Well, at least he's consistant, he LIKES terrorists!

[03_SHOOTER]

Well, he not only hangs out with unrepentant terrorists, but his first official appointment is the son of a terrorist, and a mentally unstable thug of the first order at that!

For those of you who might have forgotten, Rahm isn't only the moonbat who mails dead fish to pollsters he doesn't like, and who hangs up on political contributors who have the temerity to offer him only $5000.00 for his campaigns instead of the $25,000.00 he would have preferred, no, this is the type of barking moonbat who sits around the dinner table in Little Rock in 1992 with the newly elected President and First Lady, and like an insane Santino "Sonny" Corleone starts naming off those who displeased him by supporting President GHW Bush, stabbing his steak knife deeply into the table and shouting "DEAD"!

Obama's First Appointment Is Son Of Zionist Terrorist
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet

British poster for wanted irgun terrorists

November 6, 2008

Rahm Emanuel’s father was member of militant terror group that bombed hotels, massacred villagers - Obama pick is keen supporter of lobbying group aimed at creating militarized youth brigades

President elect Barack Obama’s first appointment, Rahm Emanuel, who is set to become chief-of-staff, is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were slaughtered.

Revelations about Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a Weather Underground domestic terrorist, which dogged him during the final weeks of the campaign trail, pale in significance to his selection of Emanuel, whose father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, was an Irgun member.

Irgun has been labeled a terrorist organization by both The New York Times newspaper and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.

Irgun was closely affiliated with the widely feared hardcore terrorist Stern Gang, an organization that carried out assassinations, train bombings and bombed police stations in an attempt to pave the way for unrestricted immigration of Jews into Palestine. Irgun operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

Following the ideology of right-wing Revisionist Zionism, Irgun’s doctrine was that, "Every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".

This manifested itself by way of terror attacks such as the July 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people. In 2006, Israelis including former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun, attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing organized by the Menachem Begin Centre.

Buses and marketplaces were also a target for Irgun, who were widely chastised for favoring attacks against civilian targets.

The widely condemned Deir Yassin massacre, which occurred in April 1948, involved Irgun working in consort with the Stern Gang and going house to house slaughtering Palestinian villagers. Eyewitness accounts of spies working for mainstream Jewish authorities, such as Meir Pa’il, reported Irgun members running around shooting civilians "full of lust for murder".

"I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses," said eyewitness Eliahu Arbel.

"[One body was] a woman who must have been eight months pregnant," noted Jacques de Reynier, a French-Swiss Representative of the International Red Cross, "He hit in the stomach, with powder burns on her dress indicating she’d been shot point-blank.".

The son of a man who helped carry out this slaughter has now been selected by Obama to be his chief-of-staff. Cries of "sins of the father" lose their gusto when one considers the fact that, after the 1996 re-election of Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel "Was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name." Sounds like a nice guy.

Rahm Emanuel is also an enthusiastic supporter of the United States Public Service Academy Act, a lobbying group founded in 2006 in order to promote the foundation of an American public service academy modeled on the military academies - a youth corps whose students would be trained in "civilian internship in the armed forces".

This rings the alarm bells when we recall Obama’s pledge to create a "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military.

A creepy You Tube video of a brown-shirt style Obama youth brigade chanting and marching military style emerged last month, raising fears about where the messianic cult-like status of Obama’s image could eventually lead.

Get ready for the Brown Shirts people.

IS THIS THE CHANGE THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO GET??

[HairyEyeball]

Bad source material - the Irgun Zvi Leumi has been 'credited' with far more than it ever did by a press that favored 'palestinians' long before there was such a b*st*rd construct and the land was still part of Jordan and Egypt. They also targeted military - or what they had been led to believe were military targets. Many of the 'massacres' they are accused of were perpetrated by 'militant' arabs on their 'brothers' who recognized Israel's right to exist. Also, while there may be some supposed 'justice' of the alleged 'sins' of the fathers being vested on the suns, this dipchit has his own record of aberrant behavior.

