Tag Archives: Justice

The Crimes of An Ideological Agenda

“Let us disappoint the men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.”
— John Adams

The number of scandals involving the encroachment of the Obama Administration into – and onto – the constitutional rights of American citizens is beyond stunning. And it is without question criminal in many cases. But with an Attorney General seated who – as a practice – routinely tries to manipulate the limits of the law to affect an ideological agenda, and a federal “classification system” that keeps those elected to represent us in Congress from bringing issues of government instituted malfeasance to light, what recourse is left the American citizen?

These encroachments against the United States Constitution are the product of over one-hundred years of Progressive political advances in the area of government. Put succinctly, two of the founding principles of the Progressive Movement; two of the “givens” held in understanding by each and every Progressive, are that: a) Progressives are enlightened; intellectually superior to the masses; and, b) that through centralized government, Progressives can help the masses help themselves to a better life, regardless of whether they want it or not. Once these two facts are understood, you can begin to understand some of the declarations made by Mr. Obama and his spokespeople about the many scandals – or what We the People perceive to be scandals – surrounding the Obama Administration.

According to R.J. Pestritto, the Charles & Lucia Shipley Chair in the American Constitution at Hillsdale College and author of American Progressivism, ““America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.”

Jonah Goldberg writes of Pestritto’s examination of the Progressive Movement in Liberal Fascism:

“They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The progressives, Pestritto says, wanted ‘a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.’

“In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand.

“…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.

“This perspective dovetailed with the progressives’ notion of an ‘evolving’ or ‘living’ government, which, like all living beings, could rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, progressives also coined the term ‘living Constitution,’ connoting the idea that the US Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent guiding principles — a document that must, of necessity, change with the times.”

On the subject of the Obama “scandals” the key words here are “…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives” and “…whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.”

In each of the perceived scandals, the Progressives of the Obama Administration justify their actions through those eyes. They see the situations as being too complex for the average American to understand, too emotionally disturbing for them to fathom; the need for constitutional transgression in their quest for the “fundamental transformation” of America too great. And so they deceive their political opposition – and the American public – about their actions, reasons, intentions and goals.

This understood, it is easy to see why, after myriad transgressions against the Constitution and the mission of the Justice Department itself, Mr. Obama declares that he still has “confidence” in Eric Holder. He needs Eric Holder in the senior-most law enforcement position so that he can unilaterally achieve his Progressive agenda through a totalitarian Executive Branch; so he can achieve the “fundamental transformation” of our country through, Executive Order and regulation, especially regulation – legislation through regulation.

It is for this reason – unilateral fundamental transformation – that Progressives have sought to grow our federal government to its current behemoth size; a bureaucratic labyrinth filled with “career” public servants (an oxymoron?) and interminable political appointees whose entire existence is to move the American political center incrementally to the Left; a task they have been achieving with regularity since the days of Wilson and Roosevelt.

It is for this particular reason – it is for this particular governmental mechanism: the bureaucracy – that Mr. Obama will not be directly linked to any of these so-called scandals (scandals in the eyes of all those who revere the Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but not as much to Progressives). The entire Progressive Movement has culminated in this moment in time. They truly believe it is their time. Progressives believe that because they have achieved a twice elected hyper-Progressive president – disregarding the retention of the US House of Representatives by Republicans and ignoring the many governorships that went “Red” last election – that they have a mandate, not for Mr. Obama’s “programs,” but for the complete transformation of our governmental system from that of a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy based on the now failed models of Europe.

In each scandal there is a bureaucratic figurehead that insulates Mr. Obama from direct responsibility. In the IRS scandal we have Lois Lerner and Douglas Schulman. In the Fast & Furious and AP/FOX scandal there is Eric Holder. In Benghazi there were Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton…and dead men tell no tales. In each instance, Mr. Obama has a dedicated and loyal “useful idiot” who will fall on his/her sword for the “good of the movement.” It is assumed they will, just as it was assumed they would execute their actions of transgressions against the Constitution and liberty itself, with fidelity to “the cause” and without a direct order ever being given.

