An Eerie Resemblance of … the Soviet Union

Unfortunately, when I saw what is happenning in this country in the last year, I can see an eerie resemblence of what I saw in the Soviet union. We see a totally corrupt press that is manipulated by a few in power and we see a corrupt system of government.

Forgive her mistakes in spelling and grammar. She speaks from personal experience and she speaks the truth.

I will withhold judgment on the SCOTUS until January 12th. There are currently four different cases on their docket which document why Barack Hussein Obama fails to qualify to hold the office of POTUS and C-in-C.

Berg v. Obama

Donofrio v. Wells

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz

Lightfoot, et al., v. Bowen

By denying the applications for stays, the Supreme Court has only refused to interrupt the electoral process in the Legislative Branch. The Supreme Court has not “refused to hear” (denied certiorari to) any of the cases brought before it.

The Judicial Branch cannot remain silent if the Legislative Branch certifies an unqualified head of the Executive Branch.

If by January 12th the SCOTUS has not granted certiorari to 1 or more of the 4 cases, then I will agree that the entire system is corrupt. I personally expect the SCOTUS to act, as I believe they take seriously their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, even if the entire Legislative Branch fails to honor their oath.

This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to An Eerie Resemblance of … the Soviet Union

  1. Jax says:

    Jeez, harsh words. Maybe you should lay some of the blame at the feet of the party that appointed those Supreme Court Justices and have been in power for the past eight years.

    No, no, I’m sorry, that would involve reality. Keep blaming liberals for all of your problems, that seems to be working for you.

  2. Jax,

    You must look not only at the President who appointed Supreme Court Justices but also at the Senate that confirmed them.

    President Ford, who was our nation’s only unelected President, had no chance of having a conservative Justice confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Ford acted from a position of weakness, not strength. Hence Justice Stevens.

    Reagan did well with Justice Scalia, but could have done better than Justice Kennedy.

    I believe our 41st President, George H. W. Bush, was a “Trojan Horse”, and that his nomination of the liberal Justice Souter was no accident. It was only after conservatives saw what Souter really was, and made their opinions known during the next vacancy, that we got the conservative Justice Thomas.

    Justices Ginsberg and Breyer were no surpise, being liberal Clinton nominees.

    I think the best and longest-lasting legacy of 43rd President George W. Bush will be his two additions to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

    So, we end up with:

    A) Four conservative Justices, two nominated by George W. Bush, one by his father George H. W. Bush, and one by Reagan,

    B) One “swing vote” moderate, nominated by Reagan, and

    C) Four liberal Justices, two nominated by Clinton, one by George H. W. Bush, and one by Ford.

    If I blame anyone, it is the 41st President George H. W. Bush. He betrayed his party with the nomination of Souter.

  3. Jax says:

    If you have to look at the Senate who confirmed them, why don’t you lay some blame at the door of the historically conservative Senate elected during Clinton’s presidency?

  4. The way conservatives have voted on judicial confirmations compared to the way liberals have voted on judicial confirmations is like night and day. Conservatives have voted based on the judge/justice’s qualifications. Liberals have voted based on the judge/justice’s political ideology.

    Compare the votes for Ginsberg and Breyer to the votes for Roberts and Alito.

    And by the way, both Clinton and Obama voted against both of W.’s highly qualified nominees. “Mr. Transparency” even complained about a failure to provide critical documents.

    Kind of like your failure to provide critical documents like your original Birth Certificate, Barry? The only thing offered by your team is a KOS Kiddie forgery that has NOT been “verified” by Hawaiian officials.

  5. Jax says:

    To be fair, Red, Bush nominated three people to the Supreme Court. You’re conveniently forgetting Harriet Myers, who was about as qualified as, well, you.

    So here’s my question: you approve, strongly, of at least four of the current Supreme Court Justices. So when none of them, not one, agree to take up this case, what are you going to blame? Blackmail? Sabotage? Perhaps the conservative justices have been replaced by liberal clones? And when you answer this question and start your reply with the phrase “I think,” “I believe” or “I predict,” remember that every one of your predictions, without exception, has been wrong.

  6. I didn’t forget Harriet Myers. I just didn’t mention her because she is not on the court.

    Harriet Myers is qualified to be a SCOTUS Justice. Harry Reid told President Bush that he thought Harriet Myers would be a nominee that the Democrats could support.

    Harriet Myers withdrew herself from consideration when she realized that Harry Reid and the Democrats only wanted to use her nomination as an excuse to demand access to documents between the President and his chief White House counsel.

    Harriet Myers had more common sense about that then President Bush.

    What are you going to do if your prediction is wrong?

  7. Jax says:

    Please. Harriet Miers (original misspelling mine, I’ll cop to it) was opposed by numerous Senate Republicans and conservative groups because she had never served as a judge before and was ill-informed on multiple points of the law, Constitutional and otherwise. She was opposed by almost every member of the Senate Judiciary Commitee, and this was before the Democratic takeover in ’06.

    If my prediction is wrong, I’ll probably start a blog where I complain endlessly about enormous conservative conspiracies, compare my country to the Soviet Union and advocate revolution and overthrow of the democratically-elected government in order to place people who agree with me in power. Oh no, wait. That’s you.

    If the Supreme Court takes this up, I will be extremely surprised and admit, publicly and on this comments section, that I was wrong and that there must be more to this issue than I originally thought. You know, like a grown-up. I’d ask what you’re going to do when it turns out that you’re wrong, but I think if this blog has proven anything, it’s that you’re going to slightly modify your delusions and continue to accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of treason.

