Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Gene patents are theft; NY hates the 2nd amendment; REPEAL OBAMACARE NOW!, AP misinformation spin on imperialist Chavez

April 17, 2013
English: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of...

English: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Supreme Court is deciding whether human genes can be patented:

This is gone crazy, crazy. The very worst about it is that we CANNOT TRUST the Supreme Court to rule justly, and according to the law and the Constitution. They provide cover for the Congress now, when they can determine that they can get away with pushing the envelope toward the world government they want.

The gene is already there in nature, it is NOT a “new invention” by this company. None of the genes that exist are. You found it maybe, and you get credit for isolated it, so what? Take credit for it, like a biologist taking credit for discovering a new species, but the biologist cannot take credit for “inventing” it.

In fact, anybody walking around with this gene embedded in their chromosomes, are they going to have to pay royalties? This is insanity!

In the late Michael Crichton’s novel, “NEXT”, he added an essay where he attacked gene patents ferociously but with an abundance of logic. I was accepting of patents at the time, but since then I subscribe to the position that all so-called “intellectual property” is not a legitimate use of power over natural individual rights.


Fight on against New York state’s gun control arrogance:

I say arrogance because it violates the right to bear arms, which is also the right to self-defense. Cuomo is the extremist who cares not for individual rights, just the right of the government to rule its subjects. No longer treated as the citizens from whom government gets its marching orders, they want to claim a dictatorship of the 51%, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY WANT SOMETHING.

In other words, if they can get it from legislators who

Beware, background checks are only precursors to the necessity for a national registration database –distributed or not—and that is one of the most dangerous aspects of this.

What idiot ever said you can trust any government to remain “benign” forever, even if you think yours is currently nice?


Now this:

“” is full of baloney with the headline that the Obamacare debate is over. Their central piece of evidence? Governor Scott in Florida “throwing in the towel”. Presumably that means he signed on to creating a state-based exchange as prescribed in this 30,000 page unconstitutional “law”. Yeah, guys, I know the Supreme Court said it was constitutional, but that was based on the “temporary insanity” of self-contradicting vocabulary, saying that although they know a penalty is not the same as a tax, and Congress knew what it was doing when it said “penalty”, no matter, it’s a tax because he wanted to declare it constitutional.

No matter that if any of us, or any group of us the people, forced you to buy something, or “confiscated” your property if you didn’t, this would be illegal. That’s what “protection rackets” are.

I don’t believe any of the election results out of Venezuela for the Chavistas, including the one he “lost”, at least especially after the first one:

Venezuela’s elections are done with electronic voting machines. They cannot be trusted at all. All software engineers know this, because you cannot protect any such machine from the coders (“Trust us!” they say) or the salesmen that push it (“Trust us! It’s safe!”) or the elections officials that manage the elections. That’s anywhere, including Stalin’s Russia, Putin’s Russia, Venezuela, and the United States.

Thank God in my county of Miami-Dade they stopped using e-voting machines!


Crime was already really bad in Venezuela before Chavez seized power, but it got so much worse after he won control that they stopped reporting the numbers early on in his reign. The infrastructure is decaying from negligence and programs for the poor are sputtering. Chavez poured money into spreading his revolution and his own oligarchy. He poured millions of dollars into Honduras to try to get a plastic uprising going but even the poor were tired of Zelaya’s attempt at consolidating his de facto coup.

In spite of reporting the challenge to the vote by Capriles and the declaration by Capriles that their own independent tally from the voting showed an opposite result, AP still talks about how the Chavez heir Maduros “rode to victory” blah blah.

And then a big lie: “Millions of Venezuelans were lifted out of poverty under Chavez”. Based on what??! Who said so? Venezuelan government statistics? Fox News has to find a more reliable news agency.

A glimpse of reality in the middle, even AP has to cover its rear:

Venezuelans are afflicted by chronic power outages, crumbling infrastructure, unfinished public works projects, double-digit inflation, food and medicine shortages, and rampant crime — one of the world’s highest homicide and kidnapping rates — that the opposition said worsened after Chavez disappeared to Cuba in December for what would be his final surgery.

