By Jonathan E.P. Moore
IS DONALD J. TRUMP PLAYING POSSUM?
I am feeling a little déjà vu here when it comes to Donald Trump, the master of the deal, and his outnumbered troops. I am a movie buff and keep seeing these great old classics where the outnumbered uses booby traps and last minute salvos to save their limited ammunition supplies. Do you remember that the battle cry from the Battle of Bunker Hill that yielded one of those quotations that every American is supposed to know; “Don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes!” Meaning, “Don’t use any of your gunpowder until they’re really, really close, so you won’t miss.”
With almost 3 months to go, which is more than enough time, you have to wonder, with all of
those self-inflicted shots he is taking from his bipartisan critics and the
‘Paid to Report’ Media that Trump has taken for his untimely comments, that
he’s just luring them in just a little closer for that kill shot! Hillary claims
that Trump’s economic plan is that same old trickledown economics that brought
this country back to relativity on the world stage back in the Reagan years,
and with what Obama has done, and Hillary will continue to do to the economy,
is again necessary and what’s called for. With trickle down It’s just not
possible to make the case that the rich have it made, or they get all the
breaks. They are the last stop in the trickle down chain. Yes, the money flows
in at the top, but the profits, if there are any, flow out the bottom. And the
business owner is at the end of the line!
I don’t know if you saw Hillary on the trail yesterday during one of her unpopulated rallies, but she looked just a little tired and haggard, but still pushing her lies, half-truths, and that same Socialist agenda that Obama has been shoving down our throats for the last 7 and a half plus years. It appears that all of those lies Hillary has been telling have taken a toll, and with the slow drip-drip of released emails, and like that famous Chinese water torture, must be driving her crazy! Like she says, with her bipartisan globalist contingent of our elected officials about Trump, Hillary is unfit to be President of the United States!!
Obama and Holder used their interpretation of the Constitution to their intended destruction of America from within, and as those end results seem to have worked on the trusting American citizens who assumed that their elected officials were following the guidelines set up by our Constitutional Republic and the Constitution, will be used by Hillary to continue on with Obama's vision for America!
‘YOU INTERPRET A STATUTE BASED ON INTENT?’ THAT’S WHAT OBAMA SAYS, RIGHT?
WHEN HILLARY SAID THAT THERE WAS ROOM FOR REGULATION IN BOTH THE 1ST AND 2ND AMENDMENTS WHEN INTERVIEWING WITH CHRIS WALLACE, WHAT DID YOU THINK SHE WAS REFERRING TO?
HOW WILL HILLARY INTERPRET THE INTENT ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT?
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Will she expand the boundaries and interpretation of what “yelling fire’ in a crowded theater when criticizing the government and whatever else the Political Correctness topic of the month is?
HOW WILL HILLARY INTERPRET THE INTENT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT?
Will she interpret the term ‘Arms’ as something completely different then how the intent has always been thought to be?
In our situation, we must ask "what did 'arms' mean when the Second Amendment was written and ratified, in that society, and in that context?" How would a citizen (Hillary) or judge back then have understood "arms"? Only after we are confident in our answer can we apply it to our own world to predict an outcome. The Emerson court used this method of interpretation, and we will use it too, to discover what "arms" meant to the generations alive near 1787, when the Second Amendment was drafted.
What "arms" meant, circa 1787.
First, a few modern definitions of "arms" present themselves. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm." Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Federal law fails to define "arms" explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act20 ("NFA") does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as "firearms" under Federal law, including shotguns, rifles, machine guns, silencers, and the catch-all terms "any other weapon" or "destructive devices." Almost all the types of weapons listed in the NFA are easily man-portable, except for some rockets, missiles, bombs and mines that would presumably qualify as "destructive devices" but which weigh too much to be easily carried by one person.
DO YOU REALLY TRUST HILLARY, LIKE OBAMA, TO INTERPRET OUR
FOUNDING FATHERS CONSTITUTION AND FOLLOW OUR GOVERNMENT MODEL OF BEING A
‘CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, OR CHANGING OUR FUTURE PATH THROUGH SOCIALISM?
