|
|
|
kushfiend
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2010, 10:13:16 AM » |
|
good info here jo!
Cass is this generations Joseph Goebbels!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
chris jones
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2010, 10:57:57 AM » |
|
Good on ya Joe.
WOW.
This guy is out to break the second amendment, thats it!
Quite a crew we have telling us what we can do and what we can't do, though more of what we can't.
They are pushing their agenda, HIGH GEAR folks, the deck is stacked.
What gets me going is they continue to act as though this is reperesntative democracy, the speels they give, in reality it is dictating contray to the citizens input. Our voice is silenced.
I'm not going to attempt to make a time frame on their final thrust, but I think it would be a good idea if people gave serious consideration to survival tech. Just my oppinon=<< the writing is on the wall, etched in stone.
Hey, its time to give a priority to the safety and survival of your family, sure keeping getting the word out there, but please do not neglect the fact we may be facing a situation that could begin without a warning. Carefull folks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2010, 12:38:28 PM » |
|
Good on ya Joe.
WOW.
This guy is out to break the second amendment, thats it!
Quite a crew we have telling us what we can do and what we can't do, though more of what we can't.
They are pushing their agenda, HIGH GEAR folks, the deck is stacked.
What gets me going is they continue to act as though this is reperesntative democracy, the speels they give, in reality it is dictating contray to the citizens input. Our voice is silenced.
I'm not going to attempt to make a time frame on their final thrust, but I think it would be a good idea if people gave serious consideration to survival tech. Just my oppinon=<< the writing is on the wall, etched in stone.
Hey, its time to give a priority to the safety and survival of your family, sure keeping getting the word out there, but please do not neglect the fact we may be facing a situation that could begin without a warning. Carefull folks.
The blatant treason by these people is astounding! With this guy (if approved) and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, that will give them a majority and you will bet they will try to overturn not only the 2nd Amendment but OUR ENTIRE CONSTITUTION!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
worcesteradam
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2010, 01:51:38 PM » |
|
 back demon, back |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Outlaws have their uses." - Earl of Newark
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2010, 07:23:48 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2010, 09:40:19 AM » |
|
Cass Sunstein: "The Second Amendment: The Constitution's Most Mysterious Right"http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/76I just finished listening to this lecture. THIS MAN DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BARE ARMS.
THIS MAN CAN NOT BE APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT! IF OBAMA ATTEMPTS THIS, EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA SHOULD PUMMEL EVERY SINGLE SENATOR (WHO WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THE NOMINATION) WITH PHONE CALLS, FAXES, AND VISITS, TELLING THEM THEY MUST NOT VOTE FOR THIS GOON.
PLEASE SEND THIS VIDEO TO EVERY SENATOR NOW, SO THEY ARE INFORMED. THEY WILL BE VOTING ON HIS NOMINATION VERY SOON, AS JUSTICE GINSBURG WILL BE RETIRING AND OBAMA WANTS THIS GUY TO REPLACE HER. THIS IS POSSIBLE IN 2010.
THIS VIDEO IS A SMOKING GUN ON HOW THIS GOON THINKS ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, AND WHY HE SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED ON THE SUPREME COURT. HE IS WRONG! HE STATES IN THE VIDEO:"The claim by those who believe this is an individual right that the 2nd amendment speaks plainly on behalf of that position is a FRAUD." (approx time 35:00)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2010, 09:54:48 AM » |
|
Sunstein calls himself a Minimalist which is described here:[/SIZE]
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/06/four-new-horsem.html
June 28, 2007
Four New Horsemen? Of Minimalists and Visionaries
(The following is a mildly edited version of an oped that appeared today on the Washington Post website.) The most intriguing development on the Supreme Court this term has been the emergence of a powerful alliance between two different kinds of conservatives: the visionaries and the minimalists. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the visionaries, are not merely predictable in their votes; their sweeping opinions call for fundamental changes in constitutional law. They do not greatly respect stare decisis. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the minimalists, have also turned out to be predictable in their votes. But their opinions tend to be cautious, narrow and unambitious. They are reluctant to reject the court's own precedents, and attempt to rule in a way that preserves them.