Also, apt wording for Americans here:

“We can’t continue to believe in messiahs,” said Jose Romero, a 48-year-old industrial engineer who voted for Capriles in the central city of Valencia. “This country has learned a lot and today we know that one person can’t fix everything.”

Chavez and his band of fascists (he made enough millionaires himself) tried to take over Honduras. Not nice. Honduras said no, No way Jose!


“Facebook lost 6 million U.S. users in May”, they report.


Here’s a new one:



Honduras’ Congress and the Supreme Court

December 15, 2012
The sign opposes Manuel Zelaya, Fidel Castro, ...

The sign opposes Manuel Zelaya, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chávez. It supports Roberto Micheletti and democracy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Golly, the things they’re describing in Honduras about their Congress and President sound like The 2010 American Congress and the nationalization of the medical industry.

ABC is describing it as a big mess and they are even repeating the now discredited lie that Zelaya was ousted in his pajamas. In reality we now know he wore a suit as he left the presidential mansion, passing by statues of himself that he had used to decorate the place, because neighbors saw him in the suit. He changed into the pajamas in Costa Rica for a sympathy play.

It is ABC that has been flailing about in its own reporting. The things they criticize about Honduras are happening in their own base country of the United States and they could not be happier, it seems…

Well, looking at other news sources, it seems this story originated with the Associated Press, which served as the propaganda arm for the Zelaya-Chavez-Castro alliance effort to establish another permanent dictatorship in Latin America and call it “democracy”. They are back to bashing Honduras again.

They probably had to conduct ten interviews with citizens in the street before they found one that referred to the 2009 constitutional succession as a “coup”. It was Zelaya’s coup against his own government that was ousted along with him.

But the criticism is hypocritical, coming from ABC,  which joined all the rest of the world press in 2009 demanding that the master of presidency by decree and now ex-dictator Manuel Zelaya be restored to his throne to boss the country!

There is certainly more to the story than even what we’re seeing, and the guy that complains about the “Danza de Milliones” is protecting his own neck to by assuredly sitting on some truly damaging information about his peers –and they are doing the same thing no doubt the other way.

I know people who have served in that Congress, but the best ones only serve one term because you can only run around with wolves for so long before you start howling like one. Therein lies truly nasty stuff.

Thank God that the Honduran people were so outraged by the attempt to make the Chavez-Zelaya dictatorship permanent that they delivered some mighty blows back to the empire, the Congress had to channel the energy.

And hey folks, Michael Strong offered the best thing Honduras has had a chance at in centuries, and the Congress approved it, and the Supreme Court threw it out. Was it the same Supreme Court? If it was, then my doubt in this fight is toward whoever stopped it.

Because territorial integrity would have been preserved, there was no advocacy of presidential re-election, and the irrevocable guarantee of a republican form of government would also have been preserved intact. Those are the only three items that are irrevocable and immutable in the Constitution of Honduras.

Where were these international voices to defend the Supreme Court and the independence of the different branches of government when the Honduran Supreme Court did, with the Congress, against a dictator, exactly that in 2009? Where was this concern when Zelaya was issuing illegal and unconstitutional orders in his plan to consolidate permanent power?


September 30, 2012
Hondurans opposing Manuel Zelaya.

Hondurans opposing Manuel Zelaya. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Commondreams, apparently wanting to spread the poverty around, continues to push big lies about Honduras:

Commondreams pushes common myths, repeating the lies spread by the autocracy-friendly news sources during 2009, when Honduras pushed back against Zelaya’s illegal and unconstitutional auto-coup, and restored its freedom from imperialist intervention by foreign powers.

Myth #1: President Porfirio Lobo—who came to power in a military coup in 2009

Facts #1: There was no military coup in 2009. Honduras is a constitutional republic and Congress is an elected body, and the President is an elective office. As in any people that repudiates dictatorship, the idea is to separate the powers.

