Home » Uncategorized
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Judicial Supremacists judicial supremacists are to blame for allowing a torrent of obscenity to engulf the movies, television, the theater, books, and even classroom curricula. Robert Bork observes that “the suffocating vulgarity of popular culture is in large measure the work of the Court. The Court did not create vulgarity, but it defeated attempts of communities to contain and minimize vulgarity.”
The Court’s virulent judicial activism repeatedly and aggressively defeats the people’s attempt to maintain a decent society. The courts stole the legislative function in violation of the separation of powers. The courts have used the First Amendment to carry out a massive attack on public decency.
It wasn’t always so. Many Americans can remember when movies contained no obscenity or even profanity.The high level of sex, violence, and profanity in movies started during the era of the Warren Court.
The core of the First Amendment’s speech clause is the protection of political speech and, as late as , a unanimous Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky v . New Hampshire that prohibiting obscene, profane, or insulting words was never thought to raise any constitutional problem because those utterances are not political speech. N ow, the Court limits political speech in campaigns and religious speech in schools, but elevates pornography and other assaults on decency to the level of a First Amendment right.
In the landmark case on obscenity,Roth v .United States (1957) , the Supreme Court ruled: “Implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. . . . We hold that obscenity is not within the constitutionally protected speech or press.”Roth meant that obscenity has no redeeming social importance whatsoever and is not protected by the First Amendment. A pudding that contains arsenic has no nutritional value.
One of the highly paid lawyers for the smut publishing industry, Charles Rembar, bragged in his book, “The End of Obscenity” that he gave the activist judges on the Supreme Court the rationale to reverse convictions under state laws until they were no longer enforceable against obscenity. As the lawyer for A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v . Massachusetts (1966), known as the Fanny Hill case, Rembar persuaded the Court to make two subtle changes in Roth’s language which looked minor at the time, but which wiped out the laws against obscenity.
The Court changed Roth’s“social importance” to Fanny ill’s “social value,” and transposed the word “utterly” to another part of the sentence. With that bit of semantic chicanery in” Fanny Hill”‘ the new rule became “A work cannot be proscribed unless it is found to be utterly without social value.” The book “Fanny Hill” was held not to be obscene because the prostitute reformed on the last pages of the book.
“Social value” quickly became a password to pornography; all a smut peddler had to do was to insert a few social or literary passages, and his obscenity was clothed with the Constitution. The obscene Swedish movie “I Am Curious— Yellow” was defended on the ground that although it pictured intercourse explicitly and in public, it was protected by the First Amendment because the couple did their act on the balustrade of the royal palace in Stockholm as a protest against social institutions.
After the ‘Fanny Hill” decision, the pornographers increased the volume of their output many times over—and they matched it with lavish funds for legal talent to carry dozens of cases to the Supreme Court and overwhelm the justices with their sophisticated arguments.
By October 1966 , the obscenity racket was in full swing. The dealers flooded the Supreme Court with twenty-six appeals from lower court convictions. The mere existence of twenty-six cases on one subject at one time shows the great financial resources of the obscenity industry, its determination to change our laws that had been in existence for nearly two hundred years, and its optimism that this could be accomplished by the Warren Court with activist liberal justices Earl Warren, William Brennan (who wrote the Fanny H ill opinion), Abe Fortas (who had represented pornographers before he went on the Court), H ugo Black, and William O. Douglas adopting the pornographers’ most extreme arguments.
The obscenity dealers were not disappointed. From 1966 to 1970, the Warren Court handed down a truly revolutionary series of thirty-four decisions that turned the law of obscenity upside down.These decisions gave extraordinary victories to the pornographers, reversing all the judges, juries, appellate courts, and law enforcement officials connected with those cases. Those thirty-four reversals made laws against obscenity almost impossible to enforce,thereby drastically lowering community decency standards throughout America. (See otes for a list of these cases.)
All those thirty-four decisions were per curiam (by the Court), making them a major legacy of the Warren Court. More significantly, all thirty-four decisions were anonymous; no justice had the nerve to put his name on any of the decisions. Most of these decisions were only a sentence or two, an unusual tactic which enabled the Court to conceal from public debate the substance of what the Court was approving. One has to search out the lower court decisions to see what gross obscenities the Court was wrapping in the First Amendment.
