Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Monday, November 12, 2012

19 States are Petitioning to Secede. 19 STATES!!!

My better half has been helping me keep an eye on the state of the country for the better part of Obama's first term, and continues to do so as we enter his second. Usually she does so by asking me questions about different articles she reads on the net, which I of course answer to the best of my ability. Nothing other than the typical voter fraud allegations after the election and the "what do we do now" questions coming from the Republican higher-ups could be found until a few days ago, when said better half showed me several links on Whitehouse.gov that revealed some interesting petitions.

Interesting might be too mild a term for it, though, as this sort of petition was only circulated with success once in our history. You see, dear readers, their are currently, as of this writing and according to examiner.com, nineteen states have petitioned the federal government with the request that they be allowed to "peacefully withdraw from the United States and form their own government." Does anyone else remember the idea that the South rising again was little more than a joke to be made against those supposedly ignorant redneck former slaveholders? Galt's Gulch remembers. I feel like a complete fool for not believing it could ever happen, too. Yet it appears that that's exactly the case. The country is more divided now than at any other point in our history before 1861, and the children who voted for Santa Clause are in charge for at least the next four years. Those who think Barack will simply seize power and stay in office barring a miracle are tilting at windmills, however. There are myriad ways in our system to keep someone from becoming a dictator. Just look at the ten states that had nullification measures on the ballot this year. Of those, six passed. That's a majority. I'd like to think that it's also a microcosm of what the rest of the country is in for with the full implementation of Obamacare, as well. What would really be nice is if someone dusted off the old nullification rule that is now little more than a footnote to people these days, but I won't hope for too much this time. I did that on Tuesday and am still licking my wounds.

But back to the secession deal. As of this writing, according to that article linked above:


On the day after the election, "Michael E" from Slidell, Louisiana, filed a petition at the White House "We the People" site, requesting that Louisiana be allowed to secede. That petition has 12,585 signatures as of this writing.
Other states soon followed.
A petition for Texas was launched on Friday. That petition has garnered 15,928 signatures as of this writing.
Similar petitions have been launched for Kentucky, Colorado, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York and Oregon.
According to the White House "We the people" site, petitions have 30 days to reach 25,000 signatures. Once the threshold has been reached, the petition will be reviewed by the administration and a response will be given.
So what does this mean, exactly? It means that we're almost as divided now as we were over 150 years ago before we ended up shooting each other over the right of black people to exist without being put into bondage. It means that if this goes anywhere, and the above indicated that there are signs that it will, we could be in for another dissolution of the Union into two or more entities. Will this result in Civil War? It's certainly a possibility, and any who don't think so are pretty  much fooling themselves. Is it the most likely outcome? No. Not at this stage, at least. Should any state ACTUALLY DECLARE themselves separate from the Union, then we're in trouble. And it won't be a simple four year bloodbath, either. No longer is the South limited by manufacturing capabilities or resource shortages, AND they're not dependent on slavery to keep what industry they have going. It will be a long and arduous ordeal if the country is faced with another Civil War. I don't believe it will come to that, but one must acknowledge that it IS possible, with the country as divided as we are.

What gets me is, if they're serious, why are the states submitting petitions to the White House and asking permission? The Tenth Amendment states that "all powers not delegated herein to the federal government are reserved for the states and  the people." All that needs to happen is a vote on the state level to determine whether or not secession is the way to go. After that, they can figure out how to restructure the government within their own borders. Likely, if all 19 of these states DO secede, they'll probably have no choice but to band together in a new sort of Union a  la  the old Confederacy minus the racism and slavery. Otherwise all it would take was a thin pretext for Obama to send in the military against that state's National Guard, assuming the national guard is on board with protecting the newly seceded state.

I don't know as much as I seem to about politics, but that seems to be the obvious thing that would happen based on what I DO know. With Texas nearly halfway to their mark, it's looking like at least THEY will become a new independent Republic in their own right, Supreme Court decision or no.

UPDATE: Texas has reached the required 25,000 signatures in no more than three days. Will other states follow? Further updates to come.

UPDATE II: It looks as though the list has since grown from 19 to thirty. That's over half the union, btw. I don't know how many signatures each state has, but here's the full list, compiled by The Blaze:


  • Delaware
  • California
  • Ohio
  • Nevada
  • Pennsylvania
  • Arizona
  • Oklahoma
  • Arkansas
  • South Carolina
  • Georgia
  • Missouri
  • Tennessee
  • Michigan
  • New York
  • Colorado
  • Oregon
  • New Jersey
  • North Dakota
  • Montana
  • Indiana
  • Mississippi
  • Kentucky
  • Florida
  • North Carolina
  • Alabama
  • Texas
  • Louisiana

Sunday, March 6, 2011

If you can't Protect the Speech you Don't Like, you don't Have Free Speech

The title of this post is a comment my political sciences teacher at MTI technical college told my classmates and me during a lesson on the Constitution one day. No more apparent is that example than in the Supreme Court's decision to protect Fred Phelps and his group of inbred cultists who have the audacity to call themselves a church.