In 2009, elected President Zelaya became Self-Appointed Autocrat Zelaya, and dictator in a real sense.

According to the ideals of freedom and constitutionality, the Honduran people did NOT elect the autocrat Zelaya, to make laws, they elected him to run the country according to the laws that were passed by Congress.

Instead, he began issuing his own decrees. He refused in November 2008 to submit the required budget for 2009, as he was constitutionally required to do. The Honduras Constitution says that if for some reason there is no budget for a year, then the default budget is the same as the previous year.

But Zelaya ignored the law and began spending the tax receipts according to whim, no decree to let people pick at. And much of it of course secretly.

No surprise there about corruption. When Jorge Ramos of Spanish-language US-based network Univision asked him about rumors he had won the election by cheating, he didn’t even try to hide it, proudly saying that “everybody does it”! At least that was a moment of honesty.

The SUPREME COURT, not the military, ordered Zelaya arrested after he flaunted his actions and even loudly expressed contempt for court orders to cease and desist from his long series of many illegal activities: “I don’t have to obey any pipsqueak judges”.

The military obeyed the constitutional court orders to arrest him for a list of criminal actions. His open and vocal advocacy for presidential re-election is defined in the Honduras Constitution as “treason”, because they did not want incumbents cheating their way to life-time dictatorships.

The Honduran people were almost unanimous in repudiating him. The Catholics Protestants came together in a way hardly ever seen in the Americas, all the industry groups, Chambers of Commerce and many unions united against Zelaya’s coup attempt, rich and poor. The only identifiable groups that supported his dictatorship were the usual “leftists” who openly advocate centrally dictated planning, and the teachers’ union, who left students without education for those months. Parents in one very poor town took over one school when the principal closed it to sympathize with the strike.

The CONGRESS, not the military, voted to recognize that Zelaya’s actions themselves had already vacated the presidency, according to the Constitution.


Using a quote from an AP dispatch, they spread a lie from a well-funded “indigenous” spokesman:

COMPOUND MYTH #2: “These territories are the Garifuna people‘s and can’t be handed over to foreign capital in an action that is pure colonialism like that lived in Honduras during the time that our land became a banana enclave,” said Miriam Miranda, president of the Fraternal Black Organization of Honduras.

FACT #2: The lands that would be ceded to this project are UNOCCUPIED. This spokesperson is also and advocate of robbing land that belongs to ranchers to give it to other people free of charge.

This is not colonialism because the sovereign government of Honduras and representatives elected by the people of Honduras have enthusiastically invited this foreign investment to come into the country according to principles they see as good for themselves. The Cuban government also has invited foreign investment, and even China sees benefits in allowing Hong Kong to govern itself in a manner friendly to the free market. Heavy-handed dictates are the opposite of the free market.

MYTH #3: Also quoted from AP disinformation propaganda:

Oscar Cruz, a former constitutional prosecutor, filed a motion with the Supreme Court last year characterizing the project as unconstitutional and “a catastrophe for Honduras.”

“The cities involve the creation of a state within the state, a commercial entity with state powers outside the jurisdiction of the government,” Cruz said.

FACT #3: The statement by Oscar Cruz is an oxymoron from the contextual premise. Stated a better way, he contradicts himself. These cities do NOT involve “state powers outside the jurisdiction of the government”, because they are a CREATION OF “the government” and by agreement of the state. This project is constitutional because the Congress amended the Constitution according to rules for amending the Constitution within the Constitution itself.

Which is more than the unelected self-appointed “spokesperson” for the Garifunas can say.

And there is another bigger issue in which both Oscar Cruz and ALL the critics are self-contradictory. These are people and activist organization that very loudly support the organization of communes run by state-appointed personalities for purposes known only to those who institute them. In other words, do they have a problem with political appointees who make the rules for centrally-planned industries?

Obviously they do not have such a big problem turning over the entire country to a self-confessed corrupt autocrat like Manuel Zelaya to run as he pleases. “In the name of the poor” of course.

