:48:47.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By: Craig Andresen and Diane Sori / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media / <a href="">www.cprworldwidemedia,net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><strong>“I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail, I sure am…this has never been <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/davis-10.jpg"><img class="align-right" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/davis-10.jpg?width=220" width="220" alt="davis-10.jpg?width=220" /></a>a gay or lesbian issue for me. This is about upholding the word of God.”</strong></em> – Kim Davis, the woman who has made herself the flag bearer for the anti-gay marriage issue</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Diversions…deflections…and all modes of roadblocks for a woman who’s been turned into a martyr by the religious far right as she, a civil servant, used her personal religious beliefs as a weapon of sorts to stop others…in this case a same-sex couple…from accessing their now SCOTUS awarded Constitutionally given legal right to civilly marry.</p><p style="text-align:justify;"><span class="_5yl5"><span>Now please understand before we go forward that this co-written article in no way is an attack on Christianity nor on anyone’s personal beliefs, know that we both are straight, and that we both are believers in the one true living God of the Christians and the Jews.</span></span></p><p><strong><em><span class="_5yl5"><span><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/09/08/first-amendment-held-hostage-in-kentucky/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></span></span></em></strong></p></div>Let’s Make a Deal…https://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/let-s-make-a-deal2015-09-04T08:24:00.000Z2015-09-04T08:24:00.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p style="text-align:justify;"><strong>By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/lic-2.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/lic-2.jpg?width=281" width="281" alt="lic-2.jpg?width=281" /></a>Isn’t it nice to know, that with the world going to hell in a hand bag, ISIS marauding about, Iran getting a nuclear weapon, a liberal/socialist candidate mired in corruption, Putin rebuilding the old Russian empire, more people out of the workforce that ever before and on and on and on…that we have so many single issue voters out there on our side?</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Forget all the stuff that is actually going to destroy us or kill us…</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Carly Fiorina said that a county clerk in Kentucky should do her job or be fired.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">I have seen a good number of those who profess to be Conservatives out there RAILING on Fiorina…<em><strong>”SO MUCH FOR BEING A CONSERVATIVE”</strong></em> they say…if she thinks some county clerk should be issuing marriage licenses…to GAY people…she’s just not fit to be a Conservative.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Here’s Fiorina’s quote…then I’ll tell you MY problem with it.</p><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><strong>“First, I think that we must protect religious liberties with great passion and be willing to expend a lot of political capital to do so now because it’s clear religious liberty is under assault in many, many ways. Having said that, when you are a government employee, I think you take on a different role. When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government.”</strong></em></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><strong>“And, while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case. This woman now needs to make a decision that’s conscious — is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as as government employee.”</strong></em></p><p style="text-align:justify;">So…</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/09/04/lets-make-a-deal/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>SCOTUS Renders Ruling - No Pillars of Salthttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/scotus-renders-ruling-no-pillars-of-salt2015-06-27T08:38:59.000Z2015-06-27T08:38:59.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/scd-11.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/scd-11.jpg?width=272" width="272" alt="scd-11.jpg?width=272" /></a>The sun did indeed rise in the east this morning regardless of the ruling by the Supreme Court that same sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states and I drove around town yesterday…AFTER the ruling…and failed to notice even one pillar of salt.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">In a 5-4 ruling, the Supremes decided that the same LEGAL standing…the same LEGAL protections and the same LEGAL benefits are to be extended to same sex married couples as are extended to opposite sex married couples.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">It’s not the end of the world though you might have a different impression if you browse social media posts which include everything from the sky is falling to this is the end of our nation and the end of times.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Equal protection under the law has always been a hallmark of our Constitution and of our country although there are obviously some out there who believe those equal protections should extend only to those exactly like them.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Among those who are most distressed over the ruling are those who claim that this is an assault on religious freedom.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">They are wrong in that interpretation as the ruling says nothing regarding nor does it interfere in any with religious precepts, religious doctrines or religious interpretations regarding marriage.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">I’ll get back to that point shortly but before I do…</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/06/27/scotus-renders-ruling-no-pillars-of-salt/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>6.4 Million Holier Than Thous Supported Obamahttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/6-4-million-holier-than-thous-supported-obama2015-06-08T09:10:56.000Z2015-06-08T09:10:56.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/hol-1.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/hol-1.jpg?width=254" width="254" alt="hol-1.jpg?width=254" /></a>Earlier in the week I woke up the choir and they didn’t like it one little bit. I sent a certain segment of one particular brand of Christianity into a fit leading them to accuse me of being of a nature such that their descriptions of it were, in some cases, vile…as these self-described good and moral Christians are so apt to do when one challenges their slumber with facts.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Yesterday, I brought forth more than the quotes of our Founders and Framers to illustrate just how they deliberately kept ANY religion or specific brand of any religion from becoming the foundation of our nation and provided clear evidence and reasoning as to why they took those very deliberate steps.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">That was also not well received by those who profess to follow the teachings of Jesus more closely than thou.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Today…the lesson we must learn from their actions…</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/06/08/6-4-million-holier-than-thous-supported-obama/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>God v. The Constitution…Part 2 of 2https://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/god-v-the-constitution-part-2-of-22015-05-19T08:43:44.000Z2015-05-19T08:43:44.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By Craig Andresen and Diane Sori – Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/gvc-1.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/gvc-1.jpg?width=264" width="264" alt="gvc-1.jpg?width=264" /></a>Yesterday, in Part 1 of our report, <em>“God v. The Constitution,”</em> we laid out the legal aspects of the upcoming Supreme Court case regarding same sex marriage but, at the bottom of all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth however, is the mantra chanted endlessly by those on the far, far right and the holier than thou set…that being…”traditional biblical marriage is only between one man and one woman.”</p><p style="text-align:justify;">What this really is, is the ultra-religious ascribing words either to the Bible or directly to God that simply aren’t true but let’s give them a chance and see how it lines up with the facts.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">To imply that biblical marriage is between one man and one woman would need a Bible verse or passage as backing to make it fact however, no such verse or passage exists. In fact…the Bible never uses the word “marriage” nor in fact does the Bible ever define marriage. Sure, there are plenty of verses and passages regarding love or husbands and wives that one can look up but none of them, not one, offers any definition regarding the institution of marriage.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">That said however, the Bible does offer a great deal of insight into “traditional” marriage.</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/05/19/god-v-the-constitutionpart-2-of-2/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>God v. The Constitution...Part 1 of 2https://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/god-v-the-constitution-part-1-of-22015-05-18T08:39:36.000Z2015-05-18T08:39:36.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By Craig Andresen and Diane Sori – Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a target="_blank" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_bFETgOzIdY/VVgKRlqStJI/AAAAAAAATZM/KpaCX3LCg4Y/s1600/scotus1%2Bcover.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_bFETgOzIdY/VVgKRlqStJI/AAAAAAAATZM/KpaCX3LCg4Y/s200/scotus1%2Bcover.jpg?width=200" width="200" alt="scotus1%2Bcover.jpg?width=200" /></a>Let’s start with the bottom line…the ‘social issues’ belong to the states…period. And anyone who says otherwise does NOT know the Constitution…you know…that pesky little document Obama so loves to trample on.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">The Constitution…the very document that defines our freedom and protects us from a tyrannical government (that is until Obama came along)… clearly and unequivocally states which powers will be delegated by law to each branch of government. And while amendments to the Constitution have been added that deal with specific ‘human rights’ (rights believed to belong equally to every person) those amendments still rightfully place limits on government powers in regards to those rights. And the ubber-religious far right, and even some centrist conservatives, do not understand that when ‘social issues’ cross the line into political fodder they themselves become what’s legally referred to as ‘constitutionally improper.’ And neither the federal government nor Obama himself…even when yielding his trusty pen and his phone… can legally choose which Constitutionally given ‘human rights’ to focus on…to fixate on…over the others. But the delegation of the so-called ‘social issues’ still must adhere with the Constitution not with Obama or with the socially conscious and many times judgmental ubber-religious far right.</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/05/18/god-v-the-constitution-part-1-of-2/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>All the King's Horses and all the King's Minionshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/all-the-king-s-horses-and-all-the-king-s-minions2015-05-08T09:35:27.000Z2015-05-08T09:35:27.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hump-1.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hump-1.jpg?width=227" width="227" alt="hump-1.jpg?width=227" /></a>Humpty Dumpty sits on a wall,</strong></em><br /> <em><strong>Humpty Dumpty is about to fall.</strong></em><br /> <em><strong>All the king’s horses and all the king’s men</strong></em><br /> <em><strong>Can never put Humpty together again.</strong></em></p><p style="text-align:justify;">Humpty in this case is Obamacare and at the end of next month, the United States Supreme Court will render a decision that could well leave Humpty Dumpty shattered into 8 million pieces.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">At stake are the subsidies. Should the Supreme Court hold that the subsidies are allowed only as the law was written…that ONLY the STATE exchanges are allowed to extend subsidies and NOT the FEDERAL exchange…8 million people who received subsidies from the federal exchange per the king’s executive order and not via an act of the congress…would LOSE those taxpayer subsidies thus making the “AFFORDABLE” Care Act UNaffordable to them.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">If they can’t afford the cost of full-on socialism…they will drop OUT of the socialist healthcare program leaving the pool of other people’s money too shallow to draw from for the rest. Oh, there are options…everybody ELSE’S premium costs, deductibles and prescription costs could be jacked up into outer space to cover the shortfall but that will render socialismcare unaffordable even to those who can, but just barely, afford it now and they TOO will beat a hasty exit.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">I believe the Supreme Court will indeed rule against the king on this one and here’s why…</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/05/08/all-the-kings-horses-and-all-the-kings-minions/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>Derailing Distractions With Factshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/derailing-distractions-with-facts2015-05-06T09:35:16.000Z2015-05-06T09:35:16.