HMMMM? REALLY, INTENT YOU SAY!
The intent of Obamacare is clear, and the law "doesn't need fixing" President Obama told a news conference in Germany.
"There is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case," he insisted, just days before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case that could eliminate subsidies for people who got their insurance through the federal exchange.
Obama, a former constitutional law professor (Which he's been proven not to ever have been!), said laws should be interpreted based on their "intent":
"And under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed, not just by liberal Democratic judges, but by conservative judges like some on the current Supreme Court, you interpret a statute based on what the intent and meaning and the overall structure of the statute provides for," Obama said.
"And so this should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up. And, you know, since we're going to get a ruling pretty quick, I think it's important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who've looked at this would expect them to do."
The Supreme Court case focuses not on intent, but on the plain language of the Affordable Care Act.
The question is whether the Internal Revenue Service, by regulation, can extend tax credit subsidies to people who purchased health insurance on the federal exchange.
Four words in the law specify that only exchanges "established by the State" may offer subsidized health insurance. But most states let the federal government set up their exchanges for them.
Obama said eliminating subsidies for people who enrolled in the federal exchange is a "bad idea."
"It's not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words, in, as we were reminded repeatedly, a couple thousand-page piece of legislation."
'Mind-boggling'
"The statute is pretty clear that, in order to receive the subsidies in question, you have to be part of a state exchange."
"And now the president is saying, well, we really didn't mean that. And so this is what we really meant. Well, unfortunately, the English language gets in the way. And, again, this is the president eroding the rule of law. ~~ By Susan Jones
INTENT AND INTERPRETATION, AND NOT THE LETTER OF THE LAW!
Mr. Holder’s more than five years as the nation’s chief legal officer has been absolutely devastating to the future of the nation and the Rule of Law. This goes far beyond merely the NSA, IRS scandal and the State Department scandals.
Barack Obama ‘s White House has done serious long-term damage to the world economy and the civil rights of every American. Obama and Holder pushed the authority of the executive branch of the federal government far beyond any democratic process. The administrative agencies under the Executive branch have gone well beyond the edge of the Constitution and law in a systemic manner that is truly breath-taking. Unlike previous presidencies where there was just one controversial instance, the Obama-Holder team have embarked on virtually a dictatorship under the pretense of democracy.
Everyone who has ever studied law had basic rules that government simply could not go beyond – they just can’t do that! Everyone in the legal community if they spoke freely has now learned that what they took for granted as clear meaning of existing law just no longer applies. Once you undermine the Rule of Law, everything else collapses for in the end game, you cannot even prove you own anything when it is subject to interpretation and discretion.
The Obama-Holder tag-team has effectively made federal legal authority boundless eliminating any restraint upon government as Obama justified the actions of the NSA saying you have to give up liberty to be safe. “I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved,” Obama said when questioned by reporters at a health care event in San Jose, Calif. He also famously said: “It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” he said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity.”
The question is – safe from whom? Obama stands in history directly in opposition to those who founded this nation!
The Obama-Holder theory of law has been mind-blowing.
Essentially, they stand for the proposition that the needs of justice supersede
the law’s boundaries. Obama has effectively stated he will take your rights and
money but for a good purpose – government power to protect your right to have
rights and money? This is precisely what Thrasymachus warned about and every
law professor when confronted with this question would have responded – that is
not law. Nevertheless, Obama has stood for the proposition that justice is
merely the self-interest of the stronger – government!look at what Obama said himself. In July 2011 over the debt
ceiling, Obama said publicly that he would like to “bypass Congress and change
the laws on my own.” He said this again in June 2014 with respect to
immigration reform. This is what one expects from a dictator – not an elected
official who pretends to be a Constitutional lawyer!
The very next year, Obama then made his unconstitutional recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Effectively, he bypassed Congress to stuff his own people in positions without the approval of the people. UNHEARD OF! Yet Obama also said back in 2011: “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself, but that’s not how a democracy works.”