The whole principle that bothers them so greatly about this project is the free market principle of letting the poor compete with the rich instead of having the state dictate all the outcomes.

Where were these protests when Zelaya simply capitulated and handed over a disputed island territory to Nicaragua?

MYTH #4: This one is from “The Guardian” disinformation propaganda piece:

… the idea has provoked controversy in a country already suffering from one of the worst levels of inequality in the world.

Controversy? Oh really? Because maybe 5% of the country might be opposed, while these same opponents are the same ones that advocated letting Zelaya run the country like a fiefdom?

Well, it’s only a “small part” true, and “large part” a lie. How much controversy is there? You can find a clue in the vote by Congress to create these special administrative zones: 126-1. That’s a real controversy.

No, the controversy is from a handful of well-funded leftist groups that lackey press organizations like the AP and apparently The Guardian run to whenever they know that statist central-planning pushers won’t like something.

Where do those guys get so much money anyway? Who funds them? They always are talking about the rich, are they funded by starving peasants? How long can they kid us and get away with this ruse?

Then there is this precious gem from Ismael Moreno, worthy of a good belly laugh. They present it as an environmental concern but the objection is that it would end up “eliminating the last agricultural frontier left to us”.

But the project will rather open that agriculture, and provide a new market with new demand for the projects of agriculture.

Specialization of labor multiplies production in all economic sectors, but it requires capital investment by investors that have capital.



The land they are talking about using is IDLE and at present I suppose it is government owned land. It apparently has not attracted demands for land distribution from the usual so-called self-described “agricultural reformers”, because they instead sent their small squad of “peasants” to invade lands under productive cultivation by agricultural investors, in an area called “Bajo Aguan”.

This is land that is not generating taxes nor productive activity. There will be property taxes, and that’s more than it’s getting at the present. The agreement includes a requirement for a major percentage of employees to be from Honduras itself.

So if there is any profit in this land its value will go up and there will be tax revenues, and a great number of Hondurans will find productive work, according to as much as they can get based on their productive bottom line. If they are underpaid, it is because they did not find a free market for their contributions but a regulated one.

But if they wanted a regulated one they could just work anywhere in Honduras outside these zones. How has that been working out for them?

I was a missionary and helped the poor directly with food and other needs. It makes you feel good to help people who need it. But you don’t help them by taking them food every day for their entire lives. That’s okay for dogs and cats and pets, but not people.

But I’ve learned that a free market environment is the very best way to help the poor, and to allow the ones that can to create their own new opportunities instead of being shackled to poverty by the paper ceiling of rules, laws, taxes and regulations.

Poor people have a right to buy and sell, too…

Abramoff: Lobbyists for Roberts in 2016 (ie, George WIll is wrong)

July 4, 2012
John Roberts - Caricature

John Roberts – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Lobbyists for Roberts in 2016:

Good story. George Will is wrong, the Supreme Court decision with Chief Justice John Roberts unmasking himself as an enemy to the Constitution, this is not a victory for conservatives over the Commerce Clause.

Justice Roberts basically told the Congress, Look, if you want to force anybody to do anything, subject to punishment by fine, just don’t call it a “penalty”. Call the enforcement hit a “tax”.

This is amazing. The people that liked the decision, who want oligarchy-appointed bureacrats to decide what you and your doctor can decide, and who want the insurance-industry complex to get 40,000,000 new customers almost overnight, and for Big Pharma to get a guaranteed coverage market at the expense of all the victims of this dictator’s-dream legislation, of course they’re praising it because they like the result.

Judge Roberts has shown he loves the praises of men rather than the praises of God, or the praises of any honest historical legacy.

With the convoluted and tortured language he used, though, he did more than give Louis Gomert a way to make him look absolutely ridiculous in the majority opinion he wrote. He destroyed his legacy. This decision will go down in history as a big milestone on the road to full-blast tyranny, accelerating the precipitous fall toward the coming economic and social catastrophes that will soon beset the last stronghold of freedom on Earth.