Additionally, who is being called to account for the half of his new boss' campaign chests that came in illegally from hostile nations and the likes of 'Mickey Mouse' or the hundreds of thousands of illegal 'voters' who made the coronation possible? Who will 'cast the first stone' when he violates yet another oath of office and attempts to overthrow the Constitution? If a United States citizen 'lacks standing' to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency, who, precisely, has 'standing' to call treason?

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

Bad source material - the Irgun Zvi Leumi has been 'credited' with far more than it ever did by a press that favored 'palestinians' long before there was such a b*st*rd construct and the land was still part of Jordan and Egypt. They also targeted military - or what they had been led to believe were military targets. Many of the 'massacres' they are accused of were perpetrated by 'militant' arabs on their 'brothers' who recognized Israel's right to exist.

I realize that my "source" isn't as 'pristine' as it could be, however I did do some checking to verify their claims and according to several, Irgun ran up a tally of at least 250 dead, and well into the thousands wounded in their "reprisals" in the 30's and 40's, and it is a well documented fact, and one that they themselves do not dispute, that they routinely engaged in "terroristic" tactics including bombing café's, attacking bus loads of people, blowing up bus loads of people, detonating bombs in marketplaces, and all of the other things that we condemn Al Qaeda for doing today. Regardless of the 'reasons' for the attacks, I cannot be hypocritical and say that just because a group I like does it that it's OK, and when a group I don't like does it that it's "terrorism".

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

Also, while there may be some supposed 'justice' of the alleged 'sins' of the fathers being vested on the suns, this dipchit has his own record of aberrant behavior.

Normally I don't believe in holding the son responsible for the sins of the father, however, given Rahm's history it appears that his father didn't leave his radical mentality and tactics in Israel when he moved to America, but instead passed that same mentality along to his son, who not only adopted it, but relishes and uses it on a VERY regular basis.

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

Additionally, who is being called to account for the half of his new boss' campaign chests that came in illegally from hostile nations and the likes of 'Mickey Mouse' or the hundreds of thousands of illegal 'voters' who made the coronation possible? Who will 'cast the first stone' when he violates yet another oath of office and attempts to overthrow the Constitution? If a United States citizen 'lacks standing' to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency, who, precisely, has 'standing' to call treason?

While I know that I'm preaching to another preacher (or in this case a Rabbi ), this ties in quite nicely with a discussion we've had before. The Courts, beginning with the highly dubious decision in Marbury v Madison decided that THEY get to decide who does and does not have "standing" to bring a case before them, and yet they have absolutely no problem making a ruling in a case that they just said that they had no jurisdiction to hear. From that "fruit of the poisoned tree" we now have a system of (in)justice, they are simply another cudgel for whichever party that put them in office in the first place, and are no longer constrained by their Oaths of office, or their alleged fealty to the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it is it's natural manure.

[HairyEyeball]

'Historical record' being the product of writers with agendas long after the fact, and instances abounding of groups (and individuals) believing - or accepting credit for - what the press 'reports', there is little doubt that some of the incidents did occur, and civilians were killed. One wonders, however, just how 'innocent' at least some of those 'civilians' may have been - their grandchildren still haven't donned uniforms to do battle.

That was, however, an aside - the point is that a marxist politician tutored by terrorists has begun recruiting (and 'legitimizing') terrorists as his 'advisors'. This bodes ill for us all, and can only spiral downhill when the realization dawns on the great unwashed who put him in power that he isn't going to pay their rent, buy their gas, or buy their crack. It's entirely possible that at that time, the prearranged riots scheduled for the moment he lost the election will be ignited, and crushed - along with yet more of the liberties we've taken for granted.

[HairyEyeball]

As to the Court's seizure of power in the referenced case, it's still my contention that the Founding Fathers' intent was three coequal partners, a true system of checks and balances. The problem does not lie in their power to determine whether legislation is or is not Constitutional, as with so much in life - and especially with the Constitution - the problem lies in the (illicit) interpretation of the Constitution.