Typical of these thirty-four anonymous, short, propornography Supreme Court opinions is Mazes v . Ohio,(1967) which reversed the decisions of the Ohio supreme court, the Ohio court of appeals, the trial judge, and a jury in one sentence: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v . New York , U .S. .(386) U.S. 767)”
That is the entire unsigned Supreme Court opinion. The Court couldn’t defend the obscenity it was clothing in the First Amendment. Mazes v . Ohio entailed the conviction of a merchant for displaying in his open racks The Orgy Club in the midst of other obscene works. The Ohio supreme court had noted that “the obscene material found between the covers, viewed from any standpoint, is utterly without redeeming social value,” and the arresting officer testified that “there were several young boys in the store” looking at the rack. The Court’s silence about the facts of the case tended to obscure the enormity of its transformation of our laws protecting Americans against obscenity.
Hollywood got the message from the Supreme Court. In 1966, the Motion Picture Association of America stopped enforcing its old Production Code, which Hollywood studios had imposed on themselves since . In the Association’s president, Jack Valenti, proudly declared that movie makers were now free “to tell their stories as they choose to tell them.”
This new freedom brought obscene language, near-total nudity, graphic sex scenes, and sadistic violence to neighborhood movie theaters.The abrupt change was reflected in the Academy Awards. In 1965,the Best Picture was The Sound of Music; in 1969 , the Best Picture was Midnight Cowboy , an x-rated film about a homeless male hustler.
Suffocating Vulgarity Continues
Those Warren Court decisions completely changed pornography law in America, and some lower federal courts are now even more extreme than the Supreme Court. The evil fruits of the Supreme Court’s endorsement of pornography as a First Amendment right are everywhere apparent, and the pro-pornography bias of the federal courts continues to this day.
In a 2 to 1 ruling in Finley v .National Endowment for the Arts ), the Ninth Circuit U .S. Court of Appeals held that it is unconstitutional for a government agency to consider “decency and respect” for American values when it doles out the taxpayers’ money. The winners in this case were Karen Finley (the woman who became famous by parading on stage dressed in nothing but a layer of chocolate), three others whose nude performances centered on homosexual themes, and, of course, the aclu. The losers were the American taxpayers. Too late to make any difference in the funding, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in 1998 .
Another federal judge ruled that Penthouse magazine and other sexually explicit magazines and videos have a First Amendment right to be available in subsidized stores on military bases. By the ruling in General Media Communications v . Perry , the military was enjoined from obeying the Military Honor and Decency Act of , which forbade such materials on military bases. This was too outrageous for the Second Circuit U .S. Court of Appeals, which reversed, declaring the Act a reasonable regulation of speech in a non-public forum.
Continuing its campaign of using the First Amendment to protect pornographers,the Supreme Court in 2000 struck down a federal statute that required cable operators to stop Judges Promote Pornography sending unwanted and never-requested pornographic images into the homes of subscribers during daytime hours (U .S . v . Playboy Entertainment Group ).
In 2002, the judicial supremacists invalidated half of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of1996 despite the fact that it had passed Congress with overwhelming majorities and was signed by Bill Clinton (Ashcroft v . Free Speech Coalition). This decision knocked out Congress’s ban on computer-generated child pornographic images even before the law had a chance to be enforced. Justice Kennedy spent part of his opinion reassuring Hollywood that the Court would never put any limits on the gross sex and violence in current movies.
The following year, the Court nearly invalidated the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 1999 based merely on the possibility that adult patrons of public library internet terminals might be inconvenienced by having to ask a librarian to turn off the pornography filter installed to protect children. This decision assured adults that they can continue to enjoy pornography at taxpayers’ expense at their local public libraries (U .S . v . American Library Association, ).
“The End of all Morals Legislation”
In 2004 , the Supreme Court invalidated the Child Online Protection Act, which banned the posting for “commercial purposes” on the World Wide Web of material that is “patently offensive” in a sexual manner unless the poster takes reasonable steps to restrict access by minors. The law was badly needed, as filth plagues the internet, incites sex crimes, and entraps children. Minors are an intended audience for the highly profitable sex industry. This law did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the purveyors of sex-for-profit to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.