As We the People watch the “scandals” of the Obama reign unfold, we need to understand that even though Progressives believe this is “their time,” it would have been “their time” regardless of who was in the White House. Was it easier to execute with the first “Black” president in the White House, someone whose constitutionally destructive actions Progressives could defend with a claim of “racism” toward his detractors? Sure, it made it easier, but it would have happened anyway, and it would have happened because of two reasons: a) the public has become apathetic towards their duty to be accurately informed and engaged, and b) the bureaucracy was in place.

Unless We the People insist on the decentralization of government, a viciously executed reduction in the size of the federal government and a radical transformation of the federal tax code to a limited flat tax, FAIR tax or consumption tax, nothing will change with the 2016 elections, regardless of which party captures the White House and holds sway in Congress. Our country – our Constitutional Republic – will continue to be “nudged” to the Left; continue to be fundamentally transformed away from liberty and self-reliance and toward servitude and dependence.

Barack Obama was correct about one thing all those years back in 2008, our nation – the United States of America – is in need of fundamental transformation. That transformation, though, needs to be from a culture of bureaucratic elitism in a centralized government where no one is able to be held accountable, to a nation dedicated to justice for all and the rule of law under the constraints of the United States Constitution.

Or, as John Adams so eloquently wrote in Novanglus Essay, No. 7:

“[Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington] define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”

We, my fellow Americans, are a Republic and not a Democracy, for precisely that reason.

Eric Holder Demonstrates His Contempt for Congress!

US Supreme Court

Contempt is defined as: An act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body.

It is no wonder that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will consider holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress on June 20 relating to the ongoing Fast and Furious ATF gun trafficking scandal.

During the House Judiciary Justice Department Oversight committee hearing on June 7th, it became abundantly clear that Attorney General Eric Holder has complete contempt for congress.

Setting aside for a moment the topic of Fast and Furious – a disastrous ATF operation to allow guns to cross the border into Mexico, and then determine at which crime scene they re-surfaced thereby tracking their purchasers – Mr. Holder’s contempt became clear as congressperson after congressperson asked Mr. Holder why they had not received an answer to a prior inquiry. Mr. Holder made it clear from his answers that he had made little or no effort to follow-up on congressional inquiries, whether they came from republicans or democrats.

In his efforts to obfuscate, delay, or outright refuse to answer questions, Mr. Holder made it clear that he holds himself beyond the reach of congressional oversight, and possibly even believes that the law is whatever Mr. Holder thinks it is at any given moment.

Ms. Lofgren (D-CA) began her questioning by saying “When you were last before us in December, I asked you about a case involving the seizure of a domain name called Jazzone.com for alleged copyright infringement. In December, you said you were unfamiliar with the case, but that you would look into it. Since that time, not only have not heard from you, but new details have surfaced.” It was clear from his answer that Mr. Holder had not looked into the case.

Chairman Lamar Smith then asked Mr. Holder, “Mr. Attorney general a number of members today have made requests from you of information. When can they expect those requests to be responded to, two weeks or so? To which the Attorney General replied, “We will do the best that we can as quickly as we can, I’m a little surprised that we have not responded to at least some of the things in connection with the last time I was here.” Indicating that he had not followed up on any of them.

Mr. King (R-IA) said “Just in picking up on the chairman’s remarks, I point out that I had a series of questions that I asked on December 8th here, and although we haven’t pressed relentlessly for those responses, I haven’t seen them and so I’m going to be submitting a new request from December 8th and additionally for this today.”

Mr Franks (R-AZ) quizzed, “Mr. Holder on April 27, 2011 members of this committee asked you to give us information surrounding the decision by justice to forgo prosecution of the un-indited co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case. This is the largest terrorism financing case in US history. You refused to comply with this request and you still have not prosecuted despite there being what many consider to be a mountain of evidence against these jihadist groups, at least one of which now says it is working inside your agency to help advise on the purge of counter terrorism training materials. We are told that this mountain of evidence which outlines the jihadist network within the United States amounts to 80 bankers boxes full of documents. This evidence was turned over to the court and much of it was given to the jihadist’s defense lawyers. Members of this committee and other committees would like to review this evidence, whether it has to be on a classified basis or not. Would you commit today to give us provide us with those documents which comprise the government’s case in the Holy Land Foundation trial?”