As mentioned, no judge or lawyer is nominated without a reasonably strict fealty to his party's view of the 'meaning and intent' of the Constitution; unfortunately, only one party currently in contention so much as professes a nodding acquaintance with 'original intent', despite the availability of their copious works - both in the Federalist/Antifederalist Papers and supplementary writings (which have, as in the 'wall of separation between Church and State', been intentionally perverted and taken out of context).

Would the Court be composed, as intended, of Justices chosen for their intelligence and comprehension of the spirit and intent of the Constitution, rather than their political partisanship and law degrees (no requirement for which formally exists), the point would be moot.

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

As to the Court's seizure of power in the referenced case, it's still my contention that the Founding Fathers' intent was three coequal partners, a true system of checks and balances. The problem does not lie in their power to determine whether legislation is or is not Constitutional, as with so much in life - and especially with the Constitution - the problem lies in the (illicit) interpretation of the Constitution.

And we continue to disagree on the first part and agree on the second. Given that there is no specific authority in Article III of the Constitution for "Judicial Review", then that power was unconstitutionally seized by the court, resulting not in a co-equal branch, but a superior branch to the others. I also reject the notion that there are only "3 branches of government" that are to be co-equal under the Constitution, because under that theory the most important branches of government, the States and the People, are not considered, and since our nation is the united STATES of America, and We The People are the ultimate authority under which those appointed to represent us in the other branches of government function, by positing that the 3 branches of government are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial while ignoring the States and the People smacks of Imperialism.

Having said all of that, I do agree that the problem is the aforementioned illicit interpretation of the Constitution, and in this case, the fallacious interpretation is that the Supreme Court has the authority of "judicial review" under our Constitution that the courts in England did under their laws.

As I'm sure you're aware, the Constitution was drawn heavily from existing English law, and as such the Justices believed that they should be allowed the right of "Judicial Review" just as the courts in England did, however what they failed to account for in their seizure of an unspecified right is that in England, the rulings of the court were subject to review by the legislature, yet there is no mechanism in our Constitution for our legislature to do so, therefore there is no means under our Constitution for We The People to correct an illicit interpretation by the Supreme Court. As was warned against in the 15th essay by Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, on March the 20th of 1788;

Originally Posted by Brutus 15

The judges in England, it is true, hold their offices during their good behaviour, but then their determinations are subject to correction by the house of lords; and their power is by no means so extensive as that of the proposed supreme court of the union. — I believe they in no instance assume the authority to set aside an act of parliament under the idea that it is inconsistent with their constitution. They consider themselves bound to decide according to the existing laws of the land, and never undertake to controul them by adjudging that they are inconsistent with the constitution — much less are they vested with the power of giving an equitable construction to the constitution.

The judges in England are under the controul of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed by them. But the judges under this constitution will controul the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress; they are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behaviour, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.

It would appear that Mr. Yates knew all too well the maxim that people will seize whatever powers over others that they can for themselves, and once seized, those powers may never be relinquished.

This then begs the question asked by none other than Chief Justice Marshall, if the courts are not the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not, who is? For the answer to this, I turn to none other than Thomas Jefferson who stated among his many writings on the subject that;

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.

He then went on later to say;

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

As mentioned, no judge or lawyer is nominated without a reasonably strict fealty to his party's view of the 'meaning and intent' of the Constitution; unfortunately, only one party currently in contention so much as professes a nodding acquaintance with 'original intent', despite the availability of their copious works - both in the Federalist/Antifederalist Papers and supplementary writings (which have, as in the 'wall of separation between Church and State', been intentionally perverted and taken out of context).

Would the Court be composed, as intended, of Justices chosen for their intelligence and comprehension of the spirit and intent of the Constitution, rather than their political partisanship and law degrees (no requirement for which formally exists), the point would be moot.