But decency lost again in 2004 when five justices knocked out this new law in Ashcroft v . ACLU . Justice Kennedy declared it unconstitutional for Congress to do almost anything to stop porn flowing to teens. He shifted the burden to families to screen out the graphic sex rather than imposing the cost on the companies profiting from the porn. His reasoning is as absurd as telling a family just to pull down its window shades if it doesn’t want to see people exposing themselves in the street.
The next blow against decency came in Washington State,where a federal judge wrapped the First Amendment around video and computer games that show teenagers how to kill policemen. The state legislature had imposed a fine on the sale or rental to minors of video or computer games containing “realistic or photographic-like depictions of aggressive conflict in which the player kills, injures, or otherwise causes physical harm to a human form in the game who is depicted as a public law enforcement officer.”
Determined to overturn the new law, the Video Software Dealers Association sought out an activist judge who would bend the First Amendment to cover these videos. The dealers found their man in a federal district court judge appointed by President Clinton, Robert S. Lasnik.
In Video Software Dealers Association v . Maleng , (2004) Judge Lasnik nullified the state statute and prohibited its enforcement. He admitted that the videos are “filth,” yet insisted that the First Amendment safeguards them. Judge Lasnik went overboard in his extreme defense of violent video games. He said: “Whether we believe the advent of violent video games adds anything of value to society is irrelevant; guided by the First Amendment,we are obliged to recognize that they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.” So a video showing how to kill policemen deserves the same constitutional protection as Shakespeare and Herman Melville.
The 1996 Ensign Amendment prohibited the use of federal funds by the U .S. Bureau of Prisons to “distribute or make available any commercially published information or material to a prisoner . . . [when] such information or material is sexually explicit or features nudity.” That surely sounds like a reasonable and necessary law because criminals are in jail for punishment, not to pursue vices partly at our expense.
Three judges on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned the Ensign ban on porn for prisoners and held in favor of pornography in Ramirez v . Pugh (2004) . The judges said the law was too broad in that it denied pornography to prisoners who had not been convicted of sex-related crimes. But prisons are maintained by our tax dollars, and only Congress is authorized to make spending decisions. The idea of the taxpayers having to pay for distribution of pornography to prisoners, no matter what they are convicted of, is ridiculous. This is one more example of supremacist judges telling us how we must spend our own money.
Just when we thought the pro-pornography bias of the federal courts couldn’t get any worse, it did. In , 2005 another Clinton-appointed judge essentially declared federal obscenity laws to be unconstitutional and unenforceable. In U .S . v . Extreme Associates, he threw out an indictment against defendants who sold material over the internet which all sides agreed was obscene.
U .S. District Judge Gary Lancaster explained that his decision was a result of Lawrence v . Texas (2005 ), the sodomy case:“The Lawrence decision”, however, is nevertheless important to this case. It can be reasonably interpreted as holding that public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public’s sense of morality. Such is the import of Lawrence to our decision.” Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence was prophetic: “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”
The Third Circuit overturned the Extreme Associates ruling, but it stands as an example of the pro-pornography bias of many life-tenured judges and of the continuing mischief of Lawrence v .Texas.
The pornographic sea continues to rise in Hollywood movies, and even daily newspapers complain about the “ratings creep” that allows more and more violent and sexually explicit content. Judges Promote Pornography .
Although the public won’t patronize x-rated movies in respectable movie theaters, the x-rated and xxx-rated video business has become a multi-billion-dollar industry,turning out about four thousand movies a year under protection of the First Amendment as defined by the Supreme Court.
The courts are not interpreting the First Amendment; they are rewriting it to guarantee the profits of pornographers. The judicial supremacists have made the First Amendment a traffic signal that flashes green to pornographers but red or yellow to religious and political speech. From Hollywood movies, to primetime and cable television, to dirty books and songs,“the suffocating vulgarity of popular culture” is all around us. We can’t hope for any revival of civility and morality in the entertainment industry until Congress clips the power of the Imperial Judiciary to overturn legislative attempts to maintain decency.