  8. If both the Congress and the SCOTUS allow this usurper to become POTUS and C-in-C, then I will prepare for Martial Law.


  9. Jax says:

    I’m sure you will. Seriously. But as I’ve pointed out, you’ve been running a giant goose egg when it comes to predicting the future. The question is, what will you do when it doesn’t happen?

  10. Jax says:

    Yes, yes, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Martial law still isn’t happening. Perhaps you want to prepare for something more likely, like Jesus arriving on the Hale-Bopp comet or the coming zombie apocalypse.

    This is what I keep trying to tell you, man. There are people who are doing what you’re doing with every single president ever elected. If they’re on the right, the far-left goes nuts; if they’re on the left, the far-right goes nuts. It’s not the end of the world. It’s democracy. If you don’t like what happens, you get another chance to elect your guy in four years.

  11. if they’re on the left, the far-right goes nuts

    It’s not just the far-right that realizes how dangerous this usurper is.

  12. Jax says:

    Good God, you’re RIGHT! Other people with a pre-conceived political bias against Obama are on your side as well!!! That must mean every half-baked notion you’re subscribing to is true!

    Oh no, wait. It means some people will believe anything that backs up their own personal opinions, no matter how tenuous the basis in reality.

  13. Reality: In 1758, it was understood that “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens“.

    Reality: In 1787, when our Constitution was ratified with the requirement that our President and Commander in Chief of all our Armed Services be a natural born citizen, our founders intended for the POTUS & C-in-C to be “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. The only exception was the grandfather clause that also allowed those who were U.S. Citizens (versus natural born Citizens) in 1787.

    Reality: Obama may be a Citizen, but he is not a natural born Citizen, because he openly admits that both he and his father had British citizenship at the time of his birth.

    Reality: If Obama was born in Kenya, when his mother was not old enough by Hawaiian law to confer U.S. citizenship upon him, then he would not even be a U.S. citizen at all.

    Reality: There is primary source documentation that Obama was registered as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen, religion: Islam, when he attended school in Indonesia.

    There is a very real possibility that a man who may have never held U.S. citizenship at all, who may presently be an Indonesian citizen, who wrote a book published in Indonesia with the title “Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House”, who was inspired by Communist Frank Marshall Davis, Malcolm X, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright…

    …is now on the doorstep of realizing that Assault Hope, of taking complete command of our entire military…

    …without having been required to even show his original Birth Certificate!

    Now you subscribe to the notion that he shouldn’t be challenged and required to prove he qualifies (which he can’t because he’s already proven he doesn’t qualify).

    The notion that he shouldn’t be challenged…THAT’S a “half-baked notion”!

  14. Jax says:

    Reality: In 1758, slavery was legal and the American colonies recognized the absolute rule of King George the 2nd. Things change. The Constitution does not recognize that document as legally binding, or at all.

    Reality: You know how we know what the founding fathers intended? By what they put in the Constitution or its following Amendements, and despite all your research, you still have to go back to 1758 to find anything that even suggests that both of your parents have to be citizens, and even THAT doesn’t suggest that you can’t share dual citizenship through a parent. Besides, as you yourself have pointed out, President Chester A. Arthur had an Irish-born father.

    Reality: The entire basis of your argument is a falsehood. It is incorrect. It does not pass muster. Just because someone has a parent that was born in another country does NOT mean they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. It is entirely based on your understanding of the Constitution, but your understanding of the Constitution and two bucks will buy you a cup of coffee in this country. What counts is the ruling of the Supreme Court, and they are not going to consider this case or stop this inaguration. If they do, I’ll be back to eat humble pie, but they’re not.

    Reality: Challenge him all you want. That’s what the court cases are doing. When they are turned down, please realize that it’s not because of an enormous conspiracy, or George W. Bush being threatened by terrorists to do a lousy job so a Democrat could get elected or aliens from outer space controlling our brain waves. It’s because we’re in the middle of two long, painful wars and our economy is in a deep recession, so the American people voted for the other party’s candidate. It happens. A lot.

    Reality: George W. Bush’s greatest legacy was not going to Iraq or the nomination of two conservative Supreme Court justices. It was doing a lousy enough job so that this country could get a Democrat back in the Whilte House and elect, by a large margin, President-Elect Obama. Please remember this the next time you vote for an poor candidate for no other reason than that he’ll tick off liberals.

  15. Jax,

    One or both of us will be eating humble pie on January 20th. (Maybe I’ll explain later how it could be both of us)

    Keep in mind that this affidavit is in the hands of the Supreme Court Justices.

    Merry Christmas,
    Red Pill.

  16. cajunpatriot says:

    Red Pill,

    I read this entire comments section and couldn’t wait to see the affidavit, but the link says page not found. Argh! Can you please fix?

    I love your writing, philosophy, outlook and especially how you chose your name.

    Peace be with you, and Happy New Year!

  17. cajunpatriot,
    Thanks for letting me know that the link was no longer working. It worked when I submitted that comment, but between my comment and yours Berg changed the URL to include the date. I have updated the link to the affidavit and it works now.

    You should also look at the exhibits that go along with that affidavit. The first page appears blank at first, but scroll down to see the exhibits.

    Thank you for your kind words,
    Red Pill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s