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By Craig Andresen and Diane Sori – Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;">Conspiracy theories to the left of us…wedding cakes and pizza parlors to the right of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cta-1.jpg"><img class="align-right" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cta-1.jpg?width=190" width="190" alt="cta-1.jpg?width=190" /></a>us…and a regime caught in the middle facing in all likelihood the probability that not only will Congress stay ‘red’ in 2016 but that the White House will turn ‘red’ too. And having no real platform to run on what with our economy in the tubes and our enemies laughing at us, the only tactic they have left to salvage anything of substance is to divert and deflect our attention away from the prize.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">And boy have the diversions worked up until now. Let’s see, first we had ebola the supposed death of us all; then Ferguson and Baltimore where the ‘element’ behaved oh so badly; and now we have Jade Helm a supposed military op to take over America and lock us all up in a Walmart somewhere. And all this because 2016 looms large and all this because of two upcoming Supreme Court decisions that could put the final nail in Obama’s nefarious agenda and legacy.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">So with Ebola and Ferguson over and done, and with Baltimore still simmering, let’s look at Jade Helm…</p><p style="text-align:justify;"></p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/05/06/derailing-distractions-with-facts/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>The GAY Marriage Debate is NOTHING Newhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/the-gay-marriage-debate-is-nothing-new2015-04-21T10:38:57.000Z2015-04-21T10:38:57.000ZCraig Andresenhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CraigAndresen<div><p><strong>By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on <a href="http://cprworldwidemedia.net/" target="_blank">cprworldwidemedia.net</a></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/marr-1.jpg"><img class="align-left" src="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/marr-1.jpg?width=219" width="219" alt="marr-1.jpg?width=219" /></a>Yesterday, friend and Right Side Patriots radio partner <a href="http://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com/2015/04/op-ed-gay-marriage-gay-weddings-and.html" target="_blank">Diane Sori wrote and published an op-ed</a> regarding the obtuse silliness regarding the leftist media’s line of questioning to Republican candidates…<strong><em>”Would you attend a gay wedding?”</em></strong></p><p style="text-align:justify;">It’s a great op-ed and worth the read but it got me to thinking…haven’t we been through something very much like this before?</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Until about 50 or 60 years ago…wasn’t there an element of society that was dead set against ANOTHER type of weddings?</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Indeed there was.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">It was deemed by some, mostly by those on the far uber left and by some on the far fringes of the uber religious right to be…unnatural…an affront to the natural course of things and something that people of good standing ought NOT to participate in.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Why…it was hard…nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get some bakeries to provide a cake for such weddings.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">It was hard or nearly impossible to find a photographer to record such an event…and in many cases…churches were REFUSING to hold such ceremonies in THEIR places of worship.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">But people got married anyway…</p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/04/21/the-gay-marriage-debate-is-nothing-new/" target="_blank">READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!!!</a></em></strong></p></div>An Intellectual Discussion of the Bill of Rights ...In Januaryhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/an-intellectual-discussion-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-january-12014-11-24T23:24:10.000Z2014-11-24T23:24:10.000Zjames gencarellihttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/jamesgencarelli<div><p>I am eager to meet and greet all who can help me [ and helping them in return] in assisting me next Nov, for my run in the 37th District NJ for State Rep. Last week at the Teaneck meeting I heard the story of that young man [Brian Aitken] that was arrested for having registed guns in the trunk of his car. Well, what Mr. Aitken, should have communicated to the Police Officer that , he would be willing to open his trunk , without a warrant , But, Thomas,would be very sad and maybe angry if he did that , and also maybe John and James . And I would not want to see tears in their eyes. And when the Police Officer asked, " who is Thomas , James and "this John" ?. Well , I would have said, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adam and Mr Madison. You see Officer, Thousands of "young" men and women shed their Red American blood , so we would be able to have a "Bill of Rights".See Officer, Its not me that is refusing you to open my trunk [without a warrant] its our Founding Fathers, asking me from the great beyond to deny you that intrusive illegal request , without a warrant. Furthermore, I will wait anywhere you wish, here , in Jail, until you get that warrant ..... From my study of the legal system, the Officer had no "standing" to get a warrant, and if he did , the evidence, ( the legal guns in trunk) would have been suppressed, the fruit of the poison tree. So Please, fellow Tea Party Members, don't let the Government , State /Federal/ Municipal step on our Rights , if you are in doubt , put the blame on the "Founding Fathers" and say NO!!!!! to any [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] Intrusion by Government officials.</p><p>GOD BLESS AND SAVE AMERICA</p></div>An Intellectual Discussion of the Bill of Rights ...In Januaryhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/an-intellectual-discussion-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-january2014-11-24T23:24:10.000Z2014-11-24T23:24:10.000Zjames gencarellihttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/jamesgencarelli<div><p>I am eager to meet and greet all who can help me [ and helping them in return] in assisting me next Nov, for my run in the 37th District NJ for State Rep. Last week at the Teaneck meeting I heard the story of that young man [Brian Aitken] that was arrested for having registed guns in the trunk of his car. Well, what Mr. Aitken, should have communicated to the Police Officer that , he would be willing to open his trunk , without a warrant , But, Thomas,would be very sad and maybe angry if he did that , and also maybe John and James . And I would not want to see tears in their eyes. And when the Police Officer asked, " who is Thomas , James and "this John" ?. Well , I would have said, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adam and Mr Madison. You see Officer, Thousands of "young" men and women shed their Red American blood , so we would be able to have a "Bill of Rights".See Officer, Its not me that is refusing you to open my trunk [without a warrant] its our Founding Fathers, asking me from the great beyond to deny you that intrusive illegal request , without a warrant. Furthermore, I will wait anywhere you wish, here , in Jail, until you get that warrant ..... From my study of the legal system, the Officer had no "standing" to get a warrant, and if he did , the evidence, ( the legal guns in trunk) would have been suppressed, the fruit of the poison tree. So Please, fellow Tea Party Members, don't let the Government , State /Federal/ Municipal step on our Rights , if you are in doubt , put the blame on the "Founding Fathers" and say NO!!!!! to any [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] Intrusion by Government officials.</p><p>GOD BLESS AND SAVE AMERICA</p></div>POWER ( OF ) THE PEOPLEhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/power-of-the-people2014-08-14T14:00:00.000Z2014-08-14T14:00:00.000ZGregory A Hastingshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/GregoryAHastings<div><p></p><p style="text-align:center;"><span class="font-size-4" style="color:#0000ff;"><strong>STOP TWIDDLING YOUR THUMBS</strong></span></p><p style="text-align:center;"><span class="font-size-4" style="color:#0000ff;"><strong><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063948263,original{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank"><img src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063948263,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="200" class="align-center" alt="4063948263?profile=original" /></a></strong></span></p><p> </p><p> We are the people of the United States. WE are the power, and when it gets to the point of where our country is now, after decades of plotting and planning against us by our own elected officials, and the POWERS THAT BE behind the scenes, we are left with no choice but to LITERALLY THROW THESE BUMS OUT...</p><p> You have to realize that this has NOTHING to do with being a Democrat or Republican, it's about DOING WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.</p><p> What makes me nuts is that THESE SCUMS that are in Washington think THEY KNOW BETTER than the U.S. Constitution. YEAH, the same Constitution that allowed them to get elected. The same Constitution that THEY SWEAR ON THEIR LIVES with hands on the bible that they will uphold, and defend against ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.</p><p> THE MINUTE YOU DEVIATE FROM THE PLAN, the plan falls apart. And what we wind up with is the friggin MESS that we have across this country right now.</p><p> Obama is a complete disgrace. He's SNEAKY, AND A LYING UNQUALIFIED BOOB</p><p> And for those of you that think i'm picking on Democrats, GROW UP cause George W Bush, and his loser old man GEORGE H W BUSH are no better than OBAMA. They're all feathers of the same dead bird.</p><p> THERE IS A ( MAJOR ) LAWSUIT that's been created by the PEOPLE and what we hope is that we can get the support of all the Tea Partiers out there.</p><p> PEOPLE / TAXPAYERS OF THE U.S.A. ( V ) THE GOVERNMENT & CONGRESS ET AL and this includes over 40 co defendants from Obama to Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton, Congress, Eric Holder, and all the rest of the losers that have TRASHED this country and CONTINUE to do so at the expense of all of us. </p><p> This is about to be filed with the U.S. SUPREME COURT in Washington DC and we need your support. </p><p> This has taken TWO YEARS to create and with exhibits exceeds 1000 pages, and once you start reading it, you won't be able to put it down. IT WILL shock you with details, and information that will make your stomach turn, and make your soul catch fire.</p><p> Let us know that we have your support. GET A COPY of the lawsuit FOR FREE</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></div>U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Puts Brakes on Utah Same-Sex Wedlockshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-supreme-court-temporarily-puts-brakes-on-utah-same-sex2014-01-06T20:19:12.000Z2014-01-06T20:19:12.000ZKevin Fobbshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/KevinFobbs<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063802107,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063802107,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="638" alt="4063802107?profile=original" /></a> Same Sex Marriage has been put on Hold in Utah - Photo Credit - ABC-4 News</p><p></p><p>Same-Sex couples can no longer do the happy wedded bliss dance in Utah due to a temporary halt of marriage licenses to gay couples due to the U.S. Supreme Court, reported CNN. This ruling allows Utah state officials to uphold their state ban on gay marriages while the federal court judge’s decision is appealed.</p><p>For many Utah residents who voted in favor of traditional biblical marriage principles which support marriage between a man and a woman, Federal Court District Judge Robert Shelby ‘s decision last month was a blow. The judge decided that the state same-sex marriage ban was somehow unconstitutional when it forbid lesbians and gays from being legally married.</p><p>The federal judge relied upon the “Equal Protection and Due Process” safeguard of the U.S. Constitution to decide that gay couples were being deprived of their rights due to the Utah state ban. The 2004 ban had been supported and approved by Utah voters which coincide with the general principled beliefs of the state’s residents.</p><p><a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-supreme-court-temporarily-puts-brakes-on-utah-same-sex-wedlocks" target="_blank">( Click to Read More )</a></p><p></p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dzoxNKFBk8o?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></p></div>DC Appeals Court Liberal Appointments wide Open Nowhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/dc-appeals-court-liberal-appointments-wide-open-now2013-11-25T18:39:26.000Z2013-11-25T18:39:26.000ZTNStevehttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/TNSteve<div><p>Harry Reid elimination of the filibuster rules for presidential appointments means that the three judicial appointments that Obama is making this week will fly through Congress. They are liberals and one is an extreme liberal all with life time appointments . Reid should be ashamed of what he has done to our country and Obama is beyond shame. The DC court was not backed up, but with these 3 appointments the court will flip way to the left. Now, every executive order, EPA rule or other abuse will be green lighted by the DC circuit, if Obama 's appointments follow their proven liberal beliefs.