The Obama / Holder Anti-Constitutional Agenda: 2 Cases to Prove it's Truth!

Hello ATS...

Barry "Barack" "Obama" "Hussien" "Dunham" Soetoro and his side step Attorney General Holder, ... 2 cases to prove the Anti - Constitutional Agenda, of the Obama Administration.

A recently published article:

CHICAGO: Republican nominee for Illinois 2nd Congressional District Isaac Hayes released the following statement calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign after failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation during the 2008 election.

"The Justice Department's refusal to prosecute the terrorist actions of the New Black Panther Party for its 2008 intimidation and threatening vitriol outside a Philadelphia polling place is criminal affirmative action. This selective justice paradigm was exposed during the testimony of J. Christian Adams - a former U.S. Prosecutor assigned to the Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission - who testified he was told 'cases are not going to be brought against Black defendants for the benefit of White victims.'

"Attorney General Eric Holder has historically taken a partial approach to justice. It was in 2001 that he spearheaded the pardon of Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who had fled the country rather than face federal tax evasion charges.

Case Point #1: The CATO Institute

Court in Contempt of First Amendment

The Obama / Holder Anti-Constitutional Agenda takes another broad sweeping stab at the Constitution, this time a direct attack on the 1st Amendment... and wins in the Supreme Court! All thanks to a vague and unaccountedly suspicious vote by "justice" John Roberts...

I have read scores of Supreme Court decisions, but rarely has their been so broadly vague and amateurishly twisted a rationale as in Chief Justice John Roberts majority decision (Jan. 21) on Holder, Attorney General, Et al. vs. Humanitarian Law Project. With only three justices dissenting, this dangerous judicial activism disables the free-speech anchor of the First Amendment.

National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg, to whom I first turn for analysis of High Court rulings, says it plain: "The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal law (in the grievously misnamed Patriot Act) that makes it a crime to provide any support to a (State Department-named) terrorist organization — even when that support is specifically to promote resolving disputes peacefully."

Does that make sense? She quotes the lawyer who argued before the Court on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project, Georgetown Law School professor David Cole, a longtime leading advocate for the Bill of Rights in our courts. "The bottom line," says Cole, "is that the Court has now said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make human-rights advocacy and peacemaking into a terrorist crime."

Unbelievable? Read on. The Chief dissenter, Justice Stephen Breyer, was so outraged by the ruling that he read it aloud from the bench. He first cited verbatim the Patriot Act statute that punishes "knowingly provid(ing) material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization," including "expert advice or assistance" that "threatens the security of the United States or its nationals ... with intent to endanger directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals."

Nonetheless, the Humanitarian Law Project is targeted by the Obama administration for providing "material support" to terrorists; and after the lower federal courts held that such clauses in the Patriot Act section as providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists are unconstitutionally vague, President Barack Obama commanded Attorney General Holder to get the Supreme Court to review the lower courts' findings.

But what are these crimes it committed? In his crystal-clear dissent, Justice Breyer tells us. After the Secretary of State designated the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as "foreign terrorist organizations," Holder charges the Humanitarian Law Project nonetheless provided "material support" to these terrorists.

What the...?!

Wow people... JUST WOW!!!

As I have highlighted, you will observe that Obama, and Holder, have attacked the Constitution of the United States via the 1st Amendment! This act - according to Constitutional Law, is an Act of War against the Constitution itself, which in turn makes that declaration against America and it's Citizens!

Continue to Case Point Number 2 ....

[edit on 7/11/2010 by Megiddodiddo]

Case Point #2: The CATO Institute, and Arizona

Indicting the First Amendment

Now... you can't even contact your representative via email, to express dissent against legislation, or for that mater anything else!

Indicting the First Amendment

This is a story that should be a warning to Americans, regardless of political party, because it dramatically illustrates what pre-eminent civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate documents in his current book, "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" (Encounter Books) by means of the ever-increasing broad and vague federal laws that allow prosecutors to "pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, even for the most seemingly innocuous behavior."

Consider what happened to an unemployed American, Bruce Shore, because of e-mails he sent to the website of Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (Republican). I suggest you keep in mind what Irving Brant wrote in my bible, "The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning" (Mentor, New American Library):

"Men (and women) are truly free only when they do not have to ask themselves whether they are free."