Your point concerning the political nature of the court is well taken, and this is the very reason the in England the court was bound to, and subject to review by the legislature since their function is to determine what the law says in cases that come before them. THIS is the balance between the Legislative and the Judicial, the courts rule on the laws the legislature passes, and if the court errs, the body that passed the law in the first place corrects the court by telling them what THEY meant when they wrote it, and this eliminates the question of "what did they 'intend' the law to mean". As the legislature is, at least in theory, composed of our representatives, and it is on our behalf that the legislature composes the laws, is it not in keeping with the Constitution that it is the legislature, and thereby We The People, who are best suited to decide what is, and is not Constitutional?

[HairyEyeball]

I just spent over an hour crafting a response, and lost it all when I attempted to post because my "Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.(?)".

Obviously, there are 'subtle' problems with this software.

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

I just spent over an hour crafting a response, and lost it all when I attempted to post because my "Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.(?)".

Obviously, there are 'subtle' problems with this software.

I hate it when that happens. A tip if I may be so bold, either write your replies in Word, or at a minimum, copy your reply before you hit the submit button, that way if you are "timed out", all you'll have to do is refresh and paste it.

[HairyEyeball]

BTDT, but at 0700 on less sleep than even I need, just too much work. Fear not, we will get back to it.

[03_SHOOTER]

Anyway, to continue;

The challenges with Marbury are many, not the least of which is the fact that the court ruled that they did not even have original jurisdiction to hear the case, yet they still made a ruling, not only as it relates to the case that they themselves stated that they had no jurisdiction to hear, but also to claim that they had the right to judicial review, even though no such provision exists in Article III of the Constitution.

Further, Chief Justice Marshall was himself personally involved in the original circumstances that led to the case in that he was acting as President John Adams Secretary of State, and as such it was his duty to deliver the appointment of Justice of the Peace to William Marbury, and it was his failure to do so that led to the case. The fact that Justice Marshall did not recuse himself from the case, given his intimate participation in the debacle that led to the case brings into question his impartiality in the ruling.

Also, Marbury filed his petition for a Writ of Madamus directly to the Supreme Court, which was in complete compliance with the Judiciary Act of 1789 which had also determined the composition of the courts in America, thereby meaning that the court DID have original jurisdiction to hear the case, but by nullifying their right to issue Writs of Mandamus in it's ruling against Marbury, the court essentially engaged in a form of "Ex Post Facto". The court cannot agree to hear a case, and then decide that they're going to overturn the law as passed by Congress and signed by the President (a power nowhere present in the text of Article III), and THEN tell the appellate that they don't have jurisdiction to hear the case because they just decided that the law that allowed the case to be heard in the first place is "unconstitutional", that's INSANE!

In his ruling, Justice Marshall invalidated that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 concerning Writs of Mandamus, yet left the rest of the Act intact, but I find no "line item veto" anywhere in Article III of the Constitution, and as the court ruled in the "line item veto" case in 1996, any removal or modification of any part of a Bill is unconstitutional, which means that if the Writs of Mandamus are "unconstitutional", then the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 is "unconstitutional" and invalid, which means that his ruling is moot on it's face since his very presence on the court was a result of the Judiciary Act! Therefore we have one of two situations, either the court erred in it's 1996 case, since it would violate the precedent set by itself in 1803 by deciding that they could "cherry pick" what parts of a law were and were not Constitutional, or the court erred in 1803 and certain parts of legislation can be "vetoed" while the rest of the law remains in effect. Not only is this insane, it is in direct contradiction to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution which clearly states;

Originally Posted by Article III, Section 2, Clause 2

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

This clause expressely gives Congress the authority to direct to the Supreme Court those cases that it may, or may not have "original jurisdiction", and given that the Judiciary Act of 1789 expressely gave the Supreme Court "original jurisdiction" to exercise Writs of Mandamus, by putting away that part of the Judiciary Act, Justice Marshall himself violated the Constitution!