Supreme Court usurps its authority again, part 8
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
.gif)
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
There is another slight change in my announced plans for posting. I received a comment from my post entitled “The Declaration of Independence” and I intend to comment on it. I first will finish this series on FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS and the obscene Supreme Court decision. I will then comment on the posted comment and then I will finish the posts on homosexuality and the California Supreme Court. That is the new plan.
I had planned on only one post in relation to the Supreme Court decision and FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. However, that has changed. In the Peoria Journal Star’s typical practice of providing balanced journalism, the paper printed four articles in relation to the decision. Three of the articles—an editorial by a national journalist, a political “cartoon” editorial, and an editorial by the on staff editorial writers—supported the Supreme Court decision. One editorial was opposed to the decision. (I have commented on three of the four in previous posts. I have not yet commented on the staff editorial writers’ opinion until tonight.) However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
In the mean time, the Peoria Journal Star published three more articles on the Supreme Court decision dealing with FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS on June 22, 2008, page A5 for a total of seven specific editorials on this one subject. As with their balanced reporting practices, two of the articles were in support of the Supreme Court’s obscene ruling and one was opposed to the decision. Thus, a total of five editorials supported the decision and two were in opposition. However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Tonight’s post is an editorial by the staff editorial writers that supports the Supreme Court decision. The editorial is entitled “Win by being true to ourselves.” Does that sound like a song title? The article is as follows:
“It’s a difficult, courageous, sometimes dangerous but often patriotic thing, being true to yourself. (How about being TRUE to the Constitution of the United States!!!—my addition) Perhaps the only thing more perilous is not being true to yourself. (Should one be true to oneself, whatever that means, if one is wrong???-my addition)
A slim Supreme Court majority planted its flag with being true to ourselves (The slim Supreme Court majority planted its flag with USURPING the Constitution of the United States and once again grabbing power that is NOT given to it by the Constitution. That may be being true to itself but it is NOT BEING TRUE TO THE NATION!!!—my addition) last week in declaring that enemy combatants’ (The previous quotation mark was the only one in the paragraph. My guess is that the writers intended quotation marks for “enemy combatants” but who can tell with this group of writers?—my addition) held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their detention before a civilian judge. Essentially the five ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that there are constitutional restraints on this nation’s ability to lock someone (NOT JUST someone but FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.) up and throw away the key. (ALLEGED RESTRAINTS that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution except in the fertile minds of FIVE Justices who obviously don’t care what the Constitution actually says or care about the long history of the United States in this area—my addition.)
This represents the third time in four years the high court has put the brakes on George W. Bush & Co.’s (Does that include the Congress of the United States. It doesn’t matter if it was the third time or the 300th time. The COURT is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!—my addition) zeal to expand presidential powers during war. (I wish these writers had a clue about our past history! President Bush has done what other wartime Presidents have done. As I’ve said before, German prisoners were held in central Illinois during World War II and they didn’t come close to having access to civilian courts! Since these writers live in Central Illinois, you would think that they would know this. Maybe it slipped their mind!!!—my addition) The court relied on Article I of the Constitution (The FIVE members of the Court ought to try reading Article I, Section 8 which declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….”—my addition), which dictates that ‘the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.’ (Both the FIVE members of the Court as well as these writers ignore that the Constitution was written NOT for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS but for citizens of the United States. The writ of habeas corpus had NEVER before been granted to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS in our entire history. NEVER! By the way, the editorial writers also left out a small portion of the sentence. The complete sentence says that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Privilege comes from the Latin word “privilegium: law for or against a private person” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. © 1995; page 928. It is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that a FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT would be considered a private person at the time this sentence was written into the Constitution. In fact, the structure of the sentence demonstrates that the authors of the Constitution intended the meaning to apply to citizens of the nation who could possibly lose the right of writ of habeas corpus because of the need to protect the public when a rebellion occurred within the United States (Shays’ Rebellion [look it up] or the Civil War, as examples) or when the United States was invaded by an outside force. It would be ludicrous to argue that