</p><p>This is probably the most damaging thing done to the US to date and a great deal has been done. We lived in a Republic where minority rights were protected, especially by the Senate in the past. Now, with Obama care passed without one GOP vote and rammed through on a technically that avoided any filibuster and now the rules change on appointments the democracy rules, the majority only. This was never intended and until Reid, Pelosi and Obama's imperial reign it was not the case. Those sorry excuses for politicians stated why this should never be done themselves when they were in the minority. Shame on them all and I pray to God America has not turned a corner that we can not come back from that these evil people have done to us all. </p></div>Marriage is a Covenant for Three. Who is the Third Party?[1]https://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/marriage-is-a-covenant-for-three-who-is-the-third-party-12013-06-29T16:01:49.000Z2013-06-29T16:01:49.000ZGerald V. Toddhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/GeraldVTodd<div><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The married man and woman, committed in covenant to one another, is the basis of society. All other relationships are dependent on the solidity of the marriages society is composed of.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In the marriage relationship, the man tends to be the reasoning, logical and physically strong protector. The woman tends to be spiritual, intuitive, pictorial and nurturing. These are the complementary traits of each. Both can and do exercise the full range of traits. In creating us male and female in His image and likeness, He allowed for a means to be individually fulfilled through the exercise of their diverse gifts and talents (See Proverbs 31:10-31 for a surprising depiction of the ideal marriage).</p><p class="MsoNormal">Love requires an object. The object is the beloved and the beloved's love for her lover. When we marvel at being made in God's image and likeness, it is most profound in the best understanding we have of his Triune Nature. So, too, is the relationship between husband and wife, and how we were made as male and female. The third element is the power of the love between husband and wife. It is awesome as the power of the Holy Spirit. Both create, nurture and guide the fruits of their love for the greater glory of God and the wholeness of the human family. From that basis, all other relationships and adventures have their justification, or their condemnation.</p><p class="MsoNormal">A covenant man will love his wife as Scripture commands. A covenant woman will honor her husband as Scripture commands. With the power of love, they are the full and childlike image and likeness of the Triune God, worthy of honor and praise from those they serve and the children they nurture. (Childlikeness = Key to the Kingdom of Heaven) Many marriages fail today, because one or both partners no longer "feel” anything. A covenant is a lifelong commitment to perform as promised. Love has nothing to do with feeling.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In a non-contraceptive union, the couple share enzymes in the fluids involved in coitus that create a bond of responsibility (covenant) so necessary for the proper raising of children (Perhaps a touch of natural law?). Could the blocking of this “mixing” by contraception reduce this natural bonding be a big reason for divorce and single mothers today? The world always creates a problem – the devil may care contraceptive and abortion society - and then blames the victims while covering society’s sins with blood money.</p><p class="MsoNormal">With so many abandoned children, it is a noble act for people to adopt or foster a child or a house full. Sadly, government interference and the militancy of the so-called “gay” movement has made it difficult for co-habiting folks to take in a child without making demands that destroy the entire child adoption and care structure. <span> </span>A gay or unmarried pair has a greater responsibility to recognize their role in parenting is to lead a child back to the way he was created for the glory of God – male and female and their covenant with God. They may also learn how to adjust their own obsessions.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The image of God is perfect. The Word is perfect, there is nothing held back. So, the Father, begetter has an unconditional self-donation. The Word therefore receives everything from the Father and is one with the Father, as we would hear Jesus later teaching us, "<b><i>The Father and I are one."</i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is an eternal embrace, an eternal kiss, and an eternal union from which proceed the Lord and giver of life forever. God's <b>unconditional love</b> has, on one side, <b><i>"eternal transmission of life."</i></b> God's <b>eternal life</b> has, on the flip side, <b><i>"unconditional love"</i>.</b> Love and Life, the two are totally inseparable.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The only way you can give yourself in this total, radical sense, in this image of God, is to that which is able to actually reproduce yourself. That involves the wonderful mystery of the fountain of life. The mutual reproductive gift of a man to a woman and a woman to a man is the fountain of life, the self-ability to reproduce.</p><p class="MsoNormal">To give self, therefore, means that in unconditional self-donation of the husband and wife in that which is called conjugal relations, means that these powers of self-donation will always be present, even if the couple proves to be barren.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The extension of this divine image of God in marriage; the interrelationship of a man and a woman in marriage has to be unitive and therefore pro-creative. "Unconditional love" translates into unitive and "Lord and giver of life" translates into pro-creative. The two qualities of conjugal relationship therefore are meant to be based on the beginning of God's eternal being.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Marriage is a way to learn how to live in God in such a way that when we end this life, we will be ready to enter into God's eternal love and eternal life, because that which we lived on earth, we are ready now to do forever where “eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things our Heavenly Father has prepared for those who love him.”</p><p class="MsoNormal">We also must face the reality of Satan, who spoils the genetic code. He wants to change the words unconditional love into mutual exploitation, into conditional love. That changes love into increasing degrees of hatred or hostility. He wants to change the word life into contraception. He wants to halt the transmission of life into the blocking of the transmission of life. He doesn’t tell you overpopulation is the result of fear, stress for survival because of despotic government, not love or even lust. Despots and "progressives" then cover their sins with (borrowed) blood money.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>God only intended to make the relationship between man and woman to be the way to heaven. We also have the opportunity to make it a path to hell. Such is the way of our free will and the presence of evil to overcome. May we again get back to the beginning as we were made in the image and likeness of God, for his eternal life and eternal love?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:left;" align="left"><i><span>Gerald V. Todd is married to the former Joanne Dean since January 30, 1960. They have three adopted children born in 1963, 65 and 69, with 8 grandchildren.</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span><span style="text-decoration:none;"> </span></span></u></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;"><a href="#_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12pt;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Based largely on a talk by Fr. Philip Pavich, then Associate Pastor of St. James Church, Medugorje, Bosnia – August 1990 This chapter from my MSS “The Reign of Innocence” contains over 5,300 words.. 1,000 words is enough for anybody!</p></div></div></div>Marriage is a Covenant for Three. Who is the Third Party?[1]https://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/marriage-is-a-covenant-for-three-who-is-the-third-party-1-12013-06-29T16:01:49.000Z2013-06-29T16:01:49.000ZGerald V. Toddhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/GeraldVTodd<div><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The married man and woman, committed in covenant to one another, is the basis of society. All other relationships are dependent on the solidity of the marriages society is composed of.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In the marriage relationship, the man tends to be the reasoning, logical and physically strong protector. The woman tends to be spiritual, intuitive, pictorial and nurturing. These are the complementary traits of each. Both can and do exercise the full range of traits. In creating us male and female in His image and likeness, He allowed for a means to be individually fulfilled through the exercise of their diverse gifts and talents (See Proverbs 31:10-31 for a surprising depiction of the ideal marriage).</p><p class="MsoNormal">Love requires an object. The object is the beloved and the beloved's love for her lover. When we marvel at being made in God's image and likeness, it is most profound in the best understanding we have of his Triune Nature. So, too, is the relationship between husband and wife, and how we were made as male and female. The third element is the power of the love between husband and wife. It is awesome as the power of the Holy Spirit. Both create, nurture and guide the fruits of their love for the greater glory of God and the wholeness of the human family. From that basis, all other relationships and adventures have their justification, or their condemnation.</p><p class="MsoNormal">A covenant man will love his wife as Scripture commands. A covenant woman will honor her husband as Scripture commands. With the power of love, they are the full and childlike image and likeness of the Triune God, worthy of honor and praise from those they serve and the children they nurture. (Childlikeness = Key to the Kingdom of Heaven) Many marriages fail today, because one or both partners no longer "feel” anything. A covenant is a lifelong commitment to perform as promised. Love has nothing to do with feeling.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In a non-contraceptive union, the couple share enzymes in the fluids involved in coitus that create a bond of responsibility (covenant) so necessary for the proper raising of children (Perhaps a touch of natural law?). Could the blocking of this “mixing” by contraception reduce this natural bonding be a big reason for divorce and single mothers today? The world always creates a problem – the devil may care contraceptive and abortion society - and then blames the victims while covering society’s sins with blood money.</p><p class="MsoNormal">With so many abandoned children, it is a noble act for people to adopt or foster a child or a house full. Sadly, government interference and the militancy of the so-called “gay” movement has made it difficult for co-habiting folks to take in a child without making demands that destroy the entire child adoption and care structure. <span> </span>A gay or unmarried pair has a greater responsibility to recognize their role in parenting is to lead a child back to the way he was created for the glory of God – male and female and their covenant with God. They may also learn how to adjust their own obsessions.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The image of God is perfect. The Word is perfect, there is nothing held back. So, the Father, begetter has an unconditional self-donation. The Word therefore receives everything from the Father and is one with the Father, as we would hear Jesus later teaching us, "<b><i>The Father and I are one."</i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is an eternal embrace, an eternal kiss, and an eternal union from which proceed the Lord and giver of life forever. God's <b>unconditional love</b> has, on one side, <b><i>"eternal transmission of life."</i></b> God's <b>eternal life</b> has, on the flip side, <b><i>"unconditional love"</i>.</b> Love and Life, the two are totally inseparable.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The only way you can give yourself in this total, radical sense, in this image of God, is to that which is able to actually reproduce yourself. That involves the wonderful mystery of the fountain of life. The mutual reproductive gift of a man to a woman and a woman to a man is the fountain of life, the self-ability to reproduce.</p><p class="MsoNormal">To give self, therefore, means that in unconditional self-donation of the husband and wife in that which is called conjugal relations, means that these powers of self-donation will always be present, even if the couple proves to be barren.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The extension of this divine image of God in marriage; the interrelationship of a man and a woman in marriage has to be unitive and therefore pro-creative. "Unconditional love" translates into unitive and "Lord and giver of life" translates into pro-creative. The two qualities of conjugal relationship therefore are meant to be based on the beginning of God's eternal being.