America’s liberal progressives picked Barack Hussein Obama for president, a lawyer, a Marxist—charming, persuasive, idealistic.
The American Bar leans heavily toward liberal progressive. The American Civil Liberties Union is an example. As a student of history, I observe that, generally, lawyers and liberal progressives practice how to get around the law.
The law is based on reason. Liberal progressives rely on emotion. Having said this, let us now talk about Attorney General Holder’s three page answer to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Is it lawyer grandstanding? It all came up over the conservatives on the Supreme Court’s unfavorable remarks on Obmacare. Obama was obliged to respond. His liberal progressive constituency is mad as hell.
Attorney General Holder’s job will be to speak to liberal progressives in terms they understand, not to the Court of Appeals. Rest assured, Holder’s answer will be what liberal progressives want to hear—emotions made to appear logical, not for the Court’s benefit, which bases logic and the law on the same level. He has already said that there was nothing illogical about Obama’s remarks. What can the Court do? What can we do? That’s the question.
Obama has told us that Obamacare was the work of democratically elected representatives, leaving the idea that democracy is fundamental to the law. He pulled a favorite lawyer trick—juxtapositioned the term judicial activism. He implied that conservative justices tend to be judicial activists. In the lawyer’s bible, Black’s Law Dictionary, under judicial activism, “these decisions represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.” So you see, Obama didn’t say anything he couldn’t back up. Understand that Obama has not said the Supreme Court doesn’t have the final say, but implies that if the conservatives on the bench strike down any part of Obamacare, they will be “intruding into legislative and executive matters.” It is written in Black’s Law Dictionary! This will be, more or less, Holder’s boomerang to the Court.
Here is what is written. “Judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from strict adherence to judicial precedent in favor of progressive and new social policies which are not always consistent with restraint expected of appellate judges. It is commonly marked by decisions calling for social engineering and occasionally these decisions represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.” This Obama trick can be likened to the black militant trick concerning “gunning down an unarmed black child.” The liberal press reported that it was racially motivated, as proved by the remark to the police by the killer, “I think he was black.” The press left out the police question: “What does he look like?”
The liberal progressive bases his plan to make us all jump through his hoops on emotion. We were created with reason and logic, but also with emotion. We are, in that respect, animal. But Aristotle, in Ethics:
“Of political justice, part is natural, part legal—natural, that which everywhere has the same force and does not exist by people’s thinking this or that; legal, that which is originally indifferent.”
In the lawyer’s bible, we read under lawful, “the principal distinction between the terms ‘lawful’ and ‘legal’ is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law.” Hitler was legal. “The latter goes no further (Obama goes no further) than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility.
Obamacare is 2,700 pages already written by liberal progressive lawyers and waiting for Obama to take office. Justice Kagan was a legal advisor, and now judges her legal advice. Obamacare was never read by elected representatives. It was passed in the dark of night. Pelosi said to read it after it is passed. We did. We don’t want it. And why should we? It is a fraud.
“A further distinction is that the word ‘legal’ is used as the synonym of ‘constructive,’ which law is not. Thus ‘legal fraud’ is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction.” Oh, and by the way, Aristotle: “To invest the law then with authority is, it seems, to invest God and reason only; to invest a man is to introduce a beast, as desire is something bestial….”
Nazi law was legal. One of the judges of the Nazis, Justice Jackson, delivered the Supreme Court majority decision in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, and before he judged Nazi law. In the Decision:
“The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property…and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote…”
Obama law is Nazi law. The above decision is the crux of my income tax case that I petitioned the Supreme Court to hear. My petitioned in 1980, if it had been heard, Obamacare would never have been written, much less made the law. The American people have only themselves to blame for Nazi law.
I’ve written a book that goes into considerable detail on America’s problem. In Earth as It Is in Heaven 2012. Coincidentally, my book will be published about the time the Supreme Court hands down its decision on Obamacare.
Comments