Eric Holder replied, “It’s hard for me to answer that question.”

Mr. Franks responded, “No it’s not, it’s just will you or will you not?”

Holder: “I will take a look at your request and see if it is appropriate or not….”

Franks: “Well we made the request on April 27th of last year and ah so far it hasn’t happened”

Louie Gohmert (R-TX) also asked Mr. Holder if they would get the documents the government provided to the defendants in the Holy Land Foundation trial, and again Holder evaded. Gohmert then asked if Holder ever demanded to know who authorized Fast and Furious. Holder replied that he asked the Inspector General to look into it.

Mr. Chaffetz (R-UT) asked if Mr. Holder would make himself available to four members of the committee to sit down and answer some questions about what they have seen in the Fast and Furious evidence.

“I’m not sure there is a lot more I can say,” was Holder’s response.

Chaffetz then asked, “did you personally read the letter Speaker Boehner sent to you?” Holder replied, “Yes I got that letter.” Chaffetz asked again, “Did you read it?” “Yes.” Then Chaffetz followed up “Did you respond to it?” Holder replied, “The deputy attorney general replied to it.”

It is evident from his evasionary tactics that the Attorney General of the United States has no intention of being straightforward or forthcoming in providing any detailed information to congress about the activities of his office, and that they ought to just leave him alone to do what he sees as his job.

Congress has no choice but to vote on contempt charges. We will see what the oversight committee decides on June 20th.

Eric Holder Spanked by Congress

The US House of Representatives passed H.R. 5326, a bill providing funds for the Justice Department and other agencies in 2013 in a 247-163 vote on Thursday.

Several amendments attached to the bill provide a major spanking for Attorney General Eric Holder. In addition to reducing his budget by one million dollars, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) offered an amendment which passed 381 – 41 (142 democrats in favor) to prevent the Justice Department from using taxpayer funds to lie to congress.

The bill also includes language which prevents the Justice Department from using funds to defend Obamacare, bring suit against states for their immigration laws and from taking action against states that pass voter ID laws.

The bill actually cuts three percent from 2012 spending levels.

President Obama has threatened to veto the bill.

The Mob now rules Zimmerman’s fate

 

There is a reason that this country was founded as a Republic and not a pure Democracy.

The Mob.

When the loudest voices get what they want Justice be damned, there is The Mob.

When Organizations have Tried and Convicted outside of the Courts of Law, there is The Mob waiting with a noose in hand under the local hanging tree for the man pulled from his home. As the New Black Panther Party has done as they take on the action of handing out “Wanted: Dead or Alive” posters with Zimmerman as the hunted.

When Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the Reverends of God’s word so they claim, preach that Zimmerman must be punished, even before Trial by his Peers, they have become not ministers of Gospel but active flame fanners of The Mob.

When all media is turned against a man to demand his arrest and push the State to prosecute a man who has yet to be charged and given a chance to defend himself, there is The Mob screaming threats of, “No justice, no Peace. There will be retaliation,” as Louse Farrakhan, leader of the ethnocentric Nation of Islam has tweeted.

If The Mob does not get the blood it requires it will take that and more from wherever it can.

When the day came that the President himself sided with The Mob before a man has his Constitutional right to a day in Court, the Office of the Presidency joined The Mob.

I can believe the man is guilty without ever giving up the concept of his Rights. Just as I believe there was no justice for Caylee Anthony or Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman but never would I join The Mob. Each person accused in those cases had their day in court and were found not guilty. Even if I do not agree that does not mean I take justice into my own hands and play like it’s the Wild West. Ask Richard Jewel what it’s like to have The Mob on your tail.