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Marriage is a way to learn how to live in God in such a way that when we end this life, we will be ready to enter into God's eternal love and eternal life, because that which we lived on earth, we are ready now to do forever where “eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things our Heavenly Father has prepared for those who love him.”</p><p class="MsoNormal">We also must face the reality of Satan, who spoils the genetic code. He wants to change the words unconditional love into mutual exploitation, into conditional love. That changes love into increasing degrees of hatred or hostility. He wants to change the word life into contraception. He wants to halt the transmission of life into the blocking of the transmission of life. He doesn’t tell you overpopulation is the result of fear, stress for survival because of despotic government, not love or even lust. Despots and "progressives" then cover their sins with (borrowed) blood money.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>God only intended to make the relationship between man and woman to be the way to heaven. We also have the opportunity to make it a path to hell. Such is the way of our free will and the presence of evil to overcome. May we again get back to the beginning as we were made in the image and likeness of God, for his eternal life and eternal love?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:left;" align="left"><i><span>Gerald V. Todd is married to the former Joanne Dean since January 30, 1960. They have three adopted children born in 1963, 65 and 69, with 8 grandchildren.</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span><span style="text-decoration:none;"> </span></span></u></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;"><a href="#_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12pt;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Based largely on a talk by Fr. Philip Pavich, then Associate Pastor of St. James Church, Medugorje, Bosnia – August 1990 This chapter from my MSS “The Reign of Innocence” contains over 5,300 words.. 1,000 words is enough for anybody!</p></div></div></div>Protecting Voter Rights by Voter Suppression - the Logic of the "progressive"https://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/protecting-voter-rights-by-voter-suppression-the-logic-of-the2013-06-26T04:51:51.000Z2013-06-26T04:51:51.000ZGerald V. Toddhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/GeraldVTodd<div><p></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">MoveOn.org – George Soros’s propaganda arm – is worried about conservative legislatures passing discriminatory voting laws. Soooo, they go on and say they’ve been prepping for such a happening – by voter suppression!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">They say –</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:27.65pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">“Today's ruling clears the way for states with conservative legislatures to implement whatever voting laws they want. And it gives power to Congress to determine what, if any, states should now be covered by the VRA.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:27.65pt;"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">This was right-wing judicial activism at its worst. But MoveOn members represent grassroots activism at its best.</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:27.65pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">The Supreme Court is opening the floodgates to a wave of conservative organizing to pass discriminatory laws state by state. This is the type of battle we've been prepping for. <b><u>We've spent the last six months experimenting with new ways for MoveOn members to have a huge impact on state issues—and voter suppression is one of them</u>.</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:27.65pt;"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">If we can raise $150,000 in the next 24 hours, we'll go all-in to stop the Court's decision from stealing elections and stripping the right to vote from millions of Americans.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:27.65pt;"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">Can you chip in $5 to support new member-led campaigns to protect the right to vote?”</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in;"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">So you see folks, MoveOn.org wants to “protect the right to vote.” Their tactic to protect that right is “voter suppression!”</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0in;"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">No wonder “progressives” all seem to be clones of crazy Nancy Pelosi!</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial;">Liberals, come home to America. The ”progressives” have sold us all out.</span></p></div>Should U.S. Supreme Court Overturn Michigan Anti-Affirmation Action Votehttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/should-u-s-supreme-court-overturn-michigan-anti-affirmation2013-04-04T22:03:29.000Z2013-04-04T22:03:29.000ZKevin Fobbshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/KevinFobbs<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063683733,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063683733,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="520" alt="4063683733?profile=original" /></a><strong><span class="font-size-1"> Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office</span></strong></p><p>If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.</p><p>Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.</p><p><b>At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.</b></p><p>To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?</p><p>It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!</p><p>This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.</p><p>Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that <a href="http://www.examiner.com/topic/reverse-discrimination/articles">reverse discrimination</a> is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?</p><p><b>Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.</b></p><p>Are you confused now?</p><p>You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the <a href="http://www.examiner.com/topic/equal-protection/articles">Equal Protection</a> Clause of the <a href="http://www.examiner.com/topic/14th-amendment">14th Amendment</a> should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/should-u-s-supreme-court-overturn-michigan-anti-affirmation-action-vote" target="_blank">( click to read more )</a></p><p></p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1yB9q3uoIkY?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></p></div>Obama Attempting to Advance His Same Sex Agenda to All States Through the Supreme Courthttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/obama-attempting-to-advance-his-same-sex-agenda-to-all-states2013-03-08T21:31:10.000Z2013-03-08T21:31:10.000ZRichard E. Zieglerhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/RichardEZiegler<div><p>Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman for life. The way a man and woman's body are formed is evidence of this natural union (versus unnatural unions). Everything else is not a real marriage but instead a civil union or some other term offerring protection under the law. The Obama administration in trying to slam dunk this issue in the Supreme Court to force Virginia and most other States to strike down their own marriage legislation and it is the highest assault an administration has ever made on America and the Church. </p><p><a href="https://connect.focusonthefamily.com/aprimo/OutboundMessage.aspx?O=bcae195c3c7161803a708a32c6c01742&T=8be45211f056cdd1&D=b9ca57b2fbe8cb42458807853387983f6a0f6be5ccdab113&M=b333208886639fd5&MSGID=b47cd9ed1d7b81c7d0750420bebca960ca7683a86006e77b&A=439ef01d5e882b7608ab46fbeb872f18&R=f2496f2d7bceb1f7f1c39805c9e62f98" target="_blank">Focus on the Family Story</a></p><p>Marriage is sacred in the Church and Obama's actions are harming the civil rights of one class of people while advancing his agenda for another (win-lose) while the right thing to do is win-win where marriage remains between a man and a woman and civil unions cover everything else. Quite frankly I am ashamed of Obama and pray for the day his remaining term is over for the sake of a once great nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all (win-win). rz</p></div>Is Voting Rights Act Protection a legal entitlement Supreme Court Must Overturnhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/is-voting-rights-act-protection-a-legal-entitlement-supreme-court2013-03-02T23:18:44.000Z2013-03-02T23:18:44.000ZKevin Fobbshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/KevinFobbs<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063669574,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063669574,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="594" alt="4063669574?profile=original" /></a><span class="font-size-1"><strong>Black Conservatives rally against Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use</strong></span></p><p></p><p>The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!</p><p>So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. <b>Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.</b></p><blockquote><p>In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. <b>Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/01/rachel-maddow-calls-scalia-troll-like-blogger-using-n-word/">reports Fox News</a></b></p></blockquote><p>Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?</p><p>That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.</p><p>There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. <b>Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”</b> Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”</p><p>Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.</p><blockquote><p><b>A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?</b></p></blockquote><p><b><a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/is-voting-rights-act-protection-a-legal-entitlement-supreme-court-must-overturn" target="_blank">(click to read more )</a></b></p><p></p><p><b><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_HyxtTUCzEs?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></b></p></div>America’s Abortions May End With Personhood Law in North Dakotahttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/america-s-abortions-may-end-with-personhood-law-in-north-dakota2013-02-18T20:32:19.000Z2013-02-18T20:32:19.000ZKevin Fobbshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/KevinFobbs<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063664531,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063664531,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="594" alt="4063664531?profile=original" /></a> <strong>America’s Abortion may end with North Dakota Personhood Law</strong></p><p></p><p>History may mark February 7th as the day that Personhood for the unborn was established. This is the day that provided the unborn at conception the God given right to life bestowed upon all since the beginning of creation. This is a significant step in the continuing evolution of sanctioning the protection of life which has been riddled by abortion rights activists since the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.</p><blockquote><p>Forty years and 55 million plus deaths of the unborn who committed no crime except to be conceived in God’s image were murdered. This was accomplished because of a court and society that would protect a tree frog’s existence above a human life. <b>These murders may soon be put to a stop with the North Dakota Personhood Measure that passed in the State Senate. When it is established that a fetus has U.S. 14th Amendment constitutional protection, abortion ends in America!</b></p></blockquote><p>Often times in the history of monumental movements, they often have their genesis in the hearts and souls of the faithful who are unwilling to witness or permit the undoing of basic rights. The aptly named Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative would codify the constitutional protections and absolute rights afforded all citizens of North Dakota and equally apply them to human embryos.</p><p>This is not just a momentary battle that supporters of life will wait to see what will happen in North Dakota’s House. The fact is that, in North Dakota as well as other states that are considering Personhood laws; the war for life should and can be won on the local battleground of state turf. These legislators, unlike their federal congressional counterparts, are not afraid to stand up to protect their religious values and principles, under the heat of unceasing liberal mass media contempt.</p><blockquote><p>At the very core of the right to life is the imbalance that exists in continuing to treat the right to exist and to be born as incidental and given no more value than extinguishing the life of a common earth worm. <b>The rights of the mother is given weight not as the carrier of life, but the right to her privacy to do as she pleases, which includes state sanctioned murder.</b></p></blockquote><p>Yet for forty years the growing tearful cries of fathers who will never be, and mothers who are now filled with regret because of abortion. Their mournful regret is coupled with birthrights of the unborn, sheered away by abortion clinics.</p><p><a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/america-s-abortions-may-end-with-personhood-law-north-dakota" target="_blank">( click to read more )</a></p><p></p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/81NrWq3p5Ag?