the writ of habeas corpus was to be given to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS unless it was necessary to suspend such when the FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS were invading the United States. But yet, that is exactly what the FIVE members of the Court and the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star would have you believe. DO THEY THINK WE ARE STUPID!!! By the way, Congress could simply suspend the writ of habeas corpus for whomever they choose because we have been invaded by FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. Also, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War without the approval of Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese American CITIZENS without a trial during World War II. President Lincoln was one of the four Presidents memorialized on Mount Rushmore which was carved before World War II. Suspending the writ didn’t seem to hurt his position in history!—my addition) The system of military tribunals first established by Congress three years ago is ‘not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus.’ Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. (Unfortunately, the majority is wrong throughout this court case. THEY ARE WRONG CONSTITUTIONAL!!! NOT THAT THAT BOTHERS THE FIVE OR THE EDITORIAL WRITERS OF THIS EDITORIAL!!!—my addition)
Unfortunately, the court again split along predictable (predictable because four Justices are trying to follow the Constitution and FIVE are following their own social engineering practices—my addition.), ideological lines. While we believe that the epic, pivotal battle against Islamic terrorism is one that the world’s civilized nations cannot lose and that reasonable people who love their country can differ on how to fight it, the sky-is-falling rhetoric of this decision’s critics was especially pronounced. (Right! If reasonable people disagree with another power grab, then they are overreacting by screaming the “sky is falling.” It does not matter if no FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT is every released. What matters is that the FIVE majority members are AGAIN rewriting the Constitution to suit their own purposes—my addition.)
Foremost among them was Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that ‘the nation will live to regret what the court has done,’ which ‘will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.’ Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain called it ‘one of the worst decisions in the history of the nation.’ Chief Justice John Roberts was more restrained, though he seemed not to get the fuss over a merely ‘procedural’ matter.
To which we’d respond: 1) Scalia’s words are those of a man with so little faith in America’s judicial system (Who can blame him? The Court has warranted the MURDER of unborn babies!—my addition) that he believes its judges will be setting evil men free left and right (Setting one evil man free is one too many!—my addition); we’re not so cynical and believe (What these writers believe in this regard is totally and completely IRRELEVANT!!!—my addition) the reality likely will be (EXACTLY, you and no one else knows what will happen. But we do know that FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS have NEVER been provided the protection of a writ of habeas corpus before these FIVE Justices IMPOSED THEIR WILL on the American people!!!—my addition) the opposite, with judges bending over backward to ensure that doesn’t happen (IRRELEVANT and who will know for certain!!!—my addition); 2) McCain obviously is not a student of Supreme Court history (AND these writers ARE??? I happen to be and I would guess far more so than the editorial writers and I also believe it is one of the Court’s worst decisions because they IGNORE the Constitution. By the way, the writers agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow mothers to MURDER their own unborn children so their support of the Court’s position on this issue is meaningless to me. They are also continually WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!—my addition); 3) Habeas corpus is not just a formality but foundational to what makes America unique throughout the world; and 4) Never let it be said that presidential elections do not matter. (Now, on this they are right! AND this is one of many reasons why I absolutely will NOT vote for the Democratic nominee—my addition.)
The critics hang their hats on three hooks—citizenship, location, and timing. (WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! This critic “hangs my hat” on the CONSTITUTION of the United States!!! Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”—my addition)
First, they object to ‘the most generous set of … protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants,’ (I believe that if you will check the other articles you will find that this quote is in reference to the Detainee Act and used to argue that that Act was and is Constitutional—my addition.) arguing that U.S. citizens only are entitled to such access to civilian courts. Arguably (By whose argument? This is a nonsense choice of words. It doesn’t establish anything. Arguably, the writers of this editorial do not have a clue about what the Constitution actually says and does NOT say!!!—my addition), the Founders viewed matters such as due process, access to legal counsel and the opportunity to defend yourself against threats to your freedom as basic human rights. (Is this why the Founding Fathers allowed slavery? Just wondering! Also, if that is true, explain this! Why didn’t the Founders write into the Constitution that the writ of habeas corpus also applies to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS? Did they want us to guess? Did they want us to wait over 200 years to finally extend the writ of habeas corpus to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS? Don’t be absurd. If it was not written into the Constitution, it was not written into the Constitution for a reason. THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT TO BE EXTENDED TO FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. The Supreme Court can not (although they do) REWRITE the Constitution because they THINK that is what the Founding Fathers wanted. That is pure nonsense and pure speculation. We might as well just toss the Constitution aside and let the Supreme Court be the Constitution. Oh wait, that is what WE ARE DOING!!!!—my addition)