This reach into our medical freedom, health freedom, freedom of medical choice, is just another step in the forced march to the worldwide Beast government dictatorship.

A lot of people will pay for this march with their lives, with their martyrdom, with the physical freedom and political freedom that some nations still respect, but many of those in prison will have free minds, free hearts, free spirits, and souls that will be free for eternity, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is where freedom counts most of all.

He that the Son makes free is free indeed.


John Roberts: It was NOT a tax, before it WAS a tax, right in the same opinion

June 29, 2012

Tax (Photo credit: 401K 2012)

So in 2010 Obama and Pelosi pushed through the biggest tax increase on the poor in the history of the United States, that hits the pocketbook of the poor at a much bigger percentage than it does the rich, and for the middle class raises the price for all insurance plans across the board.

Did you hear that? This is biggest “non-tax” tax (wink wink) on the poor, and it hits people who earn less than $250,000 MUCH harder than it does the millionaire. In percentage terms, and directly. All taxes hit the poor the hardest and the middle class next but this one is straight to the poor.

That’s why Obama had to tell Stephanopolous emphatically that it was NOT a tax, because it hits hardest on the poor and the middle class.

Gomert, on the House floor the day the Unaffordable Obamacare Act was ruled constitutional by the Court, parsed out some important parts of John Roberts‘ “majority opinion” document.

In the first part of the document, Gomert said, John Roberts makes the strong point that Congress knew what it was doing when it used the word “penalty” for the fine they will impose on everybody that does not buy insurance.

Roberts first agreed with Congress and Obama that it was a “penalty” because if it had been called a “tax”, then by legislation and precedent the Supreme Court cannot decide anything until the first “tax” actually is levied and somebody sues.

Having allowed himself to rule on the “penalty”, and after declaring that Congress knows the difference between a penalty and a tax, and therefore the Court has jurisdiction now, not later over this decision, he then goes on to declare by court fiat that the whole thing is constitutional because, he says, it’s really a tax.

That smells like maybe some under-the-table was done, to me. If Congress had called it a “tax” they would not have been able to rule on it till 2014, after the first of us get hit with that part of it. But in 2010 when they passed it they did not dare call it a tax, for it would not have passed.

Dictator in Chief: Unelected bureaucrats wrote the law so don’t talk to us about “unelected”!!*

April 4, 2012

Jason Bradley at this blog has shared his insight into a side of Obama’s pointed admonition to the “unelected” judges at the Supreme Court:

Of course Barry Soetoro Obama wants them to do what the Supreme Court has almost always done when the Congress has passed an unconstitutional intrusion into the economic affairs of the states, claiming that the “interstate commerce” clause means anything they want to say is regulation of interstate commerce.

In view of the fact that anything traded on a local basis in 1789 might have had an indirect effect on markets between the states and in other states, and today it’s also true, that can mean anything.

A message that will surely be repeated over the weeks and months is one of “judicial activism” if the Supreme Court justices, who are an “unelectable group of people” go sniffing around too much into the details of Obamacare. Something that should have been done by the “overwhelming majority in Congress” as the president mentioned. Then again, they don’t get paid to read bills — even the bills they supposedly write, which they don’t — so someone has to.

President Barack Obama voiced confidence Monday that the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law in his first public remarks on the issue since the three days of oral arguments last week.

Obama suggested that the Supreme Court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law, and stressed that he believed the justices would see the individual mandate as an integral part of the law.

“I’m confident that this well be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Supreme Court To Decide Constitutionality of Obamacare « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

April 1, 2012

Supreme Court To Decide Constitutionality of Obamacare « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts:

This is the very biggest thing that ought to lead in all the news stories, but Orwellian Media is beating the drums over one isolated killing in Floria instead.

There’s a good reason for that. The vast overwhelming majority of Americans STILL HATE this shameless nationalization of the entire medical industry under the complete control of Washington, down to the smallest details.

The worst thing that they are assuming in favor of this abomination is the claim that everyone participates in the health care market, and they’re just making people pay that otherwise would not.