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></p></div>Supreme Court Orders New Hearing on Obamacare Religious School Challengehttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-on-obamacare-religious-school2012-11-26T21:38:04.000Z2012-11-26T21:38:04.000ZKevin Fobbshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/KevinFobbs<div><p style="text-align:left;"><strong> <a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063637226,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063637226,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="594" alt="4063637226?profile=original" /></a> <span class="font-size-1">Anti Obamacare activists given new life with U.S. Supreme Court order</span></strong></p><p style="text-align:left;"><strong><span class="font-size-1"> for new hearing on Obamacare religious school challenge</span></strong></p><p><strong><span class="font-size-1"> </span></strong></p><p>The U.S. Supreme Court has breathed new life into the anti Obamacare movement by ordering the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals court to hear Liberty University’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. <b>The university had brought an action against having to implement the law on the grounds of equal protection and religious freedom.</b> President Obama insisted during the presidential campaign that religious freedom would not be inhibited or an issue for religious colleges and religious organizations would have to consider.</p><p></p><p>According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/26/supreme-court-orders-new-look-at-health-care-challenge/">Fox News,</a> the school is challenging being forced to provide insurance which pay for birth control against the institution’s constitutional rights. Liberty University and many opponents firmly believe that religious institutions are protected from having to adhere to this constitutional violation under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.</p><p></p><p>It appeared that many had seemingly resigned themselves to being victimized by the June U.S. Supreme Court decision as well as the recent reelection of Obama which appeared to defeat overturning the bill. But, legal sanity still prevails in the form of state leaders that are now openly opposing the merits of the law with renewed determination.</p><p></p><p>A number of republican governors are not waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to analyze the tea leaves in order to take concerted action against this draconian and oppressive federal interventionist law. <b>The governors refuse to have their citizens burdened as <a href="http://ohio.mediatrackers.org/2012/11/16/kasich-officially-refuses-to-implement-obamacare-exchange/">Governor Kasich of Ohio warned,</a> <i>“States do not have any flexibility to build and manage exchanges in ways that respond to unique needs of their citizens or markets.”</i></b></p><p><b><i> </i></b></p><p>Monday, November 26th, according to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, over 16 states have already indicated that they will not be implementing Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges in their states. In fact, Ohio governor John Kasich was joined by Texas governor Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sean Parnell of Alaska, and John Heineman of Nebraska, among others in opposition to state-run health exchanges.</p><p></p><p>In effect, these governors are providing the lead for Obamacare battleground opponents who can slow down and eventually reduce the implementation of the most odorous and oppressive aspects of the bill.</p><p></p><p>Democrats who have been doing the happy dance over the reelection of President Obama should slow down that roll to a “wait and see” crawl. More and more states and their citizens will rally against full implementation of the law based upon being deprived of their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Others will seek protection of their religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.</p><p style="text-align:center;"><a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/supreme-court-orders-new-hearing-on-obamacare-religious-school-challenge" target="_blank">( Click to read more )</a></p></div>Will U.S. Supreme Court Affirmative Action Case end Reverse Discriminationhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/will-u-s-supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-end-reverse2012-10-10T20:51:42.000Z2012-10-10T20:51:42.000ZKevin Fobbshttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/KevinFobbs<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063598476,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063598476,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="594" alt="4063598476?profile=original" /></a>If a lie is said often enough, it will become the truth when left unchallenged. Affirmative action is the new slavery. It is the new second-tier of citizenship, Abigail Fisher, in Texas does not keep your child from excelling in school. So why are black supporters of Affirmative Action letting Affirmative Action and its discriminatory use block Abigail Fisher’s opportunity at the American Dream?</p><p>Black mothers and fathers should seriously consider this. When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child in school to keep him from learning? When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him to commit a crime? When was the last time that you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him not to study, not to get good grades, not to try harder, not to do better, not to be better and not to succeed?</p><p>Race based affirmative action may come to a screeching halt and finally put an end to decades of reverse discriminatory policies utilized in higher educational institutions.</p><p>This week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments concerning a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas (UT) at Austin in 2008. Fisher is challenging UT-Austin’s decision to use a race-conscious admission plan which considers race as a factor in admitting students to its incoming freshman class.</p><p>Instead of using a fairer race-neutral plan, which Texas law already guarantees the top 10 percent of high school students in their graduating class admission to the university, UT-Austin, went a step further. It used an unnecessary and highly unfair reverse discrimination practice of considering race as a factor for admittance, thus making the purpose for the race neutral Texas law meaningless.</p><p>The problem which Miss Fisher and any other high school applicant in Texas and in any other community in America has to consider, is will they be admitted based upon their academic ability, content of their character or any other measurable qualities? <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/will-u-s-supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-end-reverse-discrimination" target="_blank">( Read More )</a></p><p></p></div>Mitt Romney's Clandestine Form of Politicking for The Constitutionhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/mitt-romney-s-clandestine-form-of-politicking-for-the2012-09-13T02:44:04.000Z2012-09-13T02:44:04.000ZCody Robert Judyhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CodyRobertJudy<div><div dir="ltr"><div>FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:</div><div> </div><div><font color="#C00000" size="5">Mitt Romney's Clandestine Form of Politicking for The Constitution</font></div><div> </div><div> </div><p>Please help spread this . Cairo Embassy attacked, 4 dead including U.S. Amb Chris Stevens,1.5 Billion to Muslim Brohood,Obama apologizes on 11th Ann of 911 to Muslims makes wonder why people wouldn't want to double their odds at getting Obama out in the U.S. Supreme Court and helpn out a little because Obama's seeing the writing on the wall. He's beating Mitt Romney. Please help support the SCOTUS Effort everyone! We might not get another shot at this.</p></div><div dir="ltr"></div><div> </div><div dir="ltr"><font size="2">In light of this we call on all <b>Media Sources </b>to </font><font color="#C00000">quit hiding from the American Public</font><font size="2"> the enormously important case of Obama's ineligibility for the Office of President coming up for conference in the United States Supreme Court Sept 24th,2012 in </font><i><u>Judy v. Obama 12-5276 </u> ., that Americans might be <u>free to choose to support </u>with an intelligence of what is going on ,</i><font size="2">rather then being told what or whom to support. We see the "cloak" of this case as a covert action to undermine America's Constitution with our entire </font>political and journalistic<font size="2"> system at the stake as we know it and call for the removal of "The Iron Curtain".</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font size="2"> </font></div><div dir="ltr"><font size="2">Cody Robert Judy's message to the media, " If you have nothing to fear, why don't you dare to share?"<br /></font><div><br /><div> </div><div>We would like to express our sincere and heartfelt sorrow for the families of those who were slain and pray for those families in whom this tragedy has come to bear such enormous impact. May God bless them in this time of grief and loss of family members.</div><div> </div><div><font size="2">While Gov. Romney and Obama share jabs at the timing of each other's remarks, we share an added emphasis in the tragedy on exactly what American </font>sovereignty<font size="2"> means. We share an added emphasis on exactly what makes America different from the rest of the world. Gov. Mitt Romney strongly endorsed American values and our Constitution in his platitude. We would challenge Gov. Romney's statement as nothing more then lip service or a clandestine form of watered down politicking simply because he hasn't taking a stand against the greatest threat to our national security in Obama's ineligibility and the facts that through the office of the Presidency our enemies can gain more leverage against America then any terror action across the globe.</font></div><div><font size="2"> </font></div><div> </div><div><font size="2">Not only have our enemies been embolden by the apologetic tone of the Obama usurpation administration, but we Americans are all mocked and chided at having a Usurper in the White House by our allies as well by our enemies and are seen as nothing more than hypocritical at our best and worst. With Mitt Romney covering up for Obama's ineligibility, Obama gains the platitudes of anti-american disdain of which our enemies soak and distribute as gasoline to be ignited against our Constitution and Country.</font></div><div><font size="2"> </font></div><div><font size="2">The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign</font></div><div><font size="2">Cody Robert Judy </font><div><font color="#C00000"><b>Help Tear Down the Iron Curtain of the Media w Cody Robert Judy</b></font></div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSdO1QiNh6Y">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSdO1QiNh6Y</a></div><div> </div><div><iframe width="510" height="300" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FSdO1QiNh6Y?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></div><div> </div><div><div dir="ltr">The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign</div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><a href="http://sn137w.snt137.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=1811789293" target="_blank">www.codyjudy.us</a></div><div><a href="http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">www.codyjudy.blogspot.com</a></div><div>YouTube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Code4Pres" target="_blank">CODE4PRES</a></div></div><div><a href="http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert" target="_blank">FEC REGISTERED</a> <a href="http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert" target="_blank">http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert</a></div><table class="ecxautogen"><tbody><tr class="ecxcomponent ecxtwo-column ecxfield ecxeven"><td class="ecxfname">Candidate ID</td><td class="ecxfdata">P20003372</td></tr><tr class="ecxcomponent ecxtwo-column ecxfield ecxodd"><td class="ecxfname">Committee ID</td><td class="ecxfdata">C00501593</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><div> </div><div> </div><div>script</div><div><p align="center"><font size="4" color="#C00000"><b>CRACK THE IRON CURTAIN</b></font></p><p>Hi my Constitutional Friend of the USA ; )</p><p>You know many more people are tuning into the Presidential Race after the conventions now and I have a very special date coming up. That date, TWO WEEKS from now, is Sept. 24<sup>th</sup>,2012 in The United States Supreme Court, case <u>Judy v. Obama 12-5276</u>, and I need your help because there’s an IRON CURTAIN in the Media that I need your help with in TEARING DOWN! Remember Ronald Reagan saying that? Well guess what its’ here in America now.</p><p> </p><p>As a facebook friend of mine 100 to 1 your conservative and will probably vote for Mitt Romney in the general election, however, I want to ask you if you’d like to <b>double your odds</b> at getting Barack Obama out of the White House before that; for $25.</p><p> </p><p>You know as well as I do Mitt’s behind in 2 major, of the most reliable, polls right now, and there’s at least a 50% chance he won’t win anyway, so why not <b>DOUBLES YOUR ODDS? </b>Talk about a good deal for $25 dollars. Please,..let me explain.