What’s Life Like Under A Trump Presidency
- Broadcast in Politics
Call in to speak with the host
Trump’s in power, What will the economy look like in 4 years. Wll you have a job? DR. Jerome Huyler will answer this question based upon the Moral Philosophy of John Locke.
Jerome Huyler(P.h.D) is an assistant professor at Seton Hall University. He earned his PhD in political science from the New School University in 1992 and his bachelor’s degree from Brooklyn College, where he majored in philosophy. Dr. Huyler’s doctoral dissertation was edited for publication as Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era (University Press of Kansas, 1995,2001). He also authoredEverything You Have: The Case Against Welfare(1980). Jerome has delivered talks at Columbia University, New York University, St. John’s University, Baruch College, and the University of Connecticut, among others.
- Broadcast in Politics
Join us this Tuesday, 9:00-10:00 pm EST for a vibrant illegal immigration discussion with special guest Maria Lynda Espinoza, co-Founder and National Director of The Remembrance Project, (www.TheRemembranceProject.org), a 501(c)(3) non-profit illuminating the issue of American citizens killed by illegal aliens.
Born in Rotan, TX in 1962, Espinoza is an outspoken leading anti-illegal immigration activist. As speaker, writer and national organizer for the grassroots movement educating others on the issue, she is also specifically an advocate for the families of Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens.
Espinoza’s flagship initiative is called The Stolen Lives Quilt ™, a national “Quilt of Remembrance”. She has expanded the organization to over 28 states and is widely recognized as the anti-illegal immigration expert responsible for helping Donald Trump glean his now famous, popular and respected understanding of, and public support for, American families victimized by illegal aliens through organizing private meetings of families with the candidate.
Espinoza also aspires to office and will discuss her candidacy for Congress (http://mariaforamerica.com/about/). Call in to join Espinoza and your hosts Reuben Torres & Mark Falzon: 646 915 8117 to listen only; and press 1 to comment or ask a question. This show sponsored by Studentsforabetterfuture.com
Count Down Till Show Time
Ruben Navarette Jr is spicing up the world of commentary these days and will be joining us tonite 9pm eastern to give his take on Immigration, Education, Healthcare, Jobs/Economy.
RADIO CALL IN 6469158117 OR LISTEN BY CLICKING HERE:
- Member of the USA Today Board of Contributors
- Nationally syndicated columnist with The Washington Post Writers Group
- Regular commentator on National Public Radio’s “Tell Me More With Michel Martin”
- Weekly commentator for CNN.COM
- Author of “A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano” (Bantam, 1993)
- Graduate of Harvard College and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government BACKGROUND Ruben is a popular speaker on the lecture circuit and a frequent guest on national television and radio shows. He is a fresh and increasingly important voice in the national political debate. His twice-weekly column offers new thinking on many of the major issues of the day, especially on thorny questions involving ethnicity and national origin. His column is syndicated worldwide by The Washington Post Writers Group. He is also a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors.After graduating from Harvard in 1990, Navarrette returned to his native Fresno, Calif., where he began a free-lance writing career that produced more than 200 articles in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, The Fresno Bee, the Chicago Tribune and The Arizona Republic.In 1997 he joined the staff of The Arizona Republic, first as a reporter and then as a twice-weekly columnist, before returning to Harvard in the fall of 1999 to earn a master’s in public administration from the Kennedy School of Government. He joined the editorial board of The Dallas Morning News in July 2000, and in 2005, moved to the San Diego Union-Tribune. His column has been in syndication since 2001.Navarrette draws on both his knowledge of policy and politics and his life experiences to provide meaningful and hard-hitting commentary. He is a gifted and widely sought speaker on Latino affairs, has worked as a substitute teacher in classes from kindergarten to high school, and has hosted radio talk shows. Navarrette has also served as guest host of public television’s “Life & Times” and has discussed current affairs on CNN, CNBC, Fox News Channel, National Public Radio and The PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer. He also does regular commentary for NPR’s “Morning Edition.”His book, “A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano,” drew favorable reviews after it was published in 1993. In 2000, he contributed an installment to “Chicken Soup for the Writer’s Soul,” of the best-selling “Chicken Soup for the Soul” series.