Second, Guantanamo occupies the land mass known as sovereign Cuba. Yes, but it’s also a U.S. military base that has been under our control for more than a century. The White House purposely sought this foreign-territory loophole to try to escape the Constitution’s reach. (Please explain to me how the editorial writers know what the White House or any other part of our government sought and the reasons why they sought such a location? Can they now read minds as well as rewrite the Constitution by their own FIAT? Plus, it is only a loophole in their own perverted understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution has NEVER provided the privilege of a writ of habeas corpus for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!—my addition)
Third, this shifts America’s foreign policy responsibilities to ‘unelected, politically unaccountable judges’ during an ‘ongoing war.’ Even if you argue that 9-11-01 meets the ‘invasion’ (What was it? An overly exuberant plane hijacking? And the bombing of Pearl Harbor was just stray bombs going a bit off target?—my addition) requirement of Article I (there is no invasion requirement for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS because FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS have NEVER been protected under that portion of Article I!!! NEVER!!!—my addition), that was almost seven years ago (Where does the Constitution put a time limit on this? Are we or are we not at war. Did terrorists fly planes with American passengers into American buildings occupied by Americans?—my addition); some of these guys (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.) have been in quiet captivity nearly that long. (So? Length of time has nothing to do with it. Do you think if World War II would have continued for another ten years that after seven years we would have suddenly decided that German prisoners of war must be given civilian hearings to determine if they were really prisoners of war or not? NOT ON THE LIVES OF EVERY POLITICIAN IN GOVERNMENT!!!—my addition) Can our government hold someone (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) forever without having to explain why? (YES, YES, YES, a THOUSAND TIMES YES. They are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS and NOT protected by the Constitution of the UNITED STATES. These FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS are prisoners of war. They are NOT some accused bank robber. Do the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE???—my addition)
We think this (Who cares what they think? WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY??? Do we still have a Constitution that is suppose to be our guiding principle or do we have a FIVE member CABAL who RULES this nation with the support of editorial writers and libertines???—my addition): First, this ruling alone will not send a single prisoner home to fight again (IRRELEVANT!!! COURT decisions are not suppose to be made on the basis of what MAY or MAY NOT happen. They are suppose to be made on the basis of “what does the Constitution say!!!”—my addition), as it just promises the right to request a hearing (Which is a “right” that FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS DO NOT HAVE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. Policy wise, they also SHOULD NOT HAVE!!! But, if CONGRESS wants to give FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS that right then it is up to CONGRESS to give them that right. IT IS NOT UP TO FIVE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO MANUFACTURE A RIGHT THAT DOES NOT EXIST except in their own subversive minds!!!—my addition) If Uncle Sam has the terrorist goods on these guys (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.), he should not be reluctant to prove it and give them what they (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.) have coming. (There is no need to waste time and money [Aren’t the libertines the ones who are always complaining about how expensive this war is?] to try to do what is not needed to be done. These FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS are not American citizens, they are not accused criminals. They are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS who are trying to kill us. Did any captured German soldier receive a civilian hearing during World War II? Would people who suggested such a course of action be considered traitors who were trying to hinder the war effort and who were trying to give aid and comfort to the enemy?—my addition)
Second, it has been a while since a White House so pushed the envelop of executive power. (Did these writers ignore the Detainee Act passed by Congress? What is their definition of a “while?” Every President, that I know of, did what they thought necessary to protect the nation in time of war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt even put American born United States CITIZENS into “relocation” camps believing that he was protecting the nation. Do these writers NOT know history or do they just ignore that part of our history which doesn’t suit their arguments, absurd as those arguments are—my addition.) While there may be something to the contention that the courts are not the place to decide matters of national security (“MAY BE SOMETHING?” NOW THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THESE ARE CIVILIAN COURTS TRYING TO DECIDE MILITARY MATTERS AND THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!!