As reported by Arthur Delaney ("Bruce Shore, Unemployed Philadelphia Man, Indicted For 'Harassing Email to Jim Bunning" (huffingtonpost.com, May 25), Shore, watching the Senate in inaction on C-Span, was angered when Bunning complained that, gosh, he has missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because he had to be in Congress to debate an unemployment benefits bill. (Bunning's contribution by being there was to delay the bill from being voted on.)

"I was livid, I was just livid," recalled the 51-year-old jobless Shore. "I'm on unemployment, so it affects me."

Here is part of his Feb. 26 messages to Bunning staffers: "Are you'all insane. No checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT?"

The next month, FBI agents came calling to Shore's home in Philadelphia. They read him excerpts from his citizen's complaints and asked whether he was the author, which Shore readily admitted. Apparently these agents had heard something about the First Amendment, and told this indignant American, "All right, we just wanted to make sure it wasn't anything to worry about."

But the ever-vigilant Obama administration's executive branch was not satisfied. On May 13, Delaney writes, U.S. Marshals appeared at Shore's door and handed him a grand jury indictment. (James Madison, the father of the First Amendment, had insisted that "the great right" of freedom of speech must be placed beyond the reach of any branch of government. But that was then.)

This is the indictment that forced Shore into federal court. The language is that of Communications Act of 1934 (FDR's time) as amended and updated to include electronic messages in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (including the Communications Decency Act) signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Bruce Shore, unemployed for the past two years and recently the recipient of his final unemployment check, is accused thusly by his government:

Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."

Any person. Even if Bruce had chosen to be anonymous, the Feds could have tracked him. So this case should also be a constitutional test of anonymous First Amendment speech. This dragnet federal statute, without protest from Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, states that if you intend to "annoy" or "harass any person" by exercising speech, you will be hauled into court.

If found guilty, Shore -- or anyone indicted for sending such so-called harassing messages -- could be imprisoned for up to two years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000.

I am often very annoyed by my senator, Democrat Charles Schumer; but so far, I have confined my "harassing" messages to him in my columns, which are transmitted in print and electronically. The same is true of my many "annoying" rebukes to the president, who is apparently quite sensitive to criticism.

I'd better watch out.

As Silverglate tells me about this indictment of the First Amendment "That a citizen is being charged under this statute for pestering a senator for not doing his public duty just shows the dangerous powers that these kinds of statutes give to heedless prosecutors. Even if Citizen Shore ultimately wins the case, his life will have been turned upside-down and inside-out. This, of course, is the reason indictments like this are brought -- to deter unwelcome speech."

Says this newly indicted "person of interest," Shore, to the Obama administration: "I'm walking around in my head: 'jail for e-mail, jail for e-mail,' At this point I'm just looking at my government and going, anything is possible. When do the adults wake up and say, 'This gentleman is just angry and frustrated?' I'm just speechless. Shocked."

Since Shore is a citizen actively involved in his government's fidelity to our founding document, I doubt he will remain speechless for long. For the rest of us, Frederick Douglass had this advice:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." And on you and me.

This has largely been a passive citizenry as the Constitution is being razed during these last 9-1/2 years. But maybe Citizen Shore, Harvey Silverglate, and another crucial book, "In the Name of Justice" (Cato) edited by Timothy Lynch, a colleague of mine at Cato Institute, can arouse more Americans in self-defense -- to ask themselves -- as Judge Alex Kozinski does in one of the sections, whether they are also federal criminals. Not yet indicted.

"Actually", says this unusually straightforward judge, "most Americans are criminals and don't know it."

Case Closed.

This has gone too far now America. All I can say is remain aware of these next few months, I MEAN TRULY AWARE... You may just get the chance to survive.








[edit on 7/11/2010 by Megiddodiddo]

Interesting information. The Federal Government, in general, enjoys such broad powers these days that it seems next to impossible to counter their actions. In my opinion, ridding ourselves of the two-party system by means of elections would be the people's only hope, however dim that hope might be. Even with a multiple party system(3-6?) I doubt there would be much room for reform at the Federal level. God Bless America...

Originally posted by Megiddodiddo
Hello ATS...

Barry "Barack" "Obama" "Hussien" "Dunham" Soetello

Soetoro, not Soetello...

Anyway, they are doing their best to destroy the country.

It is much easier for them to do it with a black president, the elite can really speed up the process.