His columns won second place in the 2004 National Headliner Awards presented by the Press Club of Atlantic City. In 2002 and 2003, the Dallas Observer named him “Best Columnist at a Daily Newspaper.” For more information on Ruben go HERE
Join us live next Wednesday evening 9pm Eastern Time by calling in 6469158117 or clicking link as we discuss current issues of today Republican Candidate for US President Royce Jones .
Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Doreen Finkle on BlogTalkRadio
“Are you mad yet? Are you tired of pandering professional politicians selling you out to line their pockets with money? Are you tired of them breaking our economy with their constant interference and whacked out
social engineering? Our you tired of paying people not to riot because half the citizens are on the government dole? Then you have come to the right place.” This was said in the words of Republican candidate for President, Royce Jones. Have questionns about the direction of theis country? Royce Jones will supply you with the answer. Tonites topic will focus on Education, Immigration, Economy, Healthcare and more.
Royce has served in the Military “Texas Army National Guard 1975-1976 115th Engineers, 49th
Armor Division United States Marine Corps 1976-1985 serviced with the 1st, 2nd,3rd and 4th Marine Divisions and
2nd Air Wing Texas Army National Guard1991-1993 served with the 115th Engineers, 49th Armor Division. He is currently a Real Estate Investor, and he comes tonite to us with answers!. To find out more about him click here. ROYCE FOR PRESIDENT
Hosts: Reuben Torres Doreen Finkle
Dwight Kehoe of TPATH
Nicholas Purpura of TeamNJ
September 8, 2014
Dear Governor Christie,
The scope and intent of this open letter is not meant to disparage you unfairly. But…in respect to all which has occurred during your tenure, what you have done and not done, things you have said and not said, these two questions beg for answers:
Who are you? Where are you?
As you are aware, patriotic groups supported you and worked to get votes out for you in your first general election to be governor. They worked for your reelection, albeit not quite as forcefully as the first. Much in your first 4 years earned that diminished fervor.
It’s understood that being a successful politician requires a certain amount of give and take, compromise and acquiescence. But those rules of the game should never be allowed to invade, destroy or subvert one’s inner core beliefs or moral values.
The left in this country survives on such deception and could not exist without it being woven though every part of their agenda. On the other hand, the Republican Establishment, in which you Sir are well entrenched, is generally spineless and while the leadership may have some core values, they find it very difficult to dredge up the courage to espouse or defend them.
Conservatives, true conservatives, which the Tea Party and other patriotic groups are mostly comprised of, refuse to permit the ruination of this country’s culture and her freedoms in the course of obtaining or maintaining political stature. It’s not a big leap of comprehension to see why both parties, yours and the left’s, feel threatened by and hence, detest those conservative groups.
As we lead up to the biggest part of the question, -Who are you?-, let us reflect upon some of your curious and befuddling statements, actions and of course, non-actions.
1. Until the Tea Party here in NJ informed you that they understood RGGI (New Jersey’s own global warming hoax) for what it is, nothing more than a hidden tax on the middle class, you were all for it. It’s doubtful you were not aware of this and it appears that you backed off only when you realized the people would be apprized.
2. Your “Bromance at the Shore” has clubbed you sufficiently but as of now it is still very difficult for most people to comprehend it or forgive it. Especially since many of the people you supposedly wanted to help were forgotten and ignored. Bankruptcy was the only answer for many. The bottom line on this sorry episode is that you stroked Obama, you made sweet promises of love and compassion to the people of New Jersey, but you only succeeded in helping Obama screw the entire country.
3. Your order for a special election, which wasted several million tax payer dollars that would not have had to be spent if you only appointed a Republican to finish out Lautenberg’s Senate term, was yet another curious move for a person who is (was?) a Republican. Especially since, if you will recall, Lautenberg was illegally allowed to run for that seat when the deadline had passed for his inclusion on the ballot.
4. Joining with Governor Cuomo in preventing a natural gas pipeline into New Jersey which would have helped the lower middle income earners with cheaper energy prices raises yet more questions about who you really are.
5. And then there was the anamolistic “confession” that you admired and agreed with Governor Cuomo on about 90% of his positions. That is worrisome Governor, since Cuomo is a 100% liberal.
6. Just this past week, you announced you have no position or thoughts and will issue no statements on the immigration mess this state and country are embroiled in. At least not unless and until you announce your plans to run for President. Did we miss something? Are you not an elected official. Are you not responsible to the people of New Jersey in this matter? Or is your only goal the preservation of your political position? Are we not entitled to the leadership we elected you for, regardless of whether you will or will not run for President?
7. The office you hold requires that you take an oath to protect the United States Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. That oath did not include the phrase, “provided that protection does not interfere with my political future”.
Which brings us to the ultimate question, who are you Mr. Christie? And where are you?
• Where were you for over a year when Brian Aitkin was prosecuted and imprisoned on a ridiculous weapons charge? Yes, we know you eventually got around to letting him go free. What took so long?
• During the past two years the socialist NJ Senate and Assembly spent millions of dollars and important time creating gun laws which violated not only their oaths of office, but yours. Yes, we know you vetoed some of them and passed some others. Was this yet another compromise for your personal benefit?
• Then, these same leftists decided to waste more tax payer’s money, more of their own precious “law making time” and began yet another assault on our rights. The effort this time was to prevent hunters, sportsman and protectors of family and property from being able to have enough ammunition capacity in their weapons to be effective. They were wasting time on an unconstitutional law, which over night would have made millions of New Jersey citizens, criminals.
• Where were you when this was occurring? Why did you not tell them to stop throwing hard earned tax dollars out the window if you knew you would veto it? Yes, you did veto it, but at what cost?
• Now Governor, we have another example of unconstitutional laws persecuting an American citizen. Shaneen Allen, a mother and sole provider of income and support for her two children has been anguishing in uncertainty for a year. She spent over 40 days in a NJ jail cell and is being bullied by a so called Republican Administration and threatened with years of jail time unless she admits guilt and agrees to be forever classified as a felon. Where are you on this travesty Mr. Christie?
Governor, the state of New Jersey and you, continue to be in violation
of Federal law and the Constitution you have sworn to defend.
The most liberal federal panel of justices in this country, the 9th District Court, has unanimously ruled that laws infringing on ownership of firearms, such as those on the books in NJ and other liberal states, are in violation of the Constitution. Last year the Supreme Court ruled against Chicago’s ban on concealed carry. Just his summer another Federal Judge ruled that any person, not being a felon who owned a legal firearm is legally permitted to carry it in any state in this country.
Ms. Allen is yet another example of how the outrageous gun laws here in NJ are meant to intimidate honest citizens into giving up their rights while doing nothing to prevent vermin from raping, steeling and killing.
As you know, at least we hope you are aware, Ms. Allen is an African American who has been robbed and threatened in her home and on the street. She did all the right things that Pennsylvania required to legally secure and own a tool of protection. She was not aware that when crossing into the Socialist State of New Jersey, her rights no longer existed. She obeyed the law of PA which required her to inform any policeman she had dealings with by announcing she had her weapon with her and that she was licensed to have it. Your police state, Governor, then arrested her.
Even if your thinking has been clouded by the thought of national aspirations and you have fooled yourself into believing that the gun laws here in NJ are not unconstitutional and do not violate the 2nd Amendment, our Constitution also provides for the Sovereignty of States and its citizens. Your laws, we say your laws because you enforce them, create a felon of anyone convicted of even the most minor infraction. Being a felon denies a citizen the right to vote. New Jersey, by convicting Ms. Allen will violate the sovereignty of Pennsylvania and with it Shaneen’s.
Many hundreds of people die as a result of various daily activities ranging from car accidents, swimming, poor doctoring, falls and poisoning. The percentage of deaths which can be attributed to legally owned fire arms is so small as to require several decimal places to define. Yet this state concerns itself with legal firearms to the extent that many hard working, otherwise law abiding people, have been and and continue to be incarcerated for violating even the most minor of those unconstitutional laws and others are terrorized by their elected officials into accepting their fate at the hands of criminals for fear of breaking some idiotic gun law.