In every one of the term's key cases, the minimalists and the visionaries have agreed on the outcome -- but they have frequently divided on the reasoning. Roberts and Alito provided the crucial votes for this week's decision to strike down congressional bans on certain corporate advertisements during political campaigns. But they were careful to say that the decision did not reject any of the court's precedents. By contrast, Scalia and Thomas insisted that the court should give broad protection to corporate advertisements and immediately overrule several recent precedents, including the major 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. Roberts and Alito joined the court's majority opinion authorizing a ban on "partial birth abortion," but without questioning Roe v. Wade. Scalia and Thomas went out of their way to reiterate their view that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. In the past, Scalia and Thomas have been clear in their blanket opposition to affirmative action plans, which they would eliminate across-the-board. In striking down race-conscious student-assignment plans, Roberts' opinion for the court was not exactly narrow. But he was careful not to question the court's precedents permitting affirmative action in narrow circumstances. Indeed, Roberts' opinion attempted to preserve those very decisions, showing that they involved quite different problems. The most pointed and revealing debate between the minimalists and the visionaries involves the question of whether and when taxpayers can challenge the use of public funds for religious purposes. In its important 1968 decision in Flast v. Cohen, the court ruled that taxpayers have "standing" to object when Congress has explicitly allocated taxpayer funds to religious organizations. Relying on Flast, taxpayers challenged the Bush administration's use of public money, through its Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Program, to pay for conferences that seemed to promote religion. Alito's opinion, joined by Roberts and Anthony Kennedy, rejected the taxpayers' challenge through a self-consciously minimalist route. In Alito's view, Flast need not be reconsidered. It was a narrow ruling that depended on a specific fact: Congress had expressly authorized the use of federal funds for religious purposes. By contrast, the Bush administration had used money from a general congressional appropriation. Alito believed that taxpayers should not be permitted to challenge the executive's decision if Congress had not specifically required it. Limiting the conclusion in Flast to its particular facts, Alito said that the court would not overrule it but would "decide only the case at hand." (This is the minimalist's credo.) Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, insisted that the court should have ruled much more ambitiously. In his view, Flast is a "blot on our jurisprudence" and should be overruled immediately. Scalia was aware that his disagreement with Alito signaled a much broader jurisprudential division. He acknowledged that "minimalism is an admirable judicial trait," but he insisted that "the soul of thelaw" is "logic and reason," which the court's minimalist approach failed to offer. Pointing to what he saw as the chaotic and irrational nature of existing law, he wanted to abandon minimalism and to confine Flast to the dustbin. The opinions in the taxpayer standing cases reflect both the overlap and the emerging division between the conservative minimalists and the conservative visionaries. Alito and Roberts typically seek to preserve the court's precedents and to avoid theoretical ambition. By contrast, Scalia and Thomas are not cautious about jettisoning the court's precedents and rethinking them from the ground up. There are even deeper issues in the background. The visionaries trust "logic and reason" and are enthusiastic about occasional revolutions in constitutional law, if they can be grounded logically and reasonably. In a way, the visionaries sound more than a bit like Jeremy Bentham, who called for codification on the ground that the common law was frequently a chaotic mess of decisions, defying reason. By contrast, the minimalists are operating as literal conservatives, seeking to maintain continuity with what has been done before. In a sense, the minimalists are followers of the great traditionalists Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott, who distrusted abstract theory, sought to build on the past, and favored incremental change. Notwithstanding these differences, it is both important and true that in every important case this term, the minimalists and the visionaries have agreed about the proper result. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas have been operating a bit like the Four Horsemen of the Court's distant past -- not in the sense that their views are poorly reasoned (they aren't) or palpably wrong (they aren't), but in the sense that they vote together with real regularity, and in predictably conservative ways. Many people anticipated that Roberts and Alito would occasionally disappoint their conservative admirers and even the White House. Because they are skeptical of large movements and general theories, and attentive to details, minimalists do tend to surprise both their admirers and their critics. To date, however, Alito and Roberts have surprised no one. Careful and lawyerly, and focused on the particular problem at hand, they reject huge changes in favor of small steps. But almost all of their small steps are going in the same direction. So far the minimalists and the visionaries have consistently made common cause -- on abortion, campaign finance law, employment discrimination, student speech, race-conscious policies, and much more. For the long-term, the key question is easy to identify: Whether the minimalists believe only that precedents should not be reconsidered when it is unnecessary to do so -- or believe as well that precedents should be followed even when they are challenged head-on. The future of key constitutional principles -- involving the right to abortion, affirmative action programs, presidential power in connection with the war on terror, and campaign finance legislation -- may well turn on the answer. In short, we will soon see whether the minimalists and the visionaries differ on their preferred destination, or only on the speed with which they try to get there. IF HE GETS ON THE COURT, IT WILL SWING AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BARE ARMS! THIS GUY BELIEVES THAT AS A MINIMALIST THE PRECEDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET IN LAW IN 1939 CASE US v. MILLER (TIME 39:00) THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT A RIGHT TO BARE ARMS. THAT'S THE ONE CASE THEY SUBMIT TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION. THEY SAY THAT NOT UNTIL THE 21ST CENTURY DID THE COURT ADOPT THE PRO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INTERPRETATION.