Barry can burn down our homes, and if anyone says anything about it then they are scorned as ignorant racists.

This has been planned for a while...

Yeah, this thread really hits home, between the legs and under the belt.

btw - changed the name.

I started a previous thread called:

U.S. Political Secracy: TimeLine of Legislative Entrapment

and then I read this info...

Then I go back to that thread and Discover a political structure running this country known as the State of Columbia... and that the Constitution as I understood it ceased to exist in 1987..??

I told my wife today that we are leaving the United States...

Originally posted by Megiddodiddo


I told my wife today that we are leaving the United States...

Don't hate the country hate the government, and the country needs you to fight the good fight and get our country back out of the hands of our invasive tyrannical government.

I'm not leaving this is home.

reply to post by Megiddodiddo


Your desire to leave the U.S. is understandable, but bear in mind, the end game is a One World Government, so there is no escape. This whole thing is taking place in all Western nations...

OP, by this law or what actually should be called color of law would have me, ***** * ******** thrown into the arena. This is what it has become. We are in Caesar's time folks. The arena has gone from lions, tigers and gladiators to the courtroom.

OP, I almost gave my name. That is relegated to my last post, #200.

Choice. We all as HUMAN BEINGS have a choice to continue in enslavement to a tyrannical government, or we have the CHOICE to refuse.

At one time in this GREAT COUNTRY a man or whatever could stand before his community and argued his case. TELL me folks, everyone has heard the saying a man that is his own lawyer has a fool for a client? Is this just the format they want us to believe? At one time in our GREAT COUNTRY you had to prove there was a victim. Someone that you ACTUALLY either hurt or infringed upon their rights. NOW?

I will end my comment here, still working on the finale to the conclusion of the endisnighe.

It will end with a CHOICE.

God bless and peace folk.

The court date is July 27.

I'm still waiting for some of you guys to go to jail...but then again I don't think you're very active in your government.

So where's the story in all this? Senator blocks benefits for jobless and complains that he had to block it. Senator recieves numerous angry emails from constituent. Senator's son is a federal judge in the same city the constituent was arraigned in.

Hear's an idea, let's not block and/or cutoff jobless benefits. People wonder why Greece is getting closer and closer to a red revolution.

On the one hand you have multiple instances of this guy sending messages to one office. On the other you have the first amendment, specifically, freedom of speech.

Where does freedom of speech turn into harassment? The government needs to protect both the rights of the individual to speak but also, the right not to be arbitrarily harassed. Unfortunately, you nor I have the political or judicial clout that a senator has in the ability to go after just anyone we want. I think this is more of a Sen. Bunning problem than it is an Eric Holder problem.

reply to post by links234


SO, of course YOU are going to decide who's speech is harassment, just like the DOJ decision to prosecute a constituent that was pissed that his unemployment benifits should not have been shut off.

By the way, he was arrested for sending an email to the government. Nice to see that the libs want to arrest anyone for disagreeing with government. At least we see that they agree anyone disagreeing with government should be arrested!

ARE YOU PEOPLE THAT STUPID?!

Yeah, probably. Because they think that government is different than their corporate whores!

reply to post by endisnighe


Copy of the grand jury indictment here.

He sent one email from his Yahoo! account and multiple messages from Sen. Bunning's website. The message from his personal account is as follows:

Hello,

I am at a LOSS of words for SENATOR BUNTING blocking unemployment benefits for me and my children. If I do NOT get my check next week I WILL HAVE NO FOOD AND WILL BE ON THE STREET.

What kind of people are you? 10 Billion goes to the war every couple days and to Wall street weekly. I want my benefits or there will be people starving and dying.

What is wrong with you people. NOW is NOT the time to play politics with childrens lives.

ARE you'all insane. NO checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT??

IF THIS POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING DOES NOT END TODAY - WE WILL COME TO YOUR OFFICES AND MAKE OUR POINT. YOU ARE PLAYING A LIFE AND DEATH GAME HERE.

DO YOU GET IT.

Brad Shore
Louisville, KY 40202

The only part of that I can discern as 'harrassment' would be, "WE WILL COME TO YOUR OFFICES AND MAKE OUR POINT. YOU ARE PLAYING A LIFE AND DEATH GAME HERE."