For one thing, the opponents can’t point to the obvious fact that this interstate commerce only involved commerce that occurs between two states. No way you can torture intrastate commerce from the claim that a market exists in two states at once. They gave that up to precedent a long time ago.

How do they know that there is not a group of people that will never use the kind of services this covers? In fact we already know of the Christian Science group that avoids it, and the Amish that live pretty healthy lives and it is likely that many of them do not.

If the Supreme Court lets this go, this is like the last straw that makes obvious the historical errors that led us to this point, they will show that they don’t care. Every vote in favor is treason to the obvious spirit and letter of the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Render unto Caesar: the Caesar, the supreme ruler in our land, is the people, as long as they are acting within the confines of the Constitution.

Romans 13 says we must obey the People within the Golden-Rule derived natural human rights, at least those in the Bill of Rights. The right to be secure in our homes, property, effects, is violated when you don’t know what capricious decision may emanate from the tax collectors and the money changers in Washington.

What would Jesus do? We remember he made a big long nasty whip to chase out the money changers.

Justice says Supreme Court should revisit campaign finance

February 18, 2012

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed; (Isaiah 10:1)


Ruth Bader Ginzburg is probably the most unconstitutional Supreme Court judge, and she just gave us another proof of it:

Justice says Supreme Court should revisit campaign finance:

She seems to think that once Congressmen in office they should enjoy the advantage of the incumbent without having to worry about what the private sector or the private economy might have to say about it.

Private money is supposed to be more powerful than the government but not by using government. The incumbent has name-brand recognition and free publicity from their public acts and pronouncements, dutifully reported in the press. Ask any product marketing consultant if that is not already worth millions of dollars (without charge) to somebody who’s already in office. What’s Ginzburg say about that?

Where is the fairness in that? With the incumbent having the built-in advantage, and if the Big Corporate Money IN MEDIA give an advantage without the worry of campaign finance laws, what’s fair about that?

Any restriction on speech, especially political speech above all, of any kind, is an outrageous attack on free speech.

You can’t pass a law to ban flag burning, but you can pass a law that says a group cannot print (or buy print for) an advertisement that says what they think about the government? Or about the policies of government? Or expressing an opinion about candidacy?

Supreme Court justice Ginzberg: U.S. Constitution inferior

February 4, 2012
Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United S...

Stock Photo of the Constitution of the United States and Feather Quill (Photo credit: Rosie O'Beirne)

Ginzberg swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States:

She’s not defending it at all, and dissing the document that was unique in its time, and enshrined the principles of human rights. t

Maybe she doesn’t like it because as a former ACLU member she supported the kinds of things like prenatal infanticide and restrictions on political campaigns and government-controlled campaign rules and censoring of religious thought, that are so unconstitutional that the linguistic contortions the Supreme Court had to go through when they decided them could only be appreciated by lawyers indoctrinated in the ideas of legalese, a language derivative of Orwellian Doublespeak.

More Federal Government Orwellian Privacy Invasion

January 29, 2012
English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

Image via Wikipedia

The United States Supreme Court.
Image via Wikipedia

Legal team tells Census Bureau to back off:

Accusing the U.S. Census Bureau of “stalking” and “harassment” against dozens of Americans, officials with the Rutherford Institute have asked the federal agency to explain how its “American Community Survey” questions related to information the government is authorized to request.

Or perhaps it should just stop sending out the forms with dozens of questions that demand information about fertility, martial history, utility costs, vehicles available and health insurance coverage, a letter to the federal agency says.

“The right to be left alone has been characterized as ‘the right most valued by civilized men.’ By compelling responses to invasive, personal questions that go far beyond the type of census mandated by the United States Constitution, the federal government is intruding significantly into the ‘zone of privacy’ the United States Supreme Court has recognized as being protected by the Bill of Rights,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

This is another demonstration that citizens need to demand Congressmen that respect the United States Constitution, and they need to demand of its judges, most of all the Supreme Court judges, that they also respect the Constitution.