—my addition), arguably a president who treats the Constitution as a mere inconvenience (WHAT ABOUT FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT WHO DO EXACTLY THAT AND MORE—REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION TO SUIT THEIR OWN CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG!!!—my addition) gives the courts no other choice. (UTTER NONSENSE AND AN OUTRIGHT MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS!!!—my addition) This is a victory for the separation and balance of powers (Obviously, the writers don’t have a clue about the concept of separation and balance of powers. WHEN THE COURTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING AND DO IT ANYWAY IT IS NOT AN ADVANCEMENT OF EITHER CONCEPT!!! IT IS THE USURPATION OF POWER!!!—my addition) so critical to discouraging abuses of our system. (DOES IT DISCOURAGE THE ABUSES PRACTICED BY THE SUPREME COURT???—my addition) Without those checks, we invite the arbitrary rule of men. (REALLY? WE HAVEN’T STOPPED THE ARBITARY RULE OF THE FIVE CONTROLLING MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT. IN FACT, OUR SILENCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR ARBITARY RULE ENCOURAGES MORE OF THE SAME. STOP OUR COURTOCRACY NOW!!!—my addition) We believe, as the Founders did, in the rule of law, and make no apologies for it. (NO YOU DON”T!!! YOU BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF THE FIVE!!! These editorial writers both with this editorial and previous editorials demonstrate that they don’t believe in the rule of law or they WOULD NOT support the continual rewriting of the Constitution by the Supreme Court’s GANG OF FIVE!!!—my addition)
This decision isn’t for our enemies, but for ourselves. (Nonsense!!!) We’re not naïve. (You mean you are deliberately supporting the USURPATION of our Constitution!!!!—my addition.) This is a dangerous world; the Constitution is not a suicide pact. (Duh! It is a document that should be followed and the FIVE members of the Court ARE NOT following the Constitution!—my addition) But we are not of the school (You are of the school that the Constitution can be REWRITTEN by FIVE Justices—my addition.) that believes America must drop its principles (WE are NOT! We also don’t have to rewrite them to suit FIVE Justices who have their own concepts of what the Constitution says. There is no reason why FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS must be given civilian court rights—the Constitution CERTAINLY DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH!!!—my addition) to the level of its enemies to prevail. Arguably we put ourselves in greater danger when we prove ourselves pretenders, our Constitution a meaningless piece of paper. (THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE PROVING—the CONSTITUTION IS MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THE FIVE CAN REWRITE IT ANY TIME THEY WANT!!!—my addition)
If we become what they are, then we are lost. (IF WE REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION AT WILL THEN WE ARE LOST! DO YOU THINK ALLOWING MOTHERS TO MURDER THEIR UNBORN BABIES IS SUPPORTING OUR PRINCIPLES? We are giving to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS a right that UNBORN AMERICAN CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE!!! HOW PERVERSE IS THAT???—my addition) This decision is one indication that we are not losing.” (NONSENSE!!! This decision is one indication that we are a COURTOCRACY controlled by FIVE members of the COURT who believe, on the one hand, that it is perfectly all right to MURDER OUR OWN UNBORN BABIES and yet, on the other hand, that FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS who want to kill us must have a new, previously unknown right to seek relief in civilian courts. FIRST, GIVE THAT RIGHT TO UNBORN BABIES!!! Unborn babies should have the writ of habeas corpus LONG BEFORE THOSE WHO ARE FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS SEEKING TO KILL US. WHAT A PERVERSE WORLD THESE FIVE JUSTICES HAVE CREATED!!!—my addition)
If these editorial writers weren’t serious they would be a great comedy act!!! These editorial writers support the MURDER of unborn babies, homosexual behavior as a civil right, and an alleged “wall of separation between church and state.” ALL of these perversions were created by judicial FIAT by a USURPING band of libertine Supreme Court members. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the United States nor anything in the history of the United States that gives FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS the right of the writ of habeas corpus to be administered by civilian courts. NOTHING! NOTHING!! NOTHING!!!
This ruling is simply an illegal edict by a Supreme Court that enjoys rewriting the Constitution of the United States. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Article I, Section 8 declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Historically, when Congress has not made such rules during time of war, who do you think made such rules? The Supreme Court??? NO!!! NEVER!!! It has been the President under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces—Article II, Section 2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?” NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTUTITION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If that power is so listed, please tell me where it is because I have some knowledge of the Constitution and I have NEVER read it in the CONSTITUTION! NEVER!!! I haven’t read it because it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
There is another slight change in my announced plans for posting. I received a comment from my post entitled “The Declaration of Independence” and I intend to comment on it. I first will finish this series on FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS and the obscene Supreme Court decision. I will then comment on the posted comment and then I will finish the posts on homosexuality and the California Supreme Court. That is the new plan.
