Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Book

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links



Obama denounces the Supreme Court for overturning McCain-
Feingold, a bill that prevented GOP candidates from receiving
contributions from private enterprise as the social progressives
arrogantly received millions of recycled taxpayer dollars from far
left special interest groups, labor unions like SEIU.


With a straight face that only a consummate liar could master, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Resident Barack Hussein Obama had the audacity to stand before the American people during his State of the Union address and say: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law..." Let's get it straight. The Supreme Court vacated McCain-Feingold (tongue-in-cheek named the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), Public Law 107-155, 116 Stat 81, which was enacted on March 27, 2002. "A century of law." Let's do the math:

2010
-2002
00008

Nah...the math says his numbers are off by about 92 years. The Supreme Court overturned 8 years of bad law resulting from an effective Cloward-Pivens attack on Republicans by the far left when GOP candidates out-raised and outspent the social progressives and placed George W. Bush rather than former Vice President and eco-wacko Al Gore in the White House in 2000. A law in 1974 limited how corporate money could be used, so you might say the high court overturned 36 years of bad law since that law allowed corporate dollars to both parties to be laundered through the DNC and the RNC from soft money (corporate donations that could be used to pay salaries, travel expenses and rent) to hard money (citizen voter contributions which was the only money that could be used to run campaign ads) the 1974 law was a joke. In fact, it should have been called the "Maytag Law" during the Clinton years because the Bill, Hillary and Al Gore used the DNC to launder yuans into dollars as millions of dollars in illegal Chinese donations were laundered for the Clintons by the DNC, a finding published by the Congressional Cox Report from the investigation and hearings of Chinagate by the House Select Committee on National Security, published in 1999.

The left was determined to take Congress back in 2002, but to do so, they needed to curb private enterprise's ability to fund conservative candidates while expanding the right of social progressive political action groups to give more money to leftwing candidates. The law stunk worse than a smelt factory in July. The GOP increased their seats in both Houses in 2002. In 2004 when the K Street lobbyists realized that GOP control of the House and Senate didn't appear to be going away any time soon, special interest money that had been going to the left since 1933 suddenly found its way into the campaign coffers of the right. Overnight, conservative Republicans became closet Democrats. In 2006 conservatives, now hopelessy fractured, could no longer see a fiscal difference between Democrats and Republicans. But somehow they also failed to see the vast ideological differences between them, nor did they take the time to think about the consequences of surrendering their government to communists (which, if you didn't know, is what social progressives are).

But instead of fighting to replace corrupted GOP incumbents during their State primaries by putting honest free enterprise conservatives in their seats, they sat out the election of 2006 and let the opposition win, not realizing that they were passing control of the House and Senate not to moderate Democrats, but to Cloward-Pivens radicals who were—and still are—determined to destroy this country and complete the redistribution of the wealth of the American people (you and me) to the governments of the third world in order to transform the emerging nations into modern industrial states within the newly formed global government. The transfer of wealth takes place in the Cap & Trade bill that Obama promised to sign into law during the State of the Union address. Like Obamacare, Cap & Trade has passed both Houses and is in Joint Conference waiting for the differences to be ironed out.

Been to Detroit lately? If you haven't. perhaps this photo will give you an idea of what every city in the United States will look like within one decade after Cap & Trade goes into effect. At that time, with no industrial infrastruture, your town will look like the streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti looks today. We will replace Haiti as the most impoverished nation in the western hemisphere.

As he gave the State of the Union address on Jan. 27, Obama fired a shot over the bow of the high court in what is reminiscent of Franklin D. Roosevelt's attack on the US Supreme Court in 1937 for overturning, one at a time, every piece of New Deal legislation he signed into law. The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, written by FDR subordinates led by Raymond Moley and Attorney General Homer Cummings with virtually no input whatsoever from Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson [D-AR], House Speaker William Bankhead [D-AL] and Senate and House Judiciary Committee chairmen Henry Ashurt [D-AZ] and Hatton Summers [D-TX], was entered into Congress on Feb. 4, 1937. Although FDR had the votes in both the House and Senate to easily enact the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, Bankhead refused to put the bill on the docket. Ashurt did the same. While each of the House and Senate leaders knew Roosevelt was trying to put his own men on the court to protect what each of them knew was unconstitutional legislation, Roosevelt argued he needed six new justices on the high court because the court was so backlogged that they could not handle the petitions before the court. When Senators Burton Wheeler [D-MT] and Carter Glass [D-VA], the most powerful members of the Senate heard from Ashurt, they called Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and asked about the backlog of cases in the court. Hughes assured him there was no backlog. In fact, he said, there was currently no pending litigation before the court. Not even FDR's own party liked the notion of politicizing the high court.

The Democrats scheduled a public hearing. FDR expected the Republicans to parade every conservative constitutional scholar in the country into the hearing. Instead, the GOP sat back and let the Democrats destroy FDR's court stacking plan. Wheeler did the opposite of what FDR expected. His "experts" were all well-known liberals that not even FDR could challenge. Every witness had one thing in common with all of the other witnesses. At one time or another, each of them had challenged the authority of the high court, most in public forums. Each argued that while they had their own disputes with the high court, it would be destructive to the Constitution—and the nation—to allow the bulwark of an unbiased judicial system to be torn asunder to serve the personal goals of an ambitious and overly aggressive chief executive. When the media jumped on the story, no member of Congress was willing to vote "aye" on the measure, and Roosevelt's court-stacking plan died.

Make no mistake about it. Barack Hussein Obama fired his opening salvo on the Supreme Court of the United States. Before November he will introduce legislation to add at least two new justices to the high court. This would give him a 7 to 4 victory on most issues, and those he would likely lose today in 5 to 4 votes will be 6 to 5 victories. Adding two more social progressives would guarantee the swift transformation of the United States into what would initially be a democratic dictatorship, followed by legislated modifications to the Constitution—upheld as legal by the new court—that would give Obama the same head-of-State powers "legislatively granted" to dictators like Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez.

When Barack Hussein Obama arrogantly disrespects any tenet of the Constitution of the United States, he disrespects all of us.


 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.