NO, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE 21ST CENTURY, CASS, IS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN WIND THAT YOU BOZOS WANT TO TRASH OUR RIGHTS, SO WE HAVE TAKEN THE OFFENSIVE AND STARTING GUARDING AGAINST YOUR COMING OFFENSE. THAT IS WHY THIS IS COMING UP! This ridiculous assertion is akin to saying that the 1913 passage of the Federal Reserve Act was legitimate and not a fraud. What a joke! DC Heller also used this in their argument on the Washington DC gun case. The other assertion that he said, as well as Obama has said, is "the right to keep and bare arms might be subject to 'reasonable limitations'"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2010, 10:14:16 AM » |
|
He also said in the video in 2007: (Time 28:53)"In terms of Judicial Developments it is striking and noteworthy that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to have guns, NOT ONCE!
It would be amazing though given that fact though, hum hum, don't be surprised if the 1st time it happens is in the next 3 to 4 years." That would be 2010!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2010, 11:37:09 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Georgiacopguy
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2010, 11:52:59 AM » |
|
He's a minimalist alright, he believes we should have minimal rights, and minimal privacy from our ever watching gooberment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The resistance starts here. Unfortunately, the entire thing is moving beyond the intellectual infowar. I vow I will not make an overt rush at violent authority, until authority makes it's violent rush at me and you. I will not falter, I will not die in this course. For that is how they win.
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2010, 11:56:12 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2010, 11:58:13 AM » |
|
He's a minimalist alright, he believes we should have minimal rights, and minimal privacy from our ever watching gooberment.
Exactly! Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, also minimalists, have yet to show their colors, but once they get Cass on the Supreme Court, it's very possible they will because they'll have the numbers, IMO! The article above states: "the emergence of a powerful alliance between two different kinds of conservatives: the visionaries and the minimalists. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the visionaries, Roberts and Alito the minimalists." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2010, 12:52:34 PM » |
|
A work in progress from Brocke...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2010, 12:55:58 PM » |
|
Love it!  Thx Brocke and Sane! Great job! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiClare
|
|
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2010, 02:55:08 PM » |
|
Thanks Sane and Brocke - and jofortruth! Wow! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgiacopguy
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2010, 07:10:52 AM » |
|
If only we had a more direct way to bring these quotes and clips to light, so that they would be in the public eye, and might prevent him from getting any more elevated than he already is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The resistance starts here. Unfortunately, the entire thing is moving beyond the intellectual infowar. I vow I will not make an overt rush at violent authority, until authority makes it's violent rush at me and you. I will not falter, I will not die in this course. For that is how they win.
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2010, 11:05:56 AM » |
|
Any ideas? I agree!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RicardoCasio
|
|
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2010, 11:15:19 AM » |
|
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.htmlIn 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. The actual paper can be found here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585This is scary stuff folks. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Georgiacopguy
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2010, 11:56:30 AM » |
|
Bare with me for a moment, I'll have to give some history here. I used to listen to a radio talk show called Opie and Anthony. Probably soem of the most loyal fans I've ever seen. During various times, I saw the fans buy billboards to smear other radio talk show hosts who had a beef with O&A, I saw them set up and conduct actual press conferencess to defend them whenever they suffered a suspension because of their antics. My point is, they thought outside of hte box, and used their own monies to do alot of things on behalf of the show they listened to.
The next time Cass opens his trap and utters some "newspeak", we should have a full fledged smear campaign of our own, along with pre-selected media outlets to release his antics. I'm sure they have research staff, but I've found that often, we dig deeper around here than most research assistants do. And heres the catch, include the mainstream in the press release, FOX, CNN, MSNBC... So they cant say they didnt know, and just on the off chance that somebody there still has balls and are allowed to use them. The press release should also mention the various outlets it's been released to, os they are kind of goaded into responding to it.
The writing of the press release needs to be concise, non ranting, fair and even handed, and not involve too much conspiracy talk, but should stick to the facts as they are evident in Sunstein's writings. His words pretty much stink on their own...i mean speak for themselves. We just need a good writer to make the article pop, and the next time his face appears or his name appears in the media...BAM! Release it. There should also be key Blogs, internet sites, and the like which should be targetted for the simultaneous release of the info/ article. All should be high traffic, with little editing on the behalf of those who would seek to squelch the article.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The resistance starts here. Unfortunately, the entire thing is moving beyond the intellectual infowar. I vow I will not make an overt rush at violent authority, until authority makes it's violent rush at me and you. I will not falter, I will not die in this course. For that is how they win.
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2010, 12:09:48 PM » |
|
Bare with me for a moment, I'll have to give some history here. I used to listen to a radio talk show called Opie and Anthony. Probably soem of the most loyal fans I've ever seen. During various times, I saw the fans buy billboards to smear other radio talk show hosts who had a beef with O&A, I saw them set up and conduct actual press conferencess to defend them whenever they suffered a suspension because of their antics. My point is, they thought outside of hte box, and used their own monies to do alot of things on behalf of the show they listened to.