I had planned on only one post in relation to the Supreme Court decision and FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. However, that has changed. In the Peoria Journal Star’s typical practice of providing balanced journalism, the paper printed four articles in relation to the decision. Three of the articles—an editorial by a national journalist, a political “cartoon” editorial, and an editorial by the on staff editorial writers—supported the Supreme Court decision. One editorial was opposed to the decision. (I have commented on three of the four in previous posts. I have not yet commented on the staff editorial writers’ opinion until tonight.) However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
In the mean time, the Peoria Journal Star published three more articles on the Supreme Court decision dealing with FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS on June 22, 2008, page A5 for a total of seven specific editorials on this one subject. As with their balanced reporting practices, two of the articles were in support of the Supreme Court’s obscene ruling and one was opposed to the decision. Thus, a total of five editorials supported the decision and two were in opposition. However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Tonight’s post is an editorial by the staff editorial writers that supports the Supreme Court decision. The editorial is entitled “Win by being true to ourselves.” Does that sound like a song title? The article is as follows:
“It’s a difficult, courageous, sometimes dangerous but often patriotic thing, being true to yourself. (How about being TRUE to the Constitution of the United States!!!—my addition) Perhaps the only thing more perilous is not being true to yourself. (Should one be true to oneself, whatever that means, if one is wrong???-my addition)
A slim Supreme Court majority planted its flag with being true to ourselves (The slim Supreme Court majority planted its flag with USURPING the Constitution of the United States and once again grabbing power that is NOT given to it by the Constitution. That may be being true to itself but it is NOT BEING TRUE TO THE NATION!!!—my addition) last week in declaring that enemy combatants’ (The previous quotation mark was the only one in the paragraph. My guess is that the writers intended quotation marks for “enemy combatants” but who can tell with this group of writers?—my addition) held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their detention before a civilian judge. Essentially the five ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that there are constitutional restraints on this nation’s ability to lock someone (NOT JUST someone but FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.) up and throw away the key. (ALLEGED RESTRAINTS that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution except in the fertile minds of FIVE Justices who obviously don’t care what the Constitution actually says or care about the long history of the United States in this area—my addition.)
This represents the third time in four years the high court has put the brakes on George W. Bush & Co.’s (Does that include the Congress of the United States. It doesn’t matter if it was the third time or the 300th time. The COURT is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!—my addition) zeal to expand presidential powers during war. (I wish these writers had a clue about our past history! President Bush has done what other wartime Presidents have done. As I’ve said before, German prisoners were held in central Illinois during World War II and they didn’t come close to having access to civilian courts! Since these writers live in Central Illinois, you would think that they would know this. Maybe it slipped their mind!!!—my addition) The court relied on Article I of the Constitution (The FIVE members of the Court ought to try reading Article I, Section 8 which declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….”—my addition), which dictates that ‘the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.’ (Both the FIVE members of the Court as well as these writers ignore that the Constitution was written NOT for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS but for citizens of the United States. The writ of habeas corpus had NEVER before been granted to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS in our entire history. NEVER! By the way, the editorial writers also left out a small portion of the sentence. The complete sentence says that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Privilege comes from the Latin word “privilegium: law for or against a private person” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. © 1995; page 928. It is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that a FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT would be considered a private person at the time this sentence was written into the Constitution. In fact, the structure of the sentence demonstrates that the authors of the Constitution intended the meaning to apply to citizens of the nation who could possibly lose the right of writ of habeas corpus because of the need to protect the public when a rebellion occurred within the United States (Shays’ Rebellion [look it up] or the Civil War, as examples) or when the United States was invaded by an outside force. It would be ludicrous to argue that the writ of habeas corpus was to be given to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS unless it was necessary to suspend such when the FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS were invading the United States. But yet, that is exactly what the FIVE members of the Court and the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star would have you believe. DO THEY THINK WE ARE STUPID!!! By the way, Congress could simply suspend the writ of habeas corpus for whomever they choose because we have been invaded by FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. Also, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War without the approval of Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese American CITIZENS without a trial during World War II. President Lincoln was one of the four Presidents memorialized on Mount Rushmore which was carved before World War II. Suspending the writ didn’t seem to hurt his position in history!—my addition) The system of military tribunals first established by Congress three years ago is ‘not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus.’ Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. (Unfortunately, the majority is wrong throughout this court case. THEY ARE WRONG CONSTITUTIONAL!!! NOT THAT THAT BOTHERS THE FIVE OR THE EDITORIAL WRITERS OF THIS EDITORIAL!!!—my addition)
Unfortunately, the court again split along predictable (predictable because four Justices are trying to follow the Constitution and FIVE are following their own social engineering practices—my addition.), ideological lines. While we believe that the epic, pivotal battle against Islamic terrorism is one that the world’s civilized nations cannot lose and that reasonable people who love their country can differ on how to fight it, the sky-is-falling rhetoric of this decision’s critics was especially pronounced. (Right! If reasonable people disagree with another power grab, then they are overreacting by screaming the “sky is falling.” It does not matter if no FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT is every released. What matters is that the FIVE majority members are AGAIN rewriting the Constitution to suit their own purposes—my addition.)
