Posts Tagged ‘will of the people’

Why Do We Go Through The Useless Pretense Of Bothering To Have Elections When Fascist Black-Robed Judges Are Really Our Masters?

September 15, 2012

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Ah, the hell with it: Let’s just let Judge Adolf P. Fuehrer decide everything.  I mean, people sheople.

Why do we bother to go through the sham of voting and having elections?  We really might as well just have one of those tyrant-regime-style “elections” where everybody gets to vote as long as they only vote for their “president for life.”  Because that’s what we’ve got here now:

Judge strikes down Wisconsin law restricting union rights
By NBC News staff and news services
September 14, 2012

A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled Friday that the law violates the state and U.S. constitutions and is null and void.

The law took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.

Colas’ ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the Madison teachers union and a union for Milwaukee city employees.

For city, county and school workers, the ruling returns the law to its previous status, before it was changed in March 2011, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. However, Walker’s law remains largely in force for state workers, it reported.

Walker’s law prohibited state and local governments from bargaining over anything except cost of living adjustments to salaries. Haggling over issues such as health benefits, pensions and workplace safety was barred.

Gov. Walker said in a statement Friday that he expected the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

“The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5th,” he said in the statement posted on his Facebook page. “Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process.”

“We believe the law is constitutional,” said Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck.

The proposal was introduced shortly after Walker took office in February last year. It sparked a firestorm of opposition and huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law’s passage by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The law’s passage led to a mass movement to recall Walker from office, but he survived the recall election, becoming the first governor in U.S. history to do so.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I didn’t know that “collective bargaining” was enshrined in our Constitution.  Could somebody point out where?  I guess I must have slept through that lecture in that Civics class I took or something.

It’s probably in the same damn penumbras and emanations that the right to murder your baby is in, I suppose.

I’m all for workers having the right to form a union and I’m all for the right of that union to be able to “collectively bargain.”  As long as any employer – be that employer a small business owner, a CEO, a governor or a president – to be able to fire the ass of everybody who collectively bargained.

Again, where is it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that an employer loses the right to be able to fire workers?  Where is it stated that if workers want more money, and they “collectivize,” that he or she can’t fire them and get better workers who are willing to work for the wages that the employer is willing to pay???  Where the hell is it stated that an unemployed worker who would very damn much love to have a job cannot have the right to be able to work for that wage that the employer is willing to pay???  Where is it in our Constitution that only UNION workers ought to have the right to a job?

That’s what makes “collective bargaining” so evil; it arbitrarily gives a “right” to a union and takes away the rights of every single business and every single worker who would be thrilled to work for the pay that the union worker snubs his nose at.

And I want to know where that judge found that – other than by looking rather far up his own butt.

Damn I’m sick of these judges.  Just like I was sick of them not once but TWICE as a damn judge who believed himself above the will of the people overturned first Proposition 22 (which passed by 61% of the people’s vote) and then Proposition 8 (which passed by the same majority that gave Obama the damn presidency).

That’s what we need now – and will need even more if Obama gets reelected; we need a judge to look far enough up his own ass to “find” whatever penumbra or emanation and declare that Obama’s election is unconstitutional and throw his butt out of office.

This nation is no longer a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic, or anything remotely like any of the above.  It is an oligarchy of judicial activists and that is all that it is now.

A few other wise words of warning by Thomas Jefferson:

  • “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
  • “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”
  • “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
  • “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
  • “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

We are to the point where that last one has become an important reality: our country has been stolen from us by black-robed usurpers, and we need to take it back from them.

Advertisements

Prop 8: Contemptuous Judge Overturns Will Of Both God And The People

August 4, 2010

Here’s the latest story of judicial abuse:

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

“Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.

This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California.  There’s a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”  Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

For the official record, Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.

Just one of Jefferson’s comments about such “judges” as Vaughn Walker:

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Thus this isn’t judicial activism; it’s judicial DESPOTISM.

The people no longer have any real power in this country.  Some unelected judge overturned the will of the people in Arizona by substituting her own ridiculous reasoning for the law.  Now this.  And soon states like Missouri – which issued a 71%-to-29% smackdown to ObamaCare – will likewise fall prey to judicial despotism.  Why even bother to vote when your will is continually overturned by despotism?  Of course, that’s exactly how liberal fascists want you to think.  They want you to give up.  Because socialism is only accepted by an apathetic, defeated people.

Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:

“Equal protection”? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?

A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him – the same as me.  There’s your “equal protection.”  On a platter.

If a gay man doesn’t want to take advantage of that, then that’s his loss.  But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation – or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period – is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.

How about the concept of “due process”? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process?  All it does is create undue process.  How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying?  If you can redefine the “one man and one woman thing,” why can’t you redefine the “two people” thing?  And by what objective standard that can never be overturned?  And if three people can marry, why can’t fifteen or more?  Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?

The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can’t marry her Great Dane?  Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter?  Why can’t I marry my canary?

And you’d better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they’ll probably be legal next month.

Gays want the right to marry.  The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys.  Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.

The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents’ consent.  That’s a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place.  Why not give NAMBLA what it wants?  It’s not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right?  That’s the argument we keep hearing, so let’s be consistent.  Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections.  Gay marriage proponents have none.  If I’m wrong, then just finish this thought: “A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because…”.  And don’t say that it won’t ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.

The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: “How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?”

That one really isn’t very hard to answer.

For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed.  I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?

Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place.  And the fact of the matter is that they AREN’T bothering to get married.  Because marriage is being destroyed.

When a young man today says “I do” in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents’ parents, and his parents’ parents’ parents – going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).

We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage.  And God said:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

“Shall cleave to his WIFE” – not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.

Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body – it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.

Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.

So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage.  Because it destroys the very concept of marriage.

Have To Admit, It’s Kind Of Nice To See Democrats Get Treated Like Vermin

January 16, 2010

Ben Nelson is persona non grata to go with being Slimeball of the Year.

Democrats have been hell bent on spending us into oblivion, passing the health care destruction act, passing amnesty for illegal aliens, passing cap-growth-and trade-productivity, and blithely ignoring that people are getting mad as hell.

Republican Scott Brown is leading Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts – a state in which Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one – by three percentage points according to Coakley’s own internal pollingIn Massachusetts.

I am praying for a Scott Brown victory, but c’mon: NOBODY predicted that Scott Brown would even be CLOSE in this race only a few months ago.

In a way, Scott Brown defeating Coakley and taking away the filibuster-proof majority eight months before it would have happened anyway may be the salvation of Democrats.

Because if they had passed all this crap, I truly believe that one day after the collapse of America, the people would find voter registration rolls, and start individually hunting down Democrats with dogs and burning them alive.

In any event, Democrat Senator Ben Nelson is getting to experience being burned a little bit early.

Ben Nelson tries to repair damage at home
By MANU RAJU | 1/14/10 4:55 AM EST

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and his wife were leaving dinner at a new pizza joint near their home in Omaha one night last week when a patron began complaining about Nelson’s decisive vote in favor of the Senate’s health care bill.

Other customers started booing. A woman yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” And the Nelsons and their dining companions beat a hasty retreat.

“It was definitely a scene in there,” said Tom Lewis, a 41-year-old dentist and registered Republican who witnessed the incident. A second witness confirmed the incident to POLITICO.

It’s a new experience for Nelson.

He used to be a popular figure back home, a Democrat who served eight years in the governor’s office and was elected twice to the Senate by a state that’s as red as the “N” on the University of Nebraska’s football helmets.

But Nelson has seen his approval ratings tumble in the wake of his wavering over the historic health care bill, his deal-cutting with other Senate Democrats and, ultimately, his support to break a GOP filibuster and send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee.

Nelson, who has a track record of brokering bipartisan deals, said for months that he was unsure whether to back a Democrats-only bill, and he criticized language in the measure that would impose taxes and cut Medicare costs in order to pay for extending coverage to most Americans. But after weeks of negotiations, Nelson made his peace with the bill by striking deals on his state’s Medicaid costs and on abortion language — and, in the process, incited a furious backlash in Nebraska.

Anti-abortion activists who have supported him in the past have abandoned him; he’s been the target of a fierce campaign by opponents to push him to block the bill on final passage; and the GOP now sees the opportunity for a pickup in 2012.

Meantime, Nelson is still viewed warily by more-liberal Democrats who distrust his conservative leanings and remain upset with his opposition to a public option.

“He’s kind of a man without a state,” said Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, an influential anti-abortion group that had endorsed Nelson’s previous election bids but has “pretty much cut [its] ties” with the senator over the abortion deal in the health care bill. The group plans a rally Jan. 30 in front of the state Capitol in Lincoln and will weigh whether to use its influence to go after Nelson ahead of 2012, when he is up for a third term.

The state Republican Party has set up a website calling for voters to eject Nelson from office, and it has already raised “tens of thousands of dollars” for advertising, according to Mark Fahleson, chairman of the state party.

And Democrats in Washington worry that the pressure may cause Nelson to defect in the end, particularly since the senator — once again — has made clear that his final vote on the bill is not guaranteed.

Nelson, who declined requests for an interview, is responding to the blowback with a major effort to reverse public opinion, criss-crossing the state county by county and holding interviews with a slew of local newspapers and TV and radio stations. He has explained his vote and the deals he made in several newspaper op-eds, held a news conference outside his home in Omaha and made a “sizable number” of calls to individual voters who have written him to express their concerns, according to his spokesman.

I’m sure that liberal activists are going to say that the anger Nelson experienced is the result of “rightwing Republican extremists.”  But it isn’t.  It’s Republicans, Independents, and Democrats who are as mad as hell, and just won’t take it anymore.

Better to be a piece of dog poop than it is to be Ben Nelson right now, as far as his voters are concerned.

Nelson is saying he wants to take back the provision (i.e., the $100 million bribe) that he accepted to give Nebraska a sweetheart Medicaid deal for life.

Does anybody think that’s going to make Nebraska happy?  For Nelson to take back the deal he made to undermine the will of the people to begin with?

Rather than taking back the unconstitutional $100 million Nebraska Purchase, what Nebraska voters want is for Nelson to take back his vote.  Or else they want to take back his head.

In ___ We Trust?

August 22, 2008

MSNBC has a poll: “Should the motto “In God We Trust” be removed from U.S. currency?
Yes. It’s a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

As of my visit, there were 6594785 responses.

Obviously, the “No” response has a commanding lead. But the real story might be just how many secular humanists have voiced their approval in eradicating God – or any expression of trust in Him – from our currency.

It doesn’t really matter what people think, as a bottom line. The courts have largely taken such matters out of their hands.

Thomas Jefferson, whom liberals falsely think would have been on their side, has said of the Supreme Court:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of
the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

(more…)