I will not presume to find the man guilty based on evidence presented to me through a media I have problems with finding as a truthful organization to begin with. Just as well I will not be intimidated by The Mob to call for a man’s death before his day in court and convicted.

Right now in America The Mob has the biggest loudspeaker it has ever been granted, the Oval Office, and a another life and several others if The Mob gets its way, may be lost as well as all sense of true Justice because of that.

George Zimmerman did shoot Trayvon Martin that is a known fact. All the rest is for Due Process in a Court of Law. All the rest happening on the outside is nothing more than looking for a Lynching by The Mob.

####

Tom is an erratic contributor to CDN. Former U.S. Army Signal Corps soldier, outspoken future Re-Education Camp intern #7-2521, world traveler, combat veteran and Author of the new book Sucker Punched, a dystopian near future America novel available at Amazon.com.

“A creative mind does nothing to another mind — except offer it material to digest, which the other mind may digest or not, as it pleases.” –Ayn Rand

Only One Candidate Can Name Their Favorite Supreme Court Justice (Sorta)

At last night’s debate, Megyn Kelly made what seemed like a simple request.  Name your favorite Supreme Court justice.  For some reason, only candidate (barely) was able to pull it off.

I mean, wouldn’t it have been awesome if each candidate just rattled off their favorite justice?  But, no.  They all had to get long-winded and then not even have the courage to just pick ONE justice.  Most of them hedged their bets with as many as THREE.

What do you think of candidates being so long-winded with what should be a “one word answer”?  And also, if you were on that stage what justice would you have chosen?  (and no, faithful readers, you are not limited to one word with your response)

Loughner Deemed “Not Competent To Stand Trial”

You have absolutely GOT to be kidding me!

I should have known. We have reached a point in our society where nothing makes sense anymore! Up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right, white is black, black is white…. and I could go on and on with analogies. However, that will get us nowhere, really.

I try to be an optimist. I am a Bible believer, so I know the power of prayer. I also know what Scripture says about what will come in what we call “the last days”. Have we reached “the last days?” Well, I do not know for certain, but all signs sure seem to be pointing that way!

Where my faith, knowing what Scripture says will come, and reality clash are my feelings with everything. I am not one to give up in the sense of, “there’s just no point in going on.” I KNOW I have to keep fighting the good fight until my last day comes, whether it is by my death through old age or other occurrences or if it is by way of the rapture of the Church which yes, I do most certainly believe in.

I know that God says, “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”. (Romans 12:19)

I also believe that there are consequences for our actions. I believe there are certain actions in this life that are punishable by death. Yes, I have Bible Scripture that I use to base this belief on. (Romans 1:28-32 ; Acts 25:10-11 ; Romans 13:1-4) but that is not the point of this article.

Now we have a man who will get away with cold-blooded murder because he is feigning incompetency! Yes, I am calling him a liar, a manipulator, and a game-player playing the system.

This very same man went into court sneering the first couple of times he appeared in court. Now, according to one report I heard on TV, all of a sudden he is “rocking back and forth”.

Please do not get me wrong. I absolutely believe he is a mentally disturbed man. I believe that is quite obvious from his initial actions of murder and attempted murder back in January. I believe there is proof of that from other incidences that have been reported after the attack happened.

Now there will be no justice for Ms. Giffords, the other survivors, and those who were killed that day. Now our tax-paying dollars will have to be used to keep this man alive until the day he dies.

I do not for one minute believe he can be rehabilitated. He has shown absolutely no remorse- even today in court. He is relishing in the fact that he killed people. To me this speaks volumes for his mental well-being, or lack thereof.

So what is the answer? I will be called “inhumane” because I would rather he be put to death.

I will be called selfish, cold, uncaring, un-Christ like for thinking he deserves the death penalty.

I believe justice should be served.

Today that did not happen.

Thankfully this was just the federal case. Maybe the State of Arizona will not be so politically correct!

God help us all.

My continued prayers are with Ms. Giffords, her family and friends, and all the other lives that were affected by this tragedy.