Foremost among them was Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that ‘the nation will live to regret what the court has done,’ which ‘will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.’ Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain called it ‘one of the worst decisions in the history of the nation.’ Chief Justice John Roberts was more restrained, though he seemed not to get the fuss over a merely ‘procedural’ matter.
To which we’d respond: 1) Scalia’s words are those of a man with so little faith in America’s judicial system (Who can blame him? The Court has warranted the MURDER of unborn babies!—my addition) that he believes its judges will be setting evil men free left and right (Setting one evil man free is one too many!—my addition); we’re not so cynical and believe (What these writers believe in this regard is totally and completely IRRELEVANT!!!—my addition) the reality likely will be (EXACTLY, you and no one else knows what will happen. But we do know that FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS have NEVER been provided the protection of a writ of habeas corpus before these FIVE Justices IMPOSED THEIR WILL on the American people!!!—my addition) the opposite, with judges bending over backward to ensure that doesn’t happen (IRRELEVANT and who will know for certain!!!—my addition); 2) McCain obviously is not a student of Supreme Court history (AND these writers ARE??? I happen to be and I would guess far more so than the editorial writers and I also believe it is one of the Court’s worst decisions because they IGNORE the Constitution. By the way, the writers agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow mothers to MURDER their own unborn children so their support of the Court’s position on this issue is meaningless to me. They are also continually WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!—my addition); 3) Habeas corpus is not just a formality but foundational to what makes America unique throughout the world; and 4) Never let it be said that presidential elections do not matter. (Now, on this they are right! AND this is one of many reasons why I absolutely will NOT vote for the Democratic nominee—my addition.)
The critics hang their hats on three hooks—citizenship, location, and timing. (WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! This critic “hangs my hat” on the CONSTITUTION of the United States!!! Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”—my addition)
First, they object to ‘the most generous set of … protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants,’ (I believe that if you will check the other articles you will find that this quote is in reference to the Detainee Act and used to argue that that Act was and is Constitutional—my addition.) arguing that U.S. citizens only are entitled to such access to civilian courts. Arguably (By whose argument? This is a nonsense choice of words. It doesn’t establish anything. Arguably, the writers of this editorial do not have a clue about what the Constitution actually says and does NOT say!!!—my addition), the Founders viewed matters such as due process, access to legal counsel and the opportunity to defend yourself against threats to your freedom as basic human rights. (Is this why the Founding Fathers allowed slavery? Just wondering! Also, if that is true, explain this! Why didn’t the Founders write into the Constitution that the writ of habeas corpus also applies to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS? Did they want us to guess? Did they want us to wait over 200 years to finally extend the writ of habeas corpus to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS? Don’t be absurd. If it was not written into the Constitution, it was not written into the Constitution for a reason. THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT TO BE EXTENDED TO FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. The Supreme Court can not (although they do) REWRITE the Constitution because they THINK that is what the Founding Fathers wanted. That is pure nonsense and pure speculation. We might as well just toss the Constitution aside and let the Supreme Court be the Constitution. Oh wait, that is what WE ARE DOING!!!!—my addition)
Second, Guantanamo occupies the land mass known as sovereign Cuba. Yes, but it’s also a U.S. military base that has been under our control for more than a century. The White House purposely sought this foreign-territory loophole to try to escape the Constitution’s reach. (Please explain to me how the editorial writers know what the White House or any other part of our government sought and the reasons why they sought such a location? Can they now read minds as well as rewrite the Constitution by their own FIAT? Plus, it is only a loophole in their own perverted understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution has NEVER provided the privilege of a writ of habeas corpus for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!—my addition)
Third, this shifts America’s foreign policy responsibilities to ‘unelected, politically unaccountable judges’ during an ‘ongoing war.’ Even if you argue that 9-11-01 meets the ‘invasion’ (What was it? An overly exuberant plane hijacking? And the bombing of Pearl Harbor was just stray bombs going a bit off target?—my addition) requirement of Article I (there is no invasion requirement for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS because FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS have NEVER been protected under that portion of Article I!!! NEVER!!!—my addition), that was almost seven years ago (Where does the Constitution put a time limit on this? Are we or are we not at war. Did terrorists fly planes with American passengers into American buildings occupied by Americans?—my addition); some of these guys (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.) have been in quiet captivity nearly that long. (So? Length of time has nothing to do with it. Do you think if World War II would have continued for another ten years that after seven years we would have suddenly decided that German prisoners of war must be given civilian hearings to determine if they were really prisoners of war or not? NOT ON THE LIVES OF EVERY POLITICIAN IN GOVERNMENT!!!—my addition) Can our government hold someone (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) forever without having to explain why? (YES, YES, YES, a THOUSAND TIMES YES. They are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS and NOT protected by the Constitution of the UNITED STATES. These FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS are prisoners of war. They are NOT some accused bank robber. Do the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE???—my addition)
We think this (Who cares what they think? WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY??? Do we still have a Constitution that is suppose to be our guiding principle or do we have a FIVE member CABAL who RULES this nation with the support of editorial writers and libertines???—my addition): First, this ruling alone will not send a single prisoner home to fight again (IRRELEVANT!!! COURT decisions are not suppose to be made on the basis of what MAY or MAY NOT happen. They are suppose to be made on the basis of “what does the Constitution say!!!”—my addition), as it just promises the right to request a hearing (Which is a “right” that FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS DO NOT HAVE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. Policy wise, they also SHOULD NOT HAVE!!! But, if CONGRESS wants to give FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS that right then it is up to CONGRESS to give them that right. IT IS NOT UP TO FIVE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO MANUFACTURE A RIGHT THAT DOES NOT EXIST except in their own subversive minds!!!—my addition) If Uncle Sam has the terrorist goods on these guys (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.), he should not be reluctant to prove it and give them what they (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition.) have coming. (There is no need to waste time and money [Aren’t the libertines the ones who are always complaining about how expensive this war is?] to try to do what is not needed to be done. These FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS are not American citizens, they are not accused criminals. They are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS who are trying to kill us. Did any captured German soldier receive a civilian hearing during World War II? Would people who suggested such a course of action be considered traitors who were trying to hinder the war effort and who were trying to give aid and comfort to the enemy?—my addition)
Second, it has been a while since a White House so pushed the envelop of executive power. (Did these writers ignore the Detainee Act passed by Congress? What is their definition of a “while?” Every President, that I know of, did what they thought necessary to protect the nation in time of war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt even put American born United States CITIZENS into “relocation” camps believing that he was protecting the nation. Do these writers NOT know history or do they just ignore that part of our history which doesn’t suit their arguments, absurd as those arguments are—my addition.) While there may be something to the contention that the courts are not the place to decide matters of national security (“MAY BE SOMETHING?” NOW THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THESE ARE CIVILIAN COURTS TRYING TO DECIDE MILITARY MATTERS AND THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!!—my addition), arguably a president who treats the Constitution as a mere inconvenience (WHAT ABOUT FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT WHO DO EXACTLY THAT AND MORE—REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION TO SUIT THEIR OWN CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG!!!—my addition) gives the courts no other choice. (UTTER NONSENSE AND AN OUTRIGHT MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS!!!