Doc's Talk: Stopping Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Stopping Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution

Ken Blackwell
Wednesday, May 12, 2010

[Editor’s note: This column was co-authored by Ken Klukowski, SCOTUS correspondent for Townhall.com.]

On October 31, 2008, Barack Obama proclaimed, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” In November 4, he won the presidency. Ever since that day, he’s been pursuing his vision of fundamentally transforming our country.

He must be stopped. We show you how to do it in The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, our new bestselling book. President Obama desperately wants to transform America. Every day, we see yet another way he’s succeeding in changing our beloved nation into one that the Founders wouldn’t recognize.

President Obama wants to transform our free-market economy into a government-controlled economy. He wants to transform our family-centered society to a government-centered society. He wants to transform our national philosophy founded upon the primacy of the individual and the supremacy of God to one founded upon the primacy of the “collective good” of society and the supremacy of the central government.

Mr. Obama’s problem is that the Constitution of the United States stands in his way. The Framers of the Constitution created this nation with the understanding that rights are not grants from government; they are gifts from Almighty God.

The Founders erected the Constitution as a wall, designed to stop any president from fundamentally transforming this country. As America’s Supreme Law, the Constitution sets forth what issues are within the power of the federal government, and expressly reserves all other matters to the states or the people themselves through the Tenth Amendment. Within the federal arena, the Constitution defines the role of each of the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judicial—and strictly limits the powers of each.

In The Blueprint, we pull back the curtain and shine the light on President Obama’s blueprint to subvert those constitutional safeguards.

We show how Barack Obama is using a shadow government of czars to evade congressional oversight, using international law to get around American law, and taking over key industries to make tens of millions of people dependent on the government. To survive the political backlash when voters seek to take back their freedom, we demonstrate how he’s politicizing the Justice Department and the Census Bureau to change how elections are conducted to alter the outcomes of elections, and attempting to turn 12 million illegal immigrants into voting citizens. We also unveil how he’s working to silence his critics, both on the airwaves and in Congress, to keep the American people from learning the truth.

We also prove how key parts of the Obama agenda are unconstitutional. The federal government cannot require you to buy health insurance, like Obamacare’s individual mandate requires. It doesn’t allow the science czar to push compulsory abortions, or the diversity czar to shut down talk radio, or the energy czar—an open socialist—to take over America’s energy companies. Without Congress passing laws, the White House cannot force workers to join unions through card-check or force every business and household in America to be under a federal “carbon footprint” regulation scheme called cap-and-trade.

More important than all that, however, we show how to stop him. We explain which parts of President Obama’s agenda can be stopped by retaking the House in 2010, and which parts we can stop by picking up Senate seats.

And most importantly, we show how critical parts of President Obama’s blueprint can be stopped in court. As he tries to force each of those illegal acts on us, we can fight him in our federal courts.

That’s why out of all the parts of his blueprint, none is more important than remaking the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp to uphold his agenda. President Obama seeks to stack the Supreme Court with judicial activists like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who will ignore the plain words and meaning of the Constitution. These liberal judges will “reinterpret” the Constitution in light of “international consensus” and the “evolving standards of decency in society” to rewrite the Constitution. Rights such as taxpayer-funded abortion, same-sex marriage and government-run healthcare will be “found” in the Constitution even though the Constitution nowhere declares them, while rights such the Second Amendment right to own a gun will be completely ignored to allow absolute gun bans.

The Constitution will be reinvented as part of “transforming” America. Rights such as religious liberty will be twisted into bizarre distortions, where the National Day of Prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments, and even the Pledge of Allegiance are held unconstitutional. Free speech will also be “redefined,” allowing the government to imprison people who speak out during “blackout” periods in elections, and forbidding parents from teaching traditional values in church and at home.

As we show in The Blueprint, these are not only limited to the Supreme Court. Most cases are decided by the federal appeals courts. Yet President Obama seeks to create dozens of new judgeships, to stack the courts with far-left activists that will decide cases the way he would want them decided.

In all these ways, Mr. Obama is subverting the U.S. Constitution. He’s building an imperial presidency, wielding powers far beyond those granted to him by the Constitution and seizing power that the Constitution denies the government from ever possessing, trampling on the liberty of Americans in the process.

All this, and much more, is in The Blueprint. Learn the truth. We’ll show you how to fight back. Discover how to slam the brakes on President Obama’s blueprint to “fundamentally transform” America.

The Constitution is on our side. We need to act before President Obama can remake our Supreme Court in his own image. We can prevent that from happening!

The Blueprint will show you how.

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

1 comment:

nancy said...: This is last years news you see what this evil man has done to us now. We need smart courageous men that will stand up and say this is not Our America he is ruining it. To help us fight back against this evil excuse of a man whom claims he is christian he is a anti christ. People pray God helps us and gets this man out of our country and help take it back.; 5:51 AM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk