Author Topic: Obama eliminating opposing voices using dictatorial practices  (Read 237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,640
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Obama eliminating opposing voices using dictatorial practices
« on: January 27, 2014, 06:55:08 AM »

Obama Eliminating Opposing Voices by Using Dictatorial Practices

Posted By Ed Wood on Jan 26, 2014 in 1st Amendment, Articles, Big Government, Email Featured, News, Politics, Tyranny, US News | 162 Comments

Share976 Tweet217 Share2.5K
18 Email22
The Obama Administration is now so firmly in control, it no longer feels it necessary to hide its dictatorial practices in the elimination of opposing voices.

Example One:

NEW YORK — Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative scholar and author, known internationally for his book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, and on which was based the anti-Obama documentary, 2016: Obama’s America (the second most popular political documentary in U.S. history), has been indicted in New York on charges he violated campaign finance laws in 2012 by making a political contribution to Republican Wendy Long who was opposing incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-NY) for the Senate seat once held by Hillary Clinton. D’Souza has been released on a $500,000 bond, awaiting his felony trial, and subsequent conviction.

Example Two:

Although an FBI investigation found the IRS not guilty of prejudicial withholding of the applications by Conservative groups for tax exempt status, this week, Friends of Abe (referring to Abraham Lincoln), a group of Conservative workers in the entertainment industry, was advised that the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for 501(c)4 tax exemption. Last week, federal tax authorities issued a 10-point demand for detailed information about its meetings with politicians Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain, and demanded “enhanced access” to the group’s website, which would reveal the confidential list of conservative Hollywood members. Their membership list has always been kept secret in order to avoid members being personally subjected to an inquisition by the IRS. The Group’s application has already been pending for more than two years, while a similar liberal organization, People for the American Way Foundation, sponsored by the left-leaning television producer Norman Lear and others, experienced no such delay.

Example Three:

President Barack Hussein Obama has signed into law a regulation enabling him to throw you in prison for just criticizing him. The law, HR347, with the usual misleading name of Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, is much too long to reproduce here. But you can go on the Congressional website and find it, in its entirety. In summary, it says, (and I am quoting excerpts from the actual law), ”Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, or within proximity to any such restricted building or grounds, shall be punished with a fine, or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.”

What are these “restricted buildings or grounds”? Any “posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service, is, or will be, temporarily visiting, or will be in attendance at an event designated as of national significance.” You think maybe the Superbowl, or more likely, the Augusta National, might be considered as such?

Please understand that with one “stroke of the pen,” your freedom of speech, your freedom to assemble, and your freedom to redress grievances, all expressed right up front in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, are now, in the words of Judge Andrew Napolitano, subject to “Unbridled discretion in the Hands of the Secret Service.”

Of course, the Supreme Court has ruled that such an act is unconstitutional: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule- making or legislation which would abrogate them” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491. However, since we are stuck with it, perhaps we should try to look on the bright side. When the hordes of illegal aliens see what has happened to the American freedoms their forefathers have sought, perhaps they will not be quite as anxious to storm our borders.

Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo