In the United States today, it is becoming increasingly fashionable to openly trash the U.S. Constitution. Many among the elite are not even trying to hide how much they hate the U.S. Constitution anymore. As the Patriot movement and the Tea Party movement call for a return to the principles that this nation was founded upon, many among the elite and in the mainstream media are responding by publicly dumping on the U.S. Constitution. The level of vitriol that we are seeing for our founding fathers and for our Constitution is unprecedented. It turns out that the U.S. Constitution does not fit very well with the benevolent futuristic "Big Brother" totalitarianism that they want to impose on all of us. All of that talk about "freedom" and "liberty" in the Constitution does not exactly square with the centralized global planning that the elite have in mind. The ruling elite believe that the "rights of the individual" must be greatly restricted for the "good of society" and for the "good of the environment". Right now the "constitutional revival" that is happening in the United States is a direct threat to what the elite are trying to accomplish, so they are responding by openly attacking the Constitution. (Read More.....)
Raw Story | Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson explained to conservative columnist George Will Sunday that the Constitution is not an “anti-evolutionary device.”
CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria argues that the Constitution is outdated and its principles should be “debated and fixed” to conform with the modern era. He suggests “a set of amendments to modernize the Constitution for the 21st Century.”
Fareed Zakaria with arch globalist and notorious war criminal Henry Kissinger.
This is not the first time Zakaria has talked about ditching the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He recently told Charlie Rose that America is “parochial” and there are countries around the world that do things better than we do. See the video below.
Zakaria is a smart fellow. He knows the Constitution established bedrock principles that led to previously unimagined wealth and prosperity.
He also understands the average American knows almost nothing about the Constitution and certainly nothing about republicanism, liberty and inalienable rights. Far too many Americans know virtually nothing about classical liberalism, the ideal of limited government, and the unbridled liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
Zakaria points to the current social, political, economic breakdown in America. He attributes it to an outmoded system of government. In fact, the system no longer works because America is no longer a constitutionally limited republic and has allowed a secretive cabal of globalists, bankers, and one-worlders to chip our liberty away.
America is in decline precisely because we have allowed the government to replace classical liberalism with a corrupt modern liberalism. It is now widely believed that rights are parceled out, guaranteed and taken away by the state. Our problems arise from the fact we are now vassals of the state and are no longer sovereign citizens.
For Zakaria, the Constitution represents crass parochialism. Small and antiquated minds worship the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. He would have an ignorant and uneducated mob debate and eventually vote our heritage out of existence.
It should come as no surprise Fareed Zakaria wants to do away with the Constitution. He is a darling of the Council On Foreign Relations and a Bilderberg member. He also sits on the board of the Trilateral Commission. He is a serious globalist and as such an avowed enemy of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.
The CFR consensus – and that of its international units, specifically the Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, and Bilderbergers – is to surrender national identity and constitutional authority to a world government.
“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries,” said David Rockefeller at a Trilateral meeting in 1991.
Zakaria’s rants about the Constitution have little to do with updating an old document perceived to now be irrelevant and dysfunctional. Zakaria and his globalist coconspirators are determined to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because the document stands in the way of establishing a one-world supranational government.
The trick is to get the mob to go along and sell themselves into slavery...[Full Article]
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.
The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment...[Full Article]
WASHINGTON — The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.
The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed, and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.
“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”...[Full Article]
At least three White House advisers and officials, including President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, "progressive" U.S. Constitution.
WND first reported last week that Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, has been a champion of a Soros-funded doctrine, entitled "responsibility to protect," which was used by Obama to justify engaging in an international military alliance to bomb Libya. As the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, Power reportedly influenced Obama in his decision.
Now it has emerged that Sunstein has maintained extensive ties to Soros' funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020.
Also, Attorney General Eric Holder sat on the board of a Soros-funded group pushing the same "progressive" constitution...[Full Article]
ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will...
The Constitution reading stunt performed by establishment Republicans designed to placate a co-opted Tea Party fizzled Thursday when Congress critters failed to recite the entire document. It is rather interesting to note what part they left out.
“Democrats asked why original sections that later were amended, including references to slaves, were left out of the recital, and lawmakers initially did not catch that a couple of key paragraphs were omitted when two pages got stuck together,” reports the Associated Press.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the organizer of the stunt, later admitted the omission and returned to the House floor and read the missing part into the Congressional Record.
Republicans had earlier failed to read Article IV and Article V.
Section 4 of Article IV reads as follows: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
In the Southwest, the United States is currently experiencing not only an unprecedented invasion of illegal immigrants, but the unrestricted flow of slave traders and drug smugglers. The United States government has not addressed this problem and has failed to protect the states.
This invasion and the spill-over of violence from the Mexican narco state represents “domestic violence” against the American people.
Some scholars and historians argue that Section 4 is the most significant part of the Constitution. It was the motivating force behind the delegates convening in Philadelphia in 1787. They wanted to create a federal government capable of protecting the people from foreign invasion and violent threats from within.
Alexander Hamilton considered domestic dangers “more alarming than the arms and arts of foreign nations.”
In addition, the federal government, under the rule of both Democrats and Republicans, has not guaranteed to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
In fact, the federal government has worked tirelessly to eradicate the republicanism of the states and has supplanted it with creeping federalism. This process began with the Lincoln administration during the so-called Civil War (otherwise known as the War of Northern Aggression) and has increased significantly over the last fifty or so years.
Maybe those pages did stick together as claimed. Maybe they were intentionally omitted.
Regardless of the explanation, the fact remains that the federal government and rule by Republicans and Democrats threatens the states and undermines the Constitution.
The international banksters and their coterie of globalists are sworn enemies of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. Globalism demands not only the elimination of the states, but also national borders and sovereignty.
It is no mistake the federal government has failed to live up to Section 4 of Article IV and has allowed an unchecked tidal wave of illegal immigrants and criminals to cross the border.
Now that Republicans have a majority in Congress, they are pretending to be constitutionalists. In order to demonstrate this, they will theatrically read aloud the Constitution from the floor of the House next week. “And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the lawmaker who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation,” the Washington Post reports.
Establishment Republicans, of course, have the same amount of contempt for the Constitution as establishment Democrats. As dedicated worshippers of state power over the individual, Republicans and their ideological twins the Democrats hate the founding principles of this country.
“Conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They see the First Amendment as a foolish protection for sedition,” writes Paul Craig Roberts. “The conservative assault on the US Constitution is deeply entrenched… Today’s conservatives are so poorly informed that they cannot understand that to lose the Constitution is to lose the country.”
While so-called conservatives pay lip-service to the Constitution, so-called progressives actively trash it and cosign the founding document to irrelevance, as the above video demonstrates.
In the video, a blogger and columnist for the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, says the Constitution has “no binding power on anything” and is confusing – for liberals and other advocates of state power over the individual – because it is over a hundred years old.
Nancy Pelosi and the formerly ruling Democrats also believe the Constitution is irrelevant. “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” a reporter for CNN asked Speaker Pelosi as Democrats prepared to shove Obamacare down the throats of the American people. Pelosi responded: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
In August, Illinois Democrat Phil Hare told his constituents that he does not give a whit about the Constitution. “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest,” Hare said in response to a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Hare also demonstrated his contemptible ignorance by saying that the Constitution guarantees each of us “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In fact, that line is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
“We’ve now arrived at the point where a sitting Congressman can openly state that he doesn’t care what the Constitution says, a sentiment obviously held by a majority of Members since Congress continues to putatively enact ‘laws’ in the utter absence of express constitutional text,” Paul Galvin wrote after Hare made his harebrained comments for the camera.
For the establishment political class, the Constitution is completely irrelevant. Consider the following video where Republican Frank LoBiondo cannot answer a simple question about the document he has sworn to uphold from enemies foreign and domestic:
Even the soon to be leader of the House, John Boehner, is largely clueless about the Constitution. In the following video, he mistakenly attributes a line from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution:
Barry Obama did the same, but then he was reading from a teleprompter:
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” his predecessor reportedly declared. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Mr. Klein’s dismissive remark about the Constitution is shared by a large number of politicos and other worshippers of state power in the district of criminals. If the establishment political class is going to successfully strip us of our natural and god-given rights, they have to promulgate the idea that the Constitution is irrelevant and nothing more than a quaint piece of goddamn paper.
Democratic Congressman Phil Hare, who caused outrage earlier this year when he told constituents who asked him about the legality of the health care bill, “I don’t worry about the constitution,” has sparked fresh consternation after he was caught on camera in an Illinois hotel labeling the founding document of America “silly stuff”.
Video confrontations with arrogant and dismissive Congress members uploaded to You Tube have come to represent the angst of the Tea Party movement, as elected representatives betray disdain and sometimes even open hostility to the rule of law that they are supposed to uphold on behalf of their constituents.
The new clip shows a citizen asking Hare, “Where in the constitution does it say that you can force people to buy health care?” to which Hare responds, “Oh boy, we’re not going there again are we?”
Watch the clip below.
“I think it’s a legitimate question,” states the constituent, as Hare ignores him and talks to other citizens.
However, Hare is soon confronted again as another man asks him, “How come you’re a member of the Socialist Party?” Hare denies the charge, despite the fact that his name appears on a list of Democrats who are in the ranks of the Socialist Party of America, which was released by the Socialist Party itself last year.
Hare’s entourage then try to get in the face of the original questioner, before demanding he identify himself.
Hare continues to refuse to answer the question about the constitutionality of the health care bill, dismissing it as “silly stuff”.
Phil Hare has been constantly harassed and harangued by citizens for his support of Obamacare and other issues. Back in June, a clip was released showing Hare being confronted by residents who accuse him of being a draft-dodger. Hare embarrassingly attempts to joke with the people filming him, asking “which side is my best?” before being pulled away by a member of his entourage.
Watch the clip below.
Hare embarrassed himself during the aforementioned confrontation back in April when he was corrected after claiming that language concerning the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness appeared within the Constitution , when in fact it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
“Doesn’t matter to me,” Hare responded. “Either one.”
Hare was then quizzed “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority…?”
“I don’t know.” Hare angrily interrupted, refusing to allow the constituent to even finish the question.
The attitude of Hare and his colleagues on Capitol Hill towards their constituents and their open disdain towards the Constitution is one of the primary reasons why Tea Party members are having so much success in ousting establishment candidates.
After October, Hare won’t have to worry about what’s contained in the Constitution, nor will he have to be concerned about reading bills that are thousands of pages in length, because he will be kicked out of office. Polls show Hare trailing his opponent by a healthy and growing margin as his snobbish and arrogant behavior comes back to bite him where it hurts.
When San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Deputy Darren Murphy responded to a “shots fired” call in April 2008, he decided en route that he was going to make an arrest.
He did far more than that. Murphy and other deputies made an unwarranted entry into a home, and then into a locked gun safe. Murphy's uncensored, darkly disturbing observations and behavior following his Code-3 arrival at the rural home of longtime SLO County resident Matt Hart were picked up by Murphy's and other deputies’ own recorders. Those recordings provide a rare, frighteningly revealing, behind-the-scenes perspective of how one local law enforcement agency views the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and other laws its personnel are sworn to uphold.
Sheriff’s spinner Rob Bryn declined to confirm the identities of any of the deputies appearing or heard in the recordings, or to discuss any aspect of the Hart home invasion. So we've done that for you. (Bryn, ever the public servant, eventually stopped responding to e-mails from a KCCN.tv reporter.)
Deputies’ deportment in the field as exhibited by their own words, as well as their plainly audible efforts to fabricate justifications for their actions, are lamentable. Local county prosecutors’ subsequent abuse of power, wielded in a cavalier, clumsy, and transparent effort to avoid a lawsuit, also is troubling.
But in the larger scheme of things, it is the systematic dismantling of the Fourth Amendment by over-zealous cops and an enabling judiciary that should be a cause of concern for every American citizen. Incredibly, Hart's case may be less of an anomaly than it appears.
The question is: Should law enforcement officers like Deputy Darren Murphy be allowed to make day-to-day, life-changing decisions regarding the fate of law-abiding citizens?
SLO County Sheriff's deputies illegally search the home of Matt Hart and openly discuss how they will get away with it. To date, Matt Hart has not recieved all of his firearms back from the department, including one that the deputies expressed interest in owning.
This cannot be swept under the rug. Help spread this around to help gain attention so Mr. Hart can push his lawsuit against this blatant violation of his civil rights by those deputies. We cannot allow these people to shred the Constitution just because they feel like it.
Original video posted with permission from http://www.kccn.tv/ and Daniel Blackburn. Thank you again Mr. Blackburn.
Warns parents that Declaration of Independence should be contextualised for kids
Steve Watson Infowars.net Thursday, Jun 10th, 2010
A publishing company is drawing ire for placing a disclaimer on the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents, indicating that they are out of date and do not reflect the values of modern America.
Wilder Publications, which carries reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, includes a warning on the books that reads:
“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”
The company also provides advice to parents seeking to educate their children on U.S. history:
“Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”
The clear indication here is that the Constitution and those who value it may be socially inept racists, sexists and homophobes.
In a Fox News article on the story, Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, notes that Wilder may have been forced to place the disclaimers on the documents in order that they not be removed from the shelves by “oversensitive people”:
“Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,” Olson said. “…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you’re wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history.”
Wilder Publications issued the following statement clarifying their position:
“We specialize in classic books and we were receiving complaints about the values depicted in some of the books. We wrote the disclaimer so that we could stop having to point out to our readers that people held different values 100 or 200 years ago. It seems we’re dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.”
Constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says the idea that the warnings are legally required is ridiculous:
“Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. “The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document.”
“By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence,” Francisco added.
Angry customers have vented their views at Wilder’s page on Amazon.com
One reviewer notes:
“Really we need to have a disclaimer on our historic documents? The constitution is more important now than any other time in our nations history. I will check every book I purchase and ensure it is not published by Wilder Publications until they stop printing the constitution with a disclaimer.”
Others have vowed to boycott both Wilder and Amazon.
It seems that their anger is somewhat misdirected and should be more focused toward those in positions of authority that have so distorted social and cultural norms to the point where it is considered necessary to place such a disclaimer on freedom.
Take Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for instance.
Kagan’s has previously argued that the government has a role in policing free speech, that the state should have a remit to censor books and newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.
In addition, Obama’s information technology czar Cass Sunstein has called for the re-introduction of the “fairness doctrine,” which would force political websites to carry mandatory government propaganda.
While Wilder’s Constitution disclaimer is an alarming story, it is merely part of the fallout of the wider erosion of freedom which, unfortunately, boycotts and one star reviews on Amazon .com will not coming close to fixing.
There are now 5 states, Wyoming, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and South Dakota, that have passed laws for self declared exemptions from federal gun regulations on weapons made, bought and used inside state borders, according to WND reporter, Bob Unruh. Wyoming’s new law includes language that makes it a felony for any U.S. agent to “enforce or attempt to enforce” federal firearm regulations, which could be punishable by a fine of $2000 and/or imprisonment.(1) This week, Wyoming passed a 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution as well.
Gun control is not only a 2nd Amendment issue, it also relates to other parts of the Constitution.
Gun control is not only a 2nd Amendment issue, it also relates to other parts of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”...