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm">http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>One normal $50 dollar commercial for any company only cost a Presidential Candidate about $25 dollars and is estimated VERY conservatively to reach over one thousand people. I have about 4,500 facebook friends. If each gives $25 dollars we can reach conservatively <b>four and a half million people</b> and tune them into what’s happening in the United States Supreme Court in two weeks; but that’s not all.</p><p>With 4,500 commercials we gain major credibility ground with the networks that <b>must</b> air our commercials or can face big law suits for denying the Federal Guideline Standards of Advertisement for Presidential Candidates. That’s a law suit any attorney would delight to get their hands on because of the huge fine. We also gain credibility in the face of the Court which has never been done at this level!</p><p>Now $25 dollars is just between you and me, your name does not have to be reported to the FEC unless your contributions exceeds $200, so Mitt Romney is never going to know and you could still vote for him in Nov if you choose. Be my guest if you can contribute more than $200! (smile)</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm">http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>As you know Mitt’s taking on Obama on just the economy, but I’ll bet within the next two months you see gas prices going down, as well as employment numbers reported to the media and by the media by you- know-who. I’ll bet $25 that you might see it reported as 7.9% the first of November and guess what? Mitt Romney loses the economy battle as hope has suddenly and miraculously sprung back into the economy, we have to face it, that’s the way a major portion of our fellow Americans think.</p><p> </p><p>That’s exactly what happened in reverse to John McCain in 2008 to help Obama out; thanks in large part to Saudi Arabia’s kings Obama bowed himself so low to. Don’t you think there was not a reason Obama bowed so low. Of course a U.S. President should never be beholden to a foreign power.</p><p> </p><p>So, we Birthers have one more shot at this in the U.S. Supreme Court that is liberal of course, but guess what? I’m running as a Democrat in the same party objecting to campaign damage because Obama won the nomination and isn’t ‘playing by the same rules’ as Mrs. Obama quoted they think America should, and ‘it’s just not fair’. It’s a no brainer and my case has Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse investigation set in it and has from the onset from the lower Superior Court in Georgia. This has never happened in BIRTHER HISTORY exactly!</p><p>How about holding the Obama’s to the same standard they profess? Wouldn’t that be a treat for $25?</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm">http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm</a></p><p>If you absolutely positively can’t do $25 dollars today, please send this to 25 friends and we’ll call that just as good; deal?</p><p>Otherwise I need you to hit this link now and send me $25 today ok; we only have 2 more weeks to make a statement!</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm">http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm</a></p><p>Doubling your odds to get Obama out, preserving your vote for Mitt Romney, and being able to tell God in your prayers tonight you have done all you could do. That’s pretty good deal, and I believe you could hold yourself blameless before God if you could do that.</p><p>You see I am a Christian and I don’t mind telling you in my opinion God will do most of the work. He only wants us to just show a little faith in him. Think of coming an inch while God has come a whole mile.</p><p> </p><p>Well most of the work is done. Our case is in the U.S. Supreme Court <b>now</b>; the Campaign has been built from scratch, we just need a little publicity. That’s the inch I think God just wants to see from you, and I believe we can be successful together. I just can’t do it alone.</p><p>Here’s a little rhyme for you to think about: “It may come down to one single Justice and I believe God can handle one <b>heart</b> if you will just show him your little $25 part. WE can build this truck together!</p><p> </p><p>Well I believe our Constitution was inspired by our Creator, and I know our Founders and Framers did to. You might not agree with their religious principles or mine, but we both neither can deny the freedom and liberty our Constitution has given to us our whole lifes.</p><p> </p><p>George Washington is my favorite U.S. President, can’t say as I’ve met him, but I’ve sure felt his spirit as a hand on my shoulder throughout the 12 courts over the last 4 years I’ve been through to get to this moment in the United States Supreme Court against Obama’s eligibility. Can you pitch in a little?</p><p> </p><p>A commercial is intelligence and knowledge for the general public and in 1796 Pres. Washington said, “it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened”, “A primary object for our youth should be education of our youth in the science of government. In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important?”, and he said it was our duty, communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of our country.</p><p> </p><p>If you see any other Presidential candidates around with Obama in the U.S. Supreme Court before the General Election I recommend you contribute $25, otherwise my friend, I hope you’ll log on now and get that $25 to me in my goal to reach 4,500 commercials in two weeks. Together we can build this truck!</p><p> </p><p>Can you please help me out and log on to my web site now and contribute that $25? Thank you so much.</p><p><a href="http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm">http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>Cody Robert Judy</p><p>The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign <a href="http://www.codyjudy.us/">www.codyjudy.us</a> <a href="http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com/">www.codyjudy.blogspot.com</a> YouTube: CODE4PRES</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div></div></div></div>Obama 2016 - The 'ACTION' of 'INACTION' Obama Voting Presenthttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/obama-2016-the-action-of-inaction-obama-voting-present2012-09-02T21:00:00.000Z2012-09-02T21:00:00.000ZCody Robert Judyhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/CodyRobertJudy<div><div>FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:</div><div>As seen on <a href="http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/09/obama-2016-action-of-inaction-obama.html">http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/09/obama-2016-action-of-inaction-obama.html</a></div><div> and</div><div> <a href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obama-2016-the-action-of-inaction-obama-voting-present">http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obama-2016-the-action-of-inaction-obama-voting-present</a></div><div> </div><div><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063558869,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063558869,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="500" class="align-full" alt="4063558869?profile=original" /></a></div><div><span class="font-size-6" style="color:#ff0000;">Obama 2016 - The 'ACTION' of 'INACTION' Obama Voting Present</span></div><div> </div><div>As an Illinois Senator Obama voted 'present' effectively side-stepping a "Ayes" or "Nays" vote some one hundred and thirty times in order to stay in the good graces of his constituents and his future political career which was, make no mistake, orchestrated.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Obama is also M.I.A as a constitutionally qualified president. Obama is not a natural born citizen which has been been interpreted by the Congress as a legislative mandate over 225 years, born in the United States to Citizen parents on the record by literally examining the fact that its never been over turned in our history while its been attempted over 24 times.</div><div>One thing most people agree on is that the purpose of the 'natural born citizen' clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Americans hold the work of the Founding Fathers in such reverence that they've added to it only 17 times since 1791.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a Judiciary committee member, sees merit in the restriction and said in 2004, "I don't think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen," she said at the hearing. "Your allegiance is driven by your birth."</div><div>Republican U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch-R from Utah said in October 2004,"The restriction on the foreign-born "has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American."</div><div>Maria Shriver Kennedy at one time supported her husband Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow the Austrian-born 2004 California governor to run for the White House as soon as 2008.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>As we see UT. R. Sen Orrin Hatch's proposed amendment failed in 2004, Maria (Kennedy) Shriver filed divorce to Schwarzenegger in 2011 for infidelity but as of July 2012 the divorce isn't final, and another 2008 candidate who isn't a natural born citizen duped Americans running and successfully usurped the White House in 2008.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>If you haven't seen the conservative documentary of the decade stunning Hollywood Obama's present from Rocky Mountain Pictures, "Obama 2016", you need to go see it. I took my mother this last Friday even as the hour and twenty-nine minute documentary was expanding from its modest handful of movie screens to 1,900 screens nation wide earning another $5.1 million of its now 18.3 million.</div><div>Its an interesting side-note that Michael Moore producer of No. 1-ranked "Fahrenheit 9/ 11," which topped $119 million leading documentaries all time, this last week told Democrats to get used to the words "President Romney".</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>The foreboding feeling you feel walking out of Obama 2016 with the audience is worth the price of the ticket. To tell you the truth I personally was relieved to be able to sit quite next to my mom and let someone else do the talking as there have been many a family argument over the work I've been engaged in since 2008 suing McCain and Obama in 2008 on the eligibility issue as a candidate for President and continuing the stand in 2012 as a Democrat Presidential Candidate.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>While I don't say this in justification of failure in the home,there's probably more then a truth or two about my last two marriages ending because of taking a stand for the Constitution in political races that ended unsuccessfully with the finances of my family in a crisis - the reality of underfunded campaigns for any candidate.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>The truth of any political race is there is only one winner, and no matter how many people vote for the second place finisher, all the funds, all the votes, all the hoopla for the campaign doesn't make that campaign any better than the least voted candidate with the most under-voted campaign- it's still a loss and a calculable failure.</div><div>This brings me to the crux of this blog that is actually a question for everyone to ask themselves.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>If Mitt Romney is unwilling to fight Obama on the grounds of the Constitutional demands of qualification for the Office of the President, allowing the usurpation, allowing the history to go down without justice to the fraud and forgery Obama has been apart of with the cover-up, spewing out false identification documents according to law enforcement investigations documented in my case Judy v. Obama now set for conference in the United States Supreme Court Sept. 24th, 2012, allowing Obama to build his presidential library and dis-honoring American culture with shocking racism sending blacks back to a time before color television, then how do you suppose Romney is going to preserve, protect and defend America's Constitution any more then Obama has?</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>And if Romney is not going to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution any better the Obama, what makes your vote for Romney worth the disgrace to God for setting America aside as a peculiar nation of a distinct Republic for which we Americans stand?</div><div>While I would not base my vote on any man or women's religious preference, there are some who do. In my opinion one of the finest distinctions in America is the freedom of conscience in America, let them worship who, what, or how they may, for that is the ultimate test of your own religious freedom here in America.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Saying you wouldn't vote for a "Mormon" is just as easily said about any other religion that is a minority at any given point and is not representative of the United State's Congress Standards outlined in the Constitution, which are chosen by We The People as our Representatives and Senators.</div><div>God knows they let us down as the electorate reported the election in 2008 and their popularity has shown this sinking to an all time low, however the legislative mandate has stood the test of time not to allow any but a "Natural Born Citizen", or a "Citizen" before the ratification of the Constitution, to become President.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>With that said and understanding Obama was not born before the Constitution was ratified, a "Natural Born Citizen" is born in the United States to at the very least parents who are "Citizens", or "Natural Born Citizens" themselves.