Obama’s praise of Holder one would think he offhandedly saved the nation. Certainly not from the abuse of government. The legal precedents are shocking and very alarming. These people never get it. Obama expands the reach of the Presidency and the next one comes in and always expands it further.
Nobody ever reforms. So unfortunately, we are headed down
the creek in a boat that is leaking without a paddle. Our children will never
know the world in which we grew up when once upon a time there use to be a
friendly face behind every badge. ~~ by
Martin Armstrong
AGAIN!! WHEN HILLARY SAID THAT THERE WAS ROOM FOR REGULATION IN BOTH THE 1ST AND 2ND AMENDMENTS WHEN INTERVIEWED BY CHRIS WALLACE, WHAT DID YOU THINK SHE WAS REFERRING TO?
PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR, COPY AND PASTE, REFORMAT, ADD YOUR OWN 2 CENTS AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE ‘WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING’ WORDS, ONLY IF YOU AGREE, AND IF YOU DO AGREE TAKE THE TIME TO SUPPORT ‘AMERICA FIRST’ AND ‘MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!’
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks
IS DONALD J. TRUMP PLAYING POSSUM?
I am feeling a little déjà vu here when it comes to Donald Trump, the master of the deal, and his outnumbered troops. I am a movie buff and keep seeing these great old classics where the outnumbered uses booby traps and last minute salvos to save their limited ammunition supplies. Do you remember that the battle cry from the Battle of Bunker Hill that yielded one of those quotations that every American is supposed to know; “Don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes!” Meaning, “Don’t use any of your gunpowder until they’re really, really close, so you won’t miss.”
I don’t know if you saw Hillary on the trail yesterday during one of her unpopulated rallies, but she looked just a little tired and haggard, but still pushing her lies, half-truths, and that same Socialist agenda that Obama has been shoving down our throats for the last 7 and a half plus years. It appears that all of those lies Hillary has been telling have taken a toll, and with the slow drip-drip of released emails, and like that famous Chinese water torture, must be driving her crazy! Like she says, with her bipartisan globalist contingent of our elected officials about Trump, Hillary is unfit to be President of the United States!!
Obama and Holder used their interpretation of the Constitution to their intended destruction of America from within, and as those end results seem to have worked on the trusting American citizens who assumed that their elected officials were following the guidelines set up by our Constitutional Republic and the Constitution, will be used by Hillary to continue on with Obama's vision for America!
‘YOU INTERPRET A STATUTE BASED ON INTENT?’ THAT’S WHAT OBAMA SAYS, RIGHT?
WHEN HILLARY SAID THAT THERE WAS ROOM FOR REGULATION IN BOTH THE 1ST AND 2ND AMENDMENTS WHEN INTERVIEWING WITH CHRIS WALLACE, WHAT DID YOU THINK SHE WAS REFERRING TO?
HOW WILL HILLARY INTERPRET THE INTENT ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT?
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Will she expand the boundaries and interpretation of what “yelling fire’ in a crowded theater when criticizing the government and whatever else the Political Correctness topic of the month is?
HOW WILL HILLARY INTERPRET THE INTENT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT?
Will she interpret the term ‘Arms’ as something completely different then how the intent has always been thought to be?
In our situation, we must ask "what did 'arms' mean when the Second Amendment was written and ratified, in that society, and in that context?" How would a citizen (Hillary) or judge back then have understood "arms"? Only after we are confident in our answer can we apply it to our own world to predict an outcome. The Emerson court used this method of interpretation, and we will use it too, to discover what "arms" meant to the generations alive near 1787, when the Second Amendment was drafted.
What "arms" meant, circa 1787.
First, a few modern definitions of "arms" present themselves. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm." Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Federal law fails to define "arms" explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act20 ("NFA") does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as "firearms" under Federal law, including shotguns, rifles, machine guns, silencers, and the catch-all terms "any other weapon" or "destructive devices." Almost all the types of weapons listed in the NFA are easily man-portable, except for some rockets, missiles, bombs and mines that would presumably qualify as "destructive devices" but which weigh too much to be easily carried by one person.
HMMMM? REALLY, INTENT YOU SAY!