Then we can look at the subject of 'annoying', multiple messages from the contact section of Sen. Bunning's website, I don't imagine each message was regarding a different topic.

I'm sure, at this point, it appears as though I'm attempting to defend the big, bad government for going after this guy. It sounds like I am to myself. However, perhaps (likely) Mr. Shore will win this case. It won't be a victory against Eric Holder and Barack Obama, it will be a victory against overzealous senator's and politicians who believe they can pick and choose whose viewpoints they wish to vote for. As most of us know, however, a politician is going to vote however they want to vote, their constituents put them there because they share the same ideals.

To the OP, I'm sorry if it appears I'm hijacking your thread about some sort of 'anti-constitutional agenda' but you have to realize that the constitution itself allows for the government to destroy it if the government wishes. It's our government, no matter how much corporate money gets pumped into it, it's our vote every two years.

Republican nominee for Illinois 2nd Congressional District Isaac Hayes released the following statement calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign after failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation during the 2008 election.

Wait a minute? Chef from South Park is running for Congress?

reply to post by whatukno


Wow, I knew that name was familiar. Actually I think that Isaac Hayes is dead.


Anyways, in the case of the NBP weren't the charges dropped after they were found to have no organizational effort to intimidate voters and that it was just a single rogue member who WAS charged and then can no longer visit a voting booth or vote in any form for several years, and that there was no one that was actually stopped from voting? Just saying..

reply to post by Miraj


So a dead man is making this claim?

I am of the opinion that we should overthrow Obambi and his communist thugs and replace the government with Palin, Ron Paul and Dick Army. Overthow this government, send em Obambi back to Kenya and restore freedom by dismantling welfare, giving corporations the right to once again refuse people with pre-existing conditions, and write a letter of apology to BP.

Lets us do this for freedom!

Originally posted by Megiddodiddo
CHICAGO: Republican nominee for Illinois 2nd Congressional District Isaac Hayes released the following statement calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign after failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation during the 2008 election.

I had to do some further research on this, so I found this article.

The short of it is that the case was dropped because there was NO EVIDENCE. Not one single voter came forward to say they were intimidated.

Oh yes, tearing the constitution apart for not prosecuting people who did not break the law.

To the OP, I'm sorry if it appears I'm hijacking your thread about some sort of 'anti-constitutional agenda' but you have to realize that the constitution itself allows for the government to destroy it if the government wishes.

This is one point that I'm most certain I have to not agree with you on.

The people that have been placed into the positions they are in by us, the wannabe voters who don't even realize that our pull of the voting lever is actually nothing less than placing the square peg into the circular hole...

These professional politicians, all of them possessive of an illegal BAR membership (let's all BOW to the Queen!), still have to swear an oath to defend the constitution against enemies, foriegn and domestic.

By enacting legislation that circumvents the Constitution, that is the same as assaulting the constitution, making the politician who proposes such legislation guilty of treason against the Constitution and against the American People.

flat out, point blank - people like this need to be held accountable for this treachery!!

I wish that instead of calls for resignations, federal marshals would FINALLY, instead, arrive and the resound of CLICK ** CLICK is what is heard, live on CBS!

Originally posted by Megiddodiddo
Hello ATS...

Barry "Barack" "Obama" "Hussien" "Dunham" Soetoro and his side step Attorney General Holder, ... 2 cases to prove the Anti - Constitutional Agenda, of the Obama Administration.

A recently published article:

CHICAGO: Republican nominee for Illinois 2nd Congressional District Isaac Hayes released the following statement calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign after failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation during the 2008 election.

"The Justice Department's refusal to prosecute the terrorist actions of the New Black Panther Party for its 2008 intimidation and threatening vitriol outside a Philadelphia polling place is criminal affirmative action. This selective justice paradigm was exposed during the testimony of J. Christian Adams - a former U.S. Prosecutor assigned to the Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission - who testified he was told 'cases are not going to be brought against Black defendants for the benefit of White victims.'

Lets start wading through the BS here...

The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]

The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier.[9][10] Two other attorneys were dismissed in controversial circumstances in 2005-2006. Twenty-six or more U.S. Attorneys had been under consideration for dismissal during this time period.[11][12][13] The firings received attention via hearings in Congress in January 2007, and by March 2007 the controversy had national visibility. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that the U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president" and described the affair as "an overblown personnel matter."[14][15]

en.wikipedia.org...