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}4063572638,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img src="{{#staticFileLink}}4063572638,original{{/staticFileLink}}" width="577" class="align-full" alt="4063572638?profile=original" /></a></div><div>I believe Dr. Pastor James David Manning makes a credible argument for justice in the following video, as Obama did in legislative session 130 times,by simply voting present when it comes to the President by writing my name in on your ballot "Cody Judy", if the Democrats and Republicans and United States Supreme court refuses to demand justice for the honor of black people, white people, yellow people and any color of people in America.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>You absolutely do not need to disgrace yourself before your God, or higher power, by voting for a lesser of two evils, and I do believe that in this case "inaction" or something that appears futile,ultimately can be seen as 'action' to protect the way that God or your higher power, thinks about you if you think that is relevant and important to you.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Talking to Iowans Obama this week said something to the affect "that their is always a choice and Americans were gonna have to make one", and Pastor Manning makes it a credible argument here, which has in large part not been articulated by any religious figure in America, that voting for the lesser of two evils is not voting for principle that makes a bit of sense.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>So, I'll say you don't have to "not vote" for anyone, you can always write-in my name Cody Judy understanding no other qualified candidate on the ballot has stood up for and taken a stand against Obama's Eligibility other than me, as actually your present to Obama.</div><div>Perhaps Obama would win, but perhaps he will win anyway, and perhaps you will look better to your God in not choosing the lesser of two evils, and simply just choosing someone who took a stand and took it to the U.S. Supreme Court. They may be the highest court we can see in America, but I believe there is one above them in the heavens; that in Gods hands.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>If Obama were to win in America in 2012 perhaps it will be the lesson needed to the majority who put him there, from God, to make of you Patriots of Freedom and Liberty like nothing else would. I know being enslaved myself 8 years as a prisoner of a usurped Constitution by the majority in Utah and the deaf ear of the United States Supreme Court for evidence held by the Presidency of the Mormon or LDS Church, that I became a Patriot of our Constitution like I had never been before.</div><div>Then by God your prayers would reach into the heavens and I think that while God might be slow to hear you he would, by the bloodiest revolution America has ever pondered, set your free again, and by that you wouldn't forget it for 1000 years.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>In God's mind, perhaps the greatest lesson to the greatest amount of people, is the best lesson anyway and by that standard I sure wouldn't put it past him, in my own religious sentiment.</div><div>So, minus the words that voting for a "Mormon" is a no can do, and perhaps inserting the understanding that voting for a President who has taken a stand against Obama's eligibility consistently since 2008 is a must, here is Dr. James David Manning's articulate report on that matter that rings truth in the matter of apposing a political loss for Obama because he still gets the pension and the presidential library, and the obamanation of history I am apposed to as my founding fathers in America were also.</div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlpApIRx8Gc&feature=em-subs_digest" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlpApIRx8Gc&feature=em-subs_digest</a></div><div> </div><div> </div><div><iframe width="525" height="300" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MlpApIRx8Gc?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></div><div><div> </div><div> </div><div><span>Cody Robert Judy</span></div><div><div dir="ltr">The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign</div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><a href="http://sn137w.snt137.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=1811789293" target="_blank">www.codyjudy.us</a></div><div><a href="http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">www.codyjudy.blogspot.com</a></div><div>YouTube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Code4Pres" target="_blank">CODE4PRES</a></div></div><div><a href="http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert" target="_blank">FEC REGISTERED</a><span> </span><a href="http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert" target="_blank">http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert</a></div><table class="ecxautogen"><tbody><tr class="ecxcomponent ecxtwo-column ecxfield ecxeven"><td class="ecxfname">Candidate ID</td><td class="ecxfdata">P20003372</td></tr><tr class="ecxcomponent ecxtwo-column ecxfield ecxodd"><td class="ecxfname">Committee ID</td><td class="ecxfdata">C00501593</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div>Public Enemy Number Onehttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/profiles/blogs/public-enemy-number-one2012-08-31T19:11:36.000Z2012-08-31T19:11:36.000ZBrett L. Bakerhttps://patriotcommandcenter.org/members/BrettLBaker<div><p>I believe the subject of this treatise will be about an individual which a great many people consider to be public enemy number one. For those of you who have read my other treatises, I hate to disappoint you, this particular treatise will not be the scathing witch hunt which uncovers the corruptness of our so-called leadership or of any particular leader for that matter. Instead, I am going to spend the time looking into a man who much of the public seems to intensely dislike, but for whom I have a great deal of respect.</p><p>While there are nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, I am going to focus on one. If you haven’t guessed who I am referring to by now, it is Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate and assumed his office, or his seat, on 26 September 1986 as a Supreme Court Justice. Who is this Supreme Court Justice and what sets him apart from the rest? According to Wikipedia Justice Scalia is, “The longest-serving justice currently on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn1">[i]</a>.” I would like to mention a few more items noted in Wikipedia before I continue, which I believe will give us something to work with regarding Justice Scalia. Wikipedia also notes, “In his quarter-century on the Court, Scalia has staked out a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He is a strong defender of the executive branch…and, in his minority opinions, often castigates the Court’s majority in scathing language.” I’ll also touch on Justice Scalia’s beliefs on such matters as flag-burning and abortion as they relate to the Constitution of the United States. I believe these items through his over 25 years on the Court will allow us to find out who Supreme Court Justice Scalia is and why so many people believe he is public enemy number one.</p><p> </p><p align="center">A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.</p><p align="center">Antonin Scalia</p><p align="center"> </p><p>Because I love the U.S. Constitution and know the founding fathers of this nation were great men, I believe that would be a good place to start. What does Justice Scalia mean when he speaks about originalism in constitutional interpretation? According to an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, the CBS News report states, “Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as “originalism,” which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn2">[ii]</a>.” Personally, I like the idea of interpreting the U.S. Constitution<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn3">[iii]</a> in a manner that upholds the values, principles and words of our founding fathers who actually risked everything to create such a wonderful document for the people of the United States. In the report Justice Scalia goes on to explain what he means, “It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend.” Ms Stahl notes, “Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution – like a right to abortion – by interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” that adapts to changing values.” Justice Scalia states why he is against the idea of a living Constitution, “What’s wrong with it is, it’s wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution.” So it is apparent, Justice Scalia believes the U.S. Constitution should be and is our ‘rock solid foundation’ which we stand upon and which has elevated us, the United States, to our (at least once) grand stature. With regard to the founders, Justice Scalia goes on to say, “Well, it isn’t the mindset. It’s what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.” Justice Scalia isn’t against progress or change, “Create it the way most rights are created…Pass a law.” But he is against changing the Constitution, our foundation. Like many people I believe if you wish to change the Constitution, lawmakers need to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make the Amendment. However, making a law in itself, is much less cumbersome, it just needs to be constitutional.</p><p>Why does Justice Scalia advocate textualism in statutory interpretation and what is it? Oliver Wendell Holmes in <u>The Theory of Legal Interpretation</u> stated, “How is it when you admit evidence of circumstances and read the document in the light of them? Is this trying to discover the particular intent of the individual, to get into his mind and to bend what he said to what he wanted?” Mr. Holmes, who I might add was a brilliant man, further states, “Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used, and it is to the end of answering this last question that we let in evidence as to what the circumstances were<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn4">[iv]</a>.” So I believe Mr. Holmes is stating textualism is not necessarily the intent of the man as much as it is the words themselves, as used by men in general, to understand the meaning of the words within a certain circumstance.</p><p>According to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “The basic premise of textualism is that judges “must seek and abide by the public meaning of the enacted text, [as] understood in context” and should “choose the letter of the statutory text over its spirit<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn5">[v]</a>.”” Mr. Davis further states with regard to textualism, “Only the statutory text has passed the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment, and that judicial reliance on unenacted intentions or purposes “disrespects the legislative process.”” Also according to Mr. Davis, textualists believe those ‘unenacted intentions and purposes’ are that which “Skirts the constitutional protections designed to safeguard liberty by diffusing legislative power.” So textualism maintains the separation of power within the three branches of government itself and protects the U.S. Constitution as well as the liberty of sovereign individuals and sovereign States.</p><p>Just so you know bicameralism is Congress as two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the definition of presentment I’ll go to Black’s Law Dictionary, “In criminal practice. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment Is an informal statement In writing, by the grand jury, representing to the court that a public offense has been committed which is triable in the county, and that there is reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual named or described therein has committed it<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn6">[vi]</a>.”</p><p>So between Oliver Wendell Holmes and Mr. Davis of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Justice Scalia’s advocacy of textualism in statutory interpretation is not the intent of what is or was meant, but the actual public meaning of the text itself within the context of what was said [in the statute] and this is done strictly to safeguard our liberty under the U.S. Constitution while holding the government in check. I can’t figure out how that is a bad thing. The framers of the Constitution believed in limited government, to be sure, limited federal government as stated by James Madison in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn7">[vii]</a>.”</p><p> </p><p align="center">Now imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after…the Naturalization clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.</p><p align="center">Antonin Scalia</p><p align="center"> </p><p>An example of one of Justice Scalia’s minority opinions can be found in Arizona v. United States. Justice Scalia states, “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn8">[viii]</a>?” Justice Scalia goes on to say, “The President said at a news conference that the new program “is the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona <i>contradicts federal law</i> by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.” This is wonderful example of Justice Scalia castigating the majority (let’s call it) in scathing language-<i>lite</i> (I would have just called them spineless jellyfish). While the majority opinion was in favor of the President’s so-called plan of doing nothing other than trampling atop the rights of the sovereign State of Arizona, Justice Scalia sets himself apart and appropriately rebuffs the majority as well as the Executive branch. Justice Scalia states, “The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror…seems to me not so horrible and even less looming…the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written…Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” Justice Scalia seems right on point and makes my previous statement with regard to the Supreme Court Justices in “On Sovereignty<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn9">[ix]</a>” seem a bit harsh. Quite frankly I should have stated the Supreme Court might as well be referred to as ‘Eight Empty Chairs’ instead of nine. Justice Scalia quite eloquently affirmed Arizona’s sovereign status and rebuked the Executive’s misguided stance as well as the Supreme Court’s inconceivable majority opinion. Why should the sovereign State of Arizona be required to allow its borders to be violated? As a sovereign State, Arizona has every right to secure its borders, protect its citizens and enforce Immigration Laws even if the Federal government doesn’t have the backbone or the intestinal fortitude to aggressively enforce those laws. I have always been unable to fathom why the federal government shirks its own responsibilities but has such a voracious appetite for prosecuting decent Americans who simply exercise their freedoms as they see fit, which seem to be at odds with the misguided beliefs of the <i>jack-booted thugs</i> in Washington.</p><p>Apparently, the Obama administration which flatly refuses to rigorously enforce existing immigration laws, just like his predecessor, George W. Bush who also refused to enforce those laws should not handcuff a sovereign State from doing so. Each sovereign State, like the nation as a whole, has its own Constitution and its own three branches of government. The federal government in my view is always subordinate to the States as well as the individuals who make up the States, unless one of the various constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual has been violated by the State. What right does the federal government believe it has to step in as ‘<i>High Lord and Potentate</i>’ and issue its so-called <i>fatwa’s</i> or to even dictate to the sovereign individuals and the sovereign States? The business of the State is just that, the business of the State. The federal government’s power is limited for a reason, the founders believed in the sovereign individual and the sovereign State. Clearly, the federal government merely acts out of jealousy in its daily attempts to usurp what is not rightfully theirs as stated in the Law of the Land, the U. S. Constitution.</p><p> </p><p align="center">Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…But this wolf comes as a wolf.</p><p align="center">Antonin Scalia</p><p align="center"> </p><p>Now that we have seen Justice Scalia beat up on Obama, I think it would be a good time to touch on him [Scalia] as a strong defender of the executive branch. In Morrison v. Olson Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “We should say here that the President’s constitutionally assigned duties include <i>complete</i> control over investigation and prosecutions of violations of the law, and that the inexorable command of Article II is clear and definite: the executive power must be vested in the President of the United States<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn10">[x]</a>.” Clearly, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states the duties and power of the Executive Branch as <i>separate</i> from either the Legislative or Judicial Branches, as stated in Articles I and III respectively, and vice versa. Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion continues, “In my view…the Court’s conclusion must be wrong…One of the natural advantages the Constitution gave to the Presidency, just as it gave Members of Congress (and their staffs) the advantage of not being prosecutable for anything said or done in their legislative capacities…It is the very object of this legislation to eliminate that assurance of a sympathetic forum.” As executive privilege is a principle based on the constitutionally mandated separation of powers – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches operate independently from one another. Private decision making with their advisors, in this case the independent council was the Assistant Attorney General Olson, has to be done without fear of ‘how something might look’ to either of the other branches of government. Unless a crime has been committed, no branch of government may frivolously impede the duties of the other branches of government. Especially when the aim is simply to destroy an elected leader’s ability to carry out the duties of his office through a so-called witch hunt or a fishing expedition which effectively renders the elected leader impotent without just cause, or simply to act as a device to destroy one’s political enemy. “The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.” This is a good example of Justice Scalia’s strong defense of the executive branch. But in doing so, Justice Scalia is actually defending all three separate branches of government and their duties as delineated in the U.S. Constitution. What strikes me as even more paramount than the defense of the Executive and the separation of powers (which is extremely important), is Justice Scalia’s believe that in doing so it is in the defense of the individual freedoms which are ultimately protected.</p><p>Lastly, we should take a look at Justice Scalia’s conservative ideology. If we go back to the 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Justice Scalia states, “I’m a law-and-order guy. I confess I’m a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases.” An example of Justice Scalia’s impartiality, in spite of his own personal beliefs, is in regard to flag-burners, “If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal wearing flag-burner into jail, but it was not up to me.” While that does sound conservative to me, it also sounds impartial. Justice Scalia clearly states his disdain for flag-burning and flag-burners, yet his opinion with regard to the law is flag-burners are protected under the U.S. Constitution. I’m not so certain I could be so fair-minded. It seems to me, flag-burners have plunged themselves into the depths of the multitudes of depraved individuals around the globe who constantly burn our flag, yet cry a river whenever the United States does something with which they do not agree. Of course, they claim they burn our flag because of our aggression, and while there may be a certain amount of truth to that statement, these people which I speak of live in a barbaric rat hole as a result of their own choosing, not ours. Their argument is disingenuous as well as fallacious.</p><p>The right to abortion is another issue with which we are all too familiar, based on the landmark case Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. – We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn11">[xi]</a>.” Whether someone is for or against abortion, it seems clear to me as it seems to be with Justice Scalia, nowhere within the U.S. Constitution does it state there is a right to abortion. However, I do believe as Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion states, this is a matter that should be left up to the States. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the federal government’s attempts to destroy States rights. Has there been an amendment to the Constitution? The easy answer is no, but if that is the case, then why does the federal government feel they have the right to enact a national law without going through the cumbersome amendment process to the U.S. Constitution? If a State or the people of a State enact a law which either affirms or denies the right to have an abortion through State law, the individual on either side is not held against their will in that State. They have the freedom and the right to leave and seek out their liberty in another State where the people of that State have beliefs which are more in keeping with their own set of beliefs. But to have a national law foisted upon us all with the misguided attempt at appeasement for some, completely disregards the others. Not to mention the fact that such an idea is completely foreign to the U.S. Constitution.</p><p>I would conclude by stating Justice Scalia is not only a fantastic jurist, but an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. This man has a clear grasp of the law and an understanding of the U.S. Constitution which is unparalleled. I happen to like the fact that he adheres to the public meaning of text in his interpretation of the statutes and how he sticks to what the founding fathers said and what the words meant to them regarding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Justice Scalia’s belief that the idea of a living constitution is in reality a dead constitution is an honorable defense of the U.S. Constitution. His belief that his duty is to defend an enduring Constitution speaks volumes about this man. Justice Scalia’s defense of the sovereign State in the face of Executive, Congressional and Judicial malfeasance is also quite noteworthy. To protect the sovereign State is to protect the sovereign individual and it would appear as though Justice Scalia is a staunch supporter of both. As I have already stated, he defends the Constitution, but he also does this by affirming there is a clear separation of power between the three branches of government as stated in the Constitution. His conservative leanings don’t seem to sway his opinions or impartiality with regard to any case. And his opinions in general are quite interesting to read. Justice Scalia shows up for work each day fully prepared to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I cannot imagine why so many people hate this man, unless of course, it is because they hate the U.S. Constitution.</p><p>Justice Scalia is in many ways like Socrates, he questions and reproves, he educates and he enlightens. While in his interview with Ms Stahl he stated, “I was never cool,” I would have to disagree with him on that point. I personally believe Justice Scalia is in fact very cool, I might even go so far as to say he is a role model for decent and honorable men and not just young lawyers who someday wish to sit on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is an example of a man who leads by example. If we had more like him on the Supreme Court, it’s possible our nation wouldn’t hit the nail right on our thumb quite so often.</p><p> </p><p align="center">If you think aficionados of a living constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens to enact it. That’s flexibility.</p><p align="center">Antonin Scalia<a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_edn12">[xii]</a></p><p> </p><p>God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.</p><p> </p><p>Brett L. Baker</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://mytreatises.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://mytreatises.blogspot.com</a> </p><p> </p><p align="center"><b>References</b></p><p> </p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref1">[i]</a> Wikipedia; Antonin Scalia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref2">[ii]</a> CBS News; 60 Minutes, Justice Scalia On The Record, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref3">[iii]</a> Charters Of Freedom; Constitution of the United States, <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html">http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref4">[iv]</a> Harvard Law Review; The Theory of Legal Interpretation, Oliver Wendell Holmes, pp 417-418. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321531?seq=1">http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321531?seq=1</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref5">[v]</a> Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30]; The Newer Textualism: Justice Alito’s Statutory Interpretation, p. 988, Elliott M. Davis. <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Davisonline.pdf">http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Davisonline.pdf</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref6">[vi]</a> Black’s Law Dictionary 2<sup>nd</sup> Edition Online; Definition of PRESENTMENT, <a href="http://thelawdictionary.org/presentment/">http://thelawdictionary.org/presentment/</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref7">[vii]</a> Founding Fathers Info; Federalist No. 45, James Madison. <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm">http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref8">[viii]</a> Arizona v. United States; Opinion of Scalia, J, pp 19-21. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref9">[ix]</a> On Sovereignty; US Constitution: How the U.S. government fails to follow the U.S. Constitution and the incompetent, so-called leadership of the United States, <a href="http://mytreatises.blogspot.com/p/on-sovereignty.html">http://mytreatises.blogspot.com/p/on-sovereignty.html</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref10">[x]</a> Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute; Morrison v. Olson (No. 87-1279), <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0487_0654_ZD.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0487_0654_ZD.html</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref11">[xi]</a> Gonzaga University; Scalia dissent in the Casey case, <a href="http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/scalia.htm">http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/scalia.htm</a></p></div><div><p><a title="" href="http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/new#_ednref12">[xii]</a> Brainy Quotes; Antonin Scalia Quotes, <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/antonin_scalia.html">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/antonin_scalia.html</a></p></div></div></div>