So we ask you again Governor. Where are you? Who are you? Are you a conservative or merely borrowing the term for personal gain? Will you step in and release Ms. Allen from the maltreatment inflicted upon her by the beautiful Garden State?
Will you work to bring New Jersey law into compliance with Federal rulings and demand our law makers begin to adhere to the constraints of our Constitution?
TPATH, TeamNJ and many citizens await your response.
Dwight Kehoe TPATH
Nicholas Purpura TeamNJ
Free use of this open letter is not only permitted but desired. If you agree with this letter and also would like these questions answered, please pass this letter on to your State Senator or Assemblyman.
Contact TPATH HERE
Contact TeamNJ HERE
LIVE NOW Watch this political reality team strike it up rich.
Air date of show: September 4th 8pm here: http://www.studentsforabetterfuture.com/eagle-on-the-air/
Judicial Tryanny Part II
Race Based Injustice
Join us at http:studentsforabetter future.com/eagle-on the-air/. Thursday September 4th at 8: PM with our special guest the H
on. Judge R. Chambers from Missouri. We originally planned to continue the discussion on the need for Judicial Reform and will do so in the coming weeks demonstrating the judiciary has become a dictatorship unconstitutionally governing without legislative authority corrupting our Constitution.
Instead next Thursday, September 4th we will address two separate incidents, the Ferguson, Missouri incident concerning a lowlife thieving gangbanger Michael Brown who was justifiably shot by a police officer in self-defense after being attacked.
That set the stage for the race-baiters and looters to come out of the woodwork giving the lowest of low in society to steal, loot, and murder.
Out from under their rocks came the Media and the anti-white self-serving opportunists; Al (the instigator, no justice no peace) Sharpton and Jessie (the extortionist) Jackson posing as Black leaders with their usual vitriol in order to secure their group of supposedly victims. Justice and truth be damned.
If the situation wasn’t bad enough Obama sent in his number 1 racist agitator Attorney General, Erick Holder to Missouri further order to widen the racial divide. “I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man.” Whoopee, I guess that statement justified the behavior of the degenerates that have no regard for life, property, or law because of the pigment of their skin.
Over the last six-years this administration modus operandi has been to slander the police as well the white community stirring up racial strife as an excuse to call Marshall Law. All this while a true miscarriage of Justice is taking place in the People’s Republic of New Jersey.
I ask, Mr. Holder where are you, Obama and the two race mongers while whites are being murdered throughout the country by black gangbangers?
Why is the media silent concerning what took place in New Jersey, could it be because it’s a Second Amendment issue? Where is the media concerning the increase of black on white crime as well as black on black criminal behavior? I suggest everyone read the article by Mychal Massie article in “Daily Rant, Race& Politics 10” August 22, 2014. “If Whites Were Black Their Murders Would Matter”.
On September 4th we will address the plight of Ms. Shaneen Allen a black American mother of two, medical assistant who mistakenly crossed the Pennsylvania border into People’s Republic of New Jersey. For her honesty she now faces 3-10 years in jail. Believing she was following the law (as required in Pa.) she informed a State Trooper during a traffic violation that was had a concealed carry permit and was armed. For so doing she was immediately handcuffed and hauled off to jail and now faces 3-10 years in jail, denied release as if she were a risk to society.
The question the Eagle asks where are the peaceful protestor? Where are to so-called Black leaders coming to her defense? Only white Americans are standing at her side. Groups like the NJ2Amendment Society among many others. The press and the race-mongers are nowhere to be found.
Sadly in New Jersey, the Second Amendment is meaningless, unlike 90-percent of the country. New Jersey has become a progressive police state. Governor Christie’s prosecutors and most of the legislature would rather make an example of Ms. Adams to disarm all law abiding citizens through intimidation and draconian law. We will address the constitutionality of New Jersey’s firearms restrictions in relationship to the Constitution of the United States.
If ever there was a reason to institute “Nullification” Ms. Allen’s plight warrants every citizen of the State of New Jersey summoned to sit as jurors to demand the Court explain their option, prior to deliberation.
The Eagle, Constitutionalist Nick Purpura