I have nothing but dislike and loathing for the practices of the Westboro group, as I've stated in previous posts about them, such as when they protested the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, or when they lauded the actions of psychopath Jarod Lee Loughner when he ended the lives of several, and injured several more, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The act of horrific hate I'm referring to comes in the form of yet another funeral protest, this one (of course) a soldier who died bravely in Afghanistan (or was it Iraq?) Either way, this young man who gave his life for his country was at the time the latest target of the Westboro crazies. It had gotten so out of hand, in fact, that Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly factor had gotten involved and actually picked up the tab for the plaintiff's legal fees, said plaintiff being the young soldier's own father.

But now the supreme court has ruled that Fred and the gang can protest all they want at soldier's funerals under the First Amendment. This is wildly inconsistent of them given previous rulings on speech, particularly in cases involving the Catholic church or other branches of Christianity. How can it be that these people can spew nothing but hate at a solemn time of grief for a family who now has to bury their son, yet a single nativity scene on a front lawn is a violation of that same right?

Before I go on a free speech rant, though, I should make my point clear. The Supreme Court was right to rule as they did. In THIS case, at least. I've got plenty of opinions on bogus free speech rulings by the Supreme Court in the past, but in this case they did the right thing. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, once we start banning certain types of speech, it's basically all over. Despicable as it may have been for these people to do what they do, the only way we can stop them is by not giving them a forum from which to spew their hate. If private broadcasters would disallow more than barely minimal coverage of these wackos, their message would just be ineffective whistling past the graveyard.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Update on Supreme Court Decisions Enabling Federal Judges to Ignore the Constitution

A comment was left at my first post about this issue:

Hi. I am William M. Windsor. The report of what the Supreme Court has done is 100% valid. The decisions in the THREE actions filed at The Supreme Court are all easily accessed from the SCOTUS website -- http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx Just enter windsor, william, and then see 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690. These were original actions filed in The Supreme Court, and the justices were asked to declare that federal judges do not have the right to void and ignore the Constitution, the law, and the facts in cases. They refused to do so. They had THREE opportunities to tell their fellow judges to uphold the Constitution, and they refused to do so. They heard the case, and refused to tell judges to honor the Constitution!

The federal court system is corrupt. That's the issue. I have received calls and emails from close to 1,000 people, many relating their own stories of judicial corruption. A lot of normal law-abiding Americans are trying to keep our country from being a police state due to the tyrannical acts of federal judges who do whatever they want. The mainstream media won't touch this story because they are afraid of the judges. It will take people like you with your blog to educate the public. I believe this is the biggest crisis America has ever faced. Please see www.LawlessAmerica.com for lots of facts. If you have any questions, just email or call.

Thanks,
William M. Windsor
bill@LawlessAmerica.com

Any who have information regarding efforts to stop this monstrous practice please let me know so I can let others know in turn. Meantime I will be checking his sources and facts to be certain of what's going on.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

If This is True...

Then we're in for a lot of trouble. The article is from CNBC.com. Will continue following and update as necessary:

ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- 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.



William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.



Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).



After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S.



Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.



Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.



"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.



"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.



"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed." For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.



Contact: William Windsor, +1-770-578-1094, bill@lawlessamerica.com SOURCE William M. Windsor www.prnewswire.com Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved -0- KEYWORD: Georgia INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BKS SUBJECT CODE: LAW

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

The Ghost of Senator McCarthy Lives On

Liz Cheney is probably one of the most sensible people I've ever seen. She is very level headed when it comes to her opinions, articulate, and rational. Her beliefs include, and indeed very likely prioritize keeping American safe from those who would do her harm.

So it's no surprise that the Left hates her ever loving guts with as much passion as she hates those who would destroy this great nation. The latest bull being flung around by screaming lefties is via memeorandum.

McCarthyism? Please. The only older trick in the Allinsky playbook is the race card, which has been thrown around more times than I can count, to the point where the liberals are all sounding like the boy who cried "wolf". Somewhere, old Joe is laughing.

Also, I just read another piece on Memeorandum that details that the Supreme Court may be "ready to make gun ownership a national right" What the hell? It's ALREADY a national right you NIMRODS!!!! It's called the Second Amendment! What, did you miss that while you were getting stoned during your constitutional law courses? Yeesh!

For those of you who are complete dullards and don't know, the 2nd Amendment goes something like this: 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.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me, I think. The people are the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. Not the people of certain states, or certain cities, or certain congressional districts. Who in their bloody right mind doesn't believe that the Second Amendment is a national right? At least four judges on the Supreme Court seem to think that it's not, at least.

I will give the court props, though, in that the majority is finally made up of people who seem to realize that the constitution is actually important. After years of left wing judges actively using their power of judicial review to legislate from the bench, there seems to be a turn around happening right now. I'm all for it. Here's to hoping it continues.

Continuing to fight the good fight.