Heller v. DC has long since been decided... Now the Supreme Court is witness to Michelle Obama v. United States - an historic case in which the First Lady of the United States has brought a federal suit against the US "on behalf of the people" to protect us from gun crimes plaguing inner cities and "polluting our society".
The case has been brought before the new faces of the Court.
John Paul Stevens retired after 35 years on the court, replaced by Associate Justice William Jefferson Clinton.
Anthony Kennedy retired after 22 years, leaving the swing vote seat open to replacement by a Ginsburg-esque radical left justice.
Antonin Scalia retired after 25 years, opening the door for the newest face of the court... another Obama appointed Ginsburg-esque justice.
The court is now comprised of 3 Conservative/Orignalist justices and 6 Liberal Marxist justices. The court's structure is the perfect setting for long lasting legacy of the Obama Presidency.
The opinion of the court falls along these lines, 6-3 in favor of Michelle Obama, stating that the intent of the founders was to provide security for the Citizens of the United States, "A security that is provided by the offices of the government and the military established to defend and protect the United States." The opinion further states that "the private ownership of firearms is a direct threat to the stability and security of the United States and the powers inherent to the offices and military of the government." The Liberal controlled Congress and Senate pass sweeping legislation calling for the upholding of the Court's decision, mandating an immediate mass-collection and destruction of all private firearms. The legislation passes into federal law after President Barack H. Obama signs the bill, with his proud wife standing immediately to his left.
On the streets of America, private citizens are instantly labelled as criminals. Scenes of violence erupt across the nation as police efforts to confiscate weapons are met with resistance.
States are forced to mobilize the national guard to aid in the efforts of disarming the populace.As the resistance in America is crushed, the federal government, under Obama, announces a success in unifying the people of America in a crime free society.
*****
Of course, this is a fictional scene, but one that is eerily possible under a Socialist minded Marxist like Barack Obama. Barack Obama will be a political power for the state, over the individual... which is touted on his website: My.BarackObama.com.
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virtually no chance they will be elected on a National level.Hat tip to The Rocky Mountain Right for the link to the Obama Page and the quote from the page.
Never before has a Leftist been so close to victory in American Executive Politics... There have been many Democrats or Center-Left leaders, like Bill Clinton, but Obama promises to lead this country with a Socialist fist... Some would classify this as hype or panic... I would suggest it is a prognostication of things to come under a Marxist leader in America - The end of Liberty... Change, indeed!
'L, first of all, how will Mrs. Obama get standin' to sue? Gotta have standin', a-fore yet kin sue someone.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, how will an increasin'ly incompetent and impotent fedrul gummint find the wharwithal to disarm millions upon millions of American gun owners?
Ain't gonna happen. Not that some libruls don't dream 'bout it, but they's nuthin' they kin do to effect it.
They know the meanin' of "Molon Labe" here in America.
Naw. I agree there will be some nightmarish scenarios under an Obamanation. This ain't one of 'em, tho.
Thin agin, I see nightmarish scenarios under a Mequeno administration. Even if ol' Juan is th' lesser of two evils, he ain't enough of one to warrant my vote.
Which is why I'm votin' fir Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones, the Colorado Confederatarian.
What's posted on My.BarackObama.com is _not_ posted by Obama. It is posted by someone who signed up to blog there. It is not by a representative of his campaign. It could be anyone. It does not reflect Obama's positions.
ReplyDeleteWhen you pretend that it does, it looks like you don't understand the internet. It's like saying that your posts represent the position of Blogger, because look, it's in the URL!
Obama said he agreed with the SCOTUS decision against DC's gun ban. (which may be a position he's taken for the election's sake, but still, it's the campaign's real position, not that of some random blogger who claims to like him)
I'm much, much more frightened by McCain's probably judicial appointment. That 5-4 decision in favor of the right of detainees to a court hearing is way too narrow for my taste. McCain is against it, against very basic rights!
Speaking of frightened... Did you see this? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html
My Spanish friend reads the second amendment and says:" if the intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government, what good is a handgun going to do? We should be allowed to own rocket launchers."
Jessi - The blog is on his official Presidential Campaign page, therefore it represents the views of his campaign. If he does not want the support of the US Communist party members, he should make a statement to that, and he should remove that blog posting from his site. The fact that he does not speaks loud and clear.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is not going to favor torture. As a POW, he has a little knowledge about it... but what right does an enemy combatant captured in Afgahanistan have to legal hearing in a US court? This should be a military court at best... But I ask, where is the historical context - When has a POW EVER been given a court case to be released back ont the battlefield? It has NEVER happened - and should not. These are the most dangerous enemies to freedom and liberty.
Jonesie - In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. If she argued that she is a representative of the inner city communities which are plagued by gun crimes allowed to run rampant based on the erroneous interpretation of the second amendment, she may have her standing.
The disarming would be an entirely different story... but it happened in New Orleans post Katrina...
OK, then, the Obama campaign then officially recommends your blog! and other insanity! Check it out!
ReplyDeletehttp://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/jessitron
Still think everything posted there represents the views of the campaign? They created this blogging site to encourage wide participation in the political process. Express your views - it's free speech. You can have you own my.barackobama.com blog! They might delete stuff if they get a bunch of complaints, but otherwise, even Communists are entitled to free speech. Do you think there aren't any nutjobs who support McCain?
If the Guantanamo detainees were real POWs, picked up on the battlefield, then you're correct: military tribunals are appropriate and so is detention until the end of the war. But many of those people were picked up at border crossings or other civilian places, unarmed. There is no end to the "war on terrorism." They should be prosecuted in a constitutional manner.
In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. If she argued that she is a representative of the inner city communities which are plagued by gun crimes allowed to run rampant based on the erroneous interpretation of the second amendment, she may have her standing.
ReplyDelete'N I really do doubt that any court would buy that.
The disarming would be an entirely different story... but it happened in New Orleans post Katrina.
Yep. As appallin' as-att wuz, an attempt t' disarm a section of a city is one thang. Disarmin' the whole nation is anuther.
S. Jones
Jessi - thanks for the endorsement. Perhaps some readers will venture to this site and engage in some dialogue that will allow them to see the err in their ways :)
ReplyDeleteI agree about the limitations to the war on terror... I believe that is the main issue you and I agree on... however, of the thousands stopped and questioned, these are the most dangerous...and ultimately it is a military matter, to be handled under the UCMJ. This is an army without rank or uniform... so the rules of war are being bent on both sides... right or wrong, it is for survival.
This is an awesome post. I'm a conservative because I think that we as a nation can reverse our socialist leanings and avoid that situation that you spoke of.
ReplyDelete