The intent of Obamacare is clear, and the law "doesn't need fixing" President Obama told a news conference in Germany.
"There is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case," he insisted, just days before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case that could eliminate subsidies for people who got their insurance through the federal exchange.
Obama, a former constitutional law professor (Which he's been proven not to ever have been!), said laws should be interpreted based on their "intent":
"And under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed, not just by liberal Democratic judges, but by conservative judges like some on the current Supreme Court, you interpret a statute based on what the intent and meaning and the overall structure of the statute provides for," Obama said.
"And so this should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up. And, you know, since we're going to get a ruling pretty quick, I think it's important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who've looked at this would expect them to do."
The Supreme Court case focuses not on intent, but on the plain language of the Affordable Care Act.
The question is whether the Internal Revenue Service, by regulation, can extend tax credit subsidies to people who purchased health insurance on the federal exchange.
Four words in the law specify that only exchanges "established by the State" may offer subsidized health insurance. But most states let the federal government set up their exchanges for them.
Obama said eliminating subsidies for people who enrolled in the federal exchange is a "bad idea."
"It's not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words, in, as we were reminded repeatedly, a couple thousand-page piece of legislation."
'Mind-boggling'
"The statute is pretty clear that, in order to receive the subsidies in question, you have to be part of a state exchange."
"And now the president is saying, well, we really didn't mean that. And so this is what we really meant. Well, unfortunately, the English language gets in the way. And, again, this is the president eroding the rule of law. ~~ By Susan Jones
INTENT AND INTERPRETATION, AND NOT THE LETTER OF THE LAW!
Mr. Holder’s more than five years as the nation’s chief legal officer has been absolutely devastating to the future of the nation and the Rule of Law. This goes far beyond merely the NSA, IRS scandal and the State Department scandals.
Barack Obama ‘s White House has done serious long-term damage to the world economy and the civil rights of every American. Obama and Holder pushed the authority of the executive branch of the federal government far beyond any democratic process. The administrative agencies under the Executive branch have gone well beyond the edge of the Constitution and law in a systemic manner that is truly breath-taking. Unlike previous presidencies where there was just one controversial instance, the Obama-Holder team have embarked on virtually a dictatorship under the pretense of democracy.
Everyone who has ever studied law had basic rules that government simply could not go beyond – they just can’t do that! Everyone in the legal community if they spoke freely has now learned that what they took for granted as clear meaning of existing law just no longer applies. Once you undermine the Rule of Law, everything else collapses for in the end game, you cannot even prove you own anything when it is subject to interpretation and discretion.
The Obama-Holder tag-team has effectively made federal legal authority boundless eliminating any restraint upon government as Obama justified the actions of the NSA saying you have to give up liberty to be safe. “I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved,” Obama said when questioned by reporters at a health care event in San Jose, Calif. He also famously said: “It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” he said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity.”
The question is – safe from whom? Obama stands in history directly in opposition to those who founded this nation!
The very next year, Obama then made his unconstitutional recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Effectively, he bypassed Congress to stuff his own people in positions without the approval of the people. UNHEARD OF! Yet Obama also said back in 2011: “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself, but that’s not how a democracy works.”
Obama’s praise of Holder one would think he offhandedly saved the nation. Certainly not from the abuse of government. The legal precedents are shocking and very alarming. These people never get it. Obama expands the reach of the Presidency and the next one comes in and always expands it further.
AGAIN!! WHEN HILLARY SAID THAT THERE WAS ROOM FOR REGULATION IN BOTH THE 1ST AND 2ND AMENDMENTS WHEN INTERVIEWED BY CHRIS WALLACE, WHAT DID YOU THINK SHE WAS REFERRING TO?
PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR, COPY AND PASTE, REFORMAT, ADD YOUR OWN 2 CENTS AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE ‘WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING’ WORDS, ONLY IF YOU AGREE, AND IF YOU DO AGREE TAKE THE TIME TO SUPPORT ‘AMERICA FIRST’ AND ‘MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!’
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks
No comments:
Post a Comment