President Bush dismissed Attorneys and hired Attorneys in the civil rights division dependant on their political views. Fire Democrats...Hire "loyal" Republicans. This was seen as an outrageous violation of trust and objectivity by almost everyone regardless of political leanings.

It have never, ever been done before.

Anyone remember this controversy?

Wait for it......

J. Christian Adams, the career Voting Section attorney who compiled the Black Panther case. Adams, who has a history of conservative advocacy, was hired in 2005 by then-Civil Rights Division official Bradley Scholzman, a Bush political appointee who improperly politicized the hiring process in the division, the department’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility found in a joint investigation.

www.mainjustice.com...


Reading this OP I knew before I even looked that this attorney was going to be one of the unprecedented Bush appointees into the division with the goal of politicizing it.

A remnant of Bush politics...no revelations here.

the Black Panther case....filed under a law from 1965 so obscure that no one is sure if it has ever been used before.

Shall we now travel back in time and do a tit-for-tat on "white" voter activisits near polling booths at the time of the election? Because I remember some pretty ugly posters, signs and threatening crap going on.

The two black panthers were idiots...but so was everyone else during the election. Prosecuting them would be selective.



[edit on 12-7-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by Megiddodiddo

Nonetheless, the Humanitarian Law Project is targeted by the Obama administration for providing "material support" to terrorists; and after the lower federal courts held that such clauses in the Patriot Act section as providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists are unconstitutionally vague, President Barack Obama commanded Attorney General Holder to get the Supreme Court to review the lower courts' findings.

For the first time in nearly nine years of what the government has called a “war on terrorism,” the Supreme Court on June 21 ruled decisively in the government’s favor — but still stopped short of providing an unqualified victory. The Court ruled, by a 6-3 vote, that it does not violate the Constitution for the government to block speech and other forms of advocacy supporting a foreign organization that has been officially labeled as terrorist, even if the aim is to support such a group’s peaceful or humanitarian actions. But the Court added a significant qualifier: such activity may be banned only if it is coordinated with or controlled by the overseas terrorist group. That limitation, however, may be fairly difficult for lower courts to apply case by case; the Court provided little specific guidance.

scotuswiki.com...

The court ruled you can not simply ship supplies to a terrorist organization.

Even if it is food...that terrorist org can distribute the food amongst given villages for PR efforts. Or only distribute the food to loyal villages.

As long as the humanatarian efforts are coordinated and managed directly rather than just supplying a terrorist org they can do it.

I am confused...are you actually advocating for groups to be able to write checks and ship supplies to terrorist orgs?...and for Justice Roberts...a known Obama opponent ...to step down? Strange way to make your case.

Originally posted by Megiddodiddo



As reported by Arthur Delaney ("Bruce Shore, Unemployed Philadelphia Man, Indicted For 'Harassing Email to Jim Bunning" (huffingtonpost.com, May 25), Shore, watching the Senate in inaction on C-Span, was angered when Bunning complained that, gosh, he has missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because he had to be in Congress to debate an unemployment benefits bill. (Bunning's contribution by being there was to delay the bill from being voted on.)

"I was livid, I was just livid," recalled the 51-year-old jobless Shore. "I'm on unemployment, so it affects me."

Here is part of his Feb. 26 messages to Bunning staffers: "Are you'all insane. No checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT?"

The next month, FBI agents came calling to Shore's home in Philadelphia. They read him excerpts from his citizen's complaints and asked whether he was the author, which Shore readily admitted. Apparently these agents had heard something about the First Amendment, and told this indignant American, "All right, we just wanted to make sure it wasn't anything to worry about."

And here is another excerpt of the MANY emails he sent..

IF THIS POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING DOES NOT END TODAY - WE WILL COME TO YOUR OFFICES AND MAKE OUR POINT. YOU ARE PLAYING A LIFE AND DEATH GAME HERE.

DO YOU GET IT.

He was threatening a GOP Senator by the way.

I get his frustratration...I even agree with what he was saying...but sending dozens of emails with apparently some threatening content is not wise...why not ask the Senator who got the emails to drop the charges? They originated with one of Barrack Obama's most ardent opponents...what would you be saying if the Justice Department didn't follow up? I can see those headlines....


[edit on 12-7-2010 by maybereal11]