The next time Cass opens his trap and utters some "newspeak", we should have a full fledged smear campaign of our own, along with pre-selected media outlets to release his antics. I'm sure they have research staff, but I've found that often, we dig deeper around here than most research assistants do. And heres the catch, include the mainstream in the press release, FOX, CNN, MSNBC... So they cant say they didnt know, and just on the off chance that somebody there still has balls and are allowed to use them. The press release should also mention the various outlets it's been released to, os they are kind of goaded into responding to it.
The writing of the press release needs to be concise, non ranting, fair and even handed, and not involve too much conspiracy talk, but should stick to the facts as they are evident in Sunstein's writings. His words pretty much stink on their own...i mean speak for themselves. We just need a good writer to make the article pop, and the next time his face appears or his name appears in the media...BAM! Release it. There should also be key Blogs, internet sites, and the like which should be targetted for the simultaneous release of the info/ article. All should be high traffic, with little editing on the behalf of those who would seek to squelch the article.
Sounds like a good idea! We need someone good at writing. I'm a researcher. That's my contribution. I just hope people will pick up what I find (and others) and go with it. I faxed 13 pgs to the 2 GA Senators today (See below) (because he basically lied to one of them, Saxby Chambliss, when he was asked whether or not he supported the 2nd Amendment Indiv right to bear arms). I thought those 2 Senators should know about this rat. Everyone needs to send these 13 pgs to both Senators in their State: Docs to send: (13 pgs)http://www.scribd.com/doc/25384314/Cass-Sunstein-Does-Not-Believe-in-the-2nd-Amendment-Individual-Right-to-Bear-Armshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/19595018/nullSenator Contacts:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Georgiacopguy
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2010, 12:21:52 PM » |
|
I did the same. Both Georgia Senators. Although as oft as they tend to ignore our wants and dislikes, I surmise they won't take heed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The resistance starts here. Unfortunately, the entire thing is moving beyond the intellectual infowar. I vow I will not make an overt rush at violent authority, until authority makes it's violent rush at me and you. I will not falter, I will not die in this course. For that is how they win.
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2010, 12:30:11 PM » |
|
I did the same. Both Georgia Senators. Although as oft as they tend to ignore our wants and dislikes, I surmise they won't take heed.
Well, Chambliss had a fight winning this time, so he best start listening to the people he says he represents! Didn't he get into a runoff last year, which he is not use to having? It's time to stop supporting (voting for) Senators and Reps who don't listen to us. I refuse to vote for the incumbents ever again until I see them start listening to us. NEVER AGAIN! 2010 is going to see some losing who never thought they would because of their arrogance and failures! Just wait and see! The people have had it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Georgiacopguy
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2010, 12:38:20 PM » |
|
Yeah, hopefully between the tea parties and other attempts at activism, people will take that lesson if they take no other. But I fear that it still instills a false hope in them that that alone will make thigns right. Persoinally, I wish our governmental system did not come with so many perks, or was not so desireable to people. It should be more of a burden, more of a responsibility. Something to be honored, yet people spend vast fortunes to get elected, to reap the benefits at our cost.
Well, Chambliss had a fight winning this time, so he best start listening to the people he says he represents! Didn't he get into a runoff last year, which he is not use to having?
It's time to stop supporting (voting for) Senators and Reps who don't listen to us. I refuse to vote for the incumbents ever again until I see them start listening to us. NEVER AGAIN! 2010 is going to see some losing who never thought they would because of their arrogance and failures! Just wait and see! The people have had it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The resistance starts here. Unfortunately, the entire thing is moving beyond the intellectual infowar. I vow I will not make an overt rush at violent authority, until authority makes it's violent rush at me and you. I will not falter, I will not die in this course. For that is how they win.
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2010, 12:44:28 PM » |
|
Yeah, hopefully between the tea parties and other attempts at activism, people will take that lesson if they take no other. But I fear that it still instills a false hope in them that that alone will make thigns right. Persoinally, I wish our governmental system did not come with so many perks, or was not so desireable to people. It should be more of a burden, more of a responsibility. Something to be honored, yet people spend vast fortunes to get elected, to reap the benefits at our cost.
The whole mindset of the goons in Washington needs to be changed! They are not CIVIL SERVANTS, they are sell outs who don't know what the word "NO" means much less the word "INTEGRITY". It's time to send some ADULTS to Washington and kick the children and their MASTERS (who work from the shadows) OUT! GRRRRR |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DJ BALL
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2010, 02:51:00 PM » |
|
email sunstein and thank him for his treason. csunstei@law.harvard.edu |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Ann Coulter is a singularly disgusting person....when i met her i was stunned.. i felt a presence of evil..i thought i was seeing a concentration camp victim/slash/ ring wraith..she could barley walk..she was toddling on her legs with her arms out like a ghoul.." ALEX JONES
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2010, 04:16:52 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