—my addition) This is a victory for the separation and balance of powers (Obviously, the writers don’t have a clue about the concept of separation and balance of powers. WHEN THE COURTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING AND DO IT ANYWAY IT IS NOT AN ADVANCEMENT OF EITHER CONCEPT!!! IT IS THE USURPATION OF POWER!!!—my addition) so critical to discouraging abuses of our system. (DOES IT DISCOURAGE THE ABUSES PRACTICED BY THE SUPREME COURT???—my addition) Without those checks, we invite the arbitrary rule of men. (REALLY? WE HAVEN’T STOPPED THE ARBITARY RULE OF THE FIVE CONTROLLING MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT. IN FACT, OUR SILENCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR ARBITARY RULE ENCOURAGES MORE OF THE SAME. STOP OUR COURTOCRACY NOW!!!—my addition) We believe, as the Founders did, in the rule of law, and make no apologies for it. (NO YOU DON”T!!! YOU BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF THE FIVE!!! These editorial writers both with this editorial and previous editorials demonstrate that they don’t believe in the rule of law or they WOULD NOT support the continual rewriting of the Constitution by the Supreme Court’s GANG OF FIVE!!!—my addition)
This decision isn’t for our enemies, but for ourselves. (Nonsense!!!) We’re not naïve. (You mean you are deliberately supporting the USURPATION of our Constitution!!!!—my addition.) This is a dangerous world; the Constitution is not a suicide pact. (Duh! It is a document that should be followed and the FIVE members of the Court ARE NOT following the Constitution!—my addition) But we are not of the school (You are of the school that the Constitution can be REWRITTEN by FIVE Justices—my addition.) that believes America must drop its principles (WE are NOT! We also don’t have to rewrite them to suit FIVE Justices who have their own concepts of what the Constitution says. There is no reason why FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS must be given civilian court rights—the Constitution CERTAINLY DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH!!!—my addition) to the level of its enemies to prevail. Arguably we put ourselves in greater danger when we prove ourselves pretenders, our Constitution a meaningless piece of paper. (THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE PROVING—the CONSTITUTION IS MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THE FIVE CAN REWRITE IT ANY TIME THEY WANT!!!—my addition)
If we become what they are, then we are lost. (IF WE REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION AT WILL THEN WE ARE LOST! DO YOU THINK ALLOWING MOTHERS TO MURDER THEIR UNBORN BABIES IS SUPPORTING OUR PRINCIPLES? We are giving to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS a right that UNBORN AMERICAN CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE!!! HOW PERVERSE IS THAT???—my addition) This decision is one indication that we are not losing.” (NONSENSE!!! This decision is one indication that we are a COURTOCRACY controlled by FIVE members of the COURT who believe, on the one hand, that it is perfectly all right to MURDER OUR OWN UNBORN BABIES and yet, on the other hand, that FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS who want to kill us must have a new, previously unknown right to seek relief in civilian courts. FIRST, GIVE THAT RIGHT TO UNBORN BABIES!!! Unborn babies should have the writ of habeas corpus LONG BEFORE THOSE WHO ARE FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS SEEKING TO KILL US. WHAT A PERVERSE WORLD THESE FIVE JUSTICES HAVE CREATED!!!—my addition)
If these editorial writers weren’t serious they would be a great comedy act!!! These editorial writers support the MURDER of unborn babies, homosexual behavior as a civil right, and an alleged “wall of separation between church and state.” ALL of these perversions were created by judicial FIAT by a USURPING band of libertine Supreme Court members. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the United States nor anything in the history of the United States that gives FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS the right of the writ of habeas corpus to be administered by civilian courts. NOTHING! NOTHING!! NOTHING!!!
This ruling is simply an illegal edict by a Supreme Court that enjoys rewriting the Constitution of the United States. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Article I, Section 8 declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Historically, when Congress has not made such rules during time of war, who do you think made such rules? The Supreme Court??? NO!!! NEVER!!! It has been the President under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces—Article II, Section 2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?” NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTUTITION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If that power is so listed, please tell me where it is because I have some knowledge of the Constitution and I have NEVER read it in the CONSTITUTION! NEVER!!! I haven’t read it because it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 9:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home