Political Corruption at CBS News?

[Obama Tells Military To Fire On American Citizens]

Charles Osgood, the host of CBS Sunday Morning, shocked many
viewers when he introduced a segment that called for the
abolishment of the U.S. Constitution.

“Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which
most Americans hold it,” Osgood asked his viewers.

He then introduced Georgetown University Professor Louis Michael
Seidman — who launched into a lengthy essay bashing the Founding
Fathers and the Constitution.

“I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution,” he
said.

Seidman is a professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown. He
said Constitutional disobedience is “as American as apple pie.”

“If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
outdated document,” he said.

The segment ended without any objections from Osgood.

(CBS News) Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the
reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that from
Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at
Georgetown University:

I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution.

I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional
disobedience is as American as apple pie.

For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson,
Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the
Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their
way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in
the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and
inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are
important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are
now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions
that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a
presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the
American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama
really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what?

Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our
political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control.
None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical
of most forms of gun control.

I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager
to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then
we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it
what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control
makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of
it two centuries ago.

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional
obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political
discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which
reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s
commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America
itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the
kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the
United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people
who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country
as it exists today.

If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
outdated document.

http://nation.foxnews.com/cbs-news/2013/01/28/political-
corruption-cbs-news

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the
outlaw Obama administration?

No. Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a
controlled rate of aimed fire.

  

[Dave U. Random]

Post by Obama Tells Military To Fire On American Citizens
Charles Osgood, the host of CBS Sunday Morning, shocked many
viewers when he introduced a segment that called for the
abolishment of the U.S. Constitution.
“Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which
most Americans hold it,” Osgood asked his viewers.
He then introduced Georgetown University Professor Louis Michael
Seidman — who launched into a lengthy essay bashing the Founding
Fathers and the Constitution.
“I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution,” he
said.
Seidman is a professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown. He
said Constitutional disobedience is “as American as apple pie.”
“If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
outdated document,” he said.
The segment ended without any objections from Osgood.
(CBS News) Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the
reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that from
Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at
I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution.
I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional
disobedience is as American as apple pie.
For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson,
Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the
Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their
way.
To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in
the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and
inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are
important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are
now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions
that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a
presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the
American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama
really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what?
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our
political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control.
None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical
of most forms of gun control.
I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager
to talk with people who disagree.
But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then
we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it
what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control
makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of
it two centuries ago.
Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional
obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political
discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which
reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s
commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America
itself.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the
kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the
United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people
who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country
as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and
outdated document.
http://nation.foxnews.com/cbs-news/2013/01/28/political-corruption-cbs-news

The "constitution" was never worth the paper it was printed on. All
of it is lies. All of it.

So in this sense, the teleprompter script-writers were being honest,
for once. They are like a serial killer wanting to be caught.

[tingler]

Post by Dave U. Random
The "constitution" was never worth the paper it was printed on. All
of it is lies. All of it.

good thing you're dizum'd, talk like that could inspire a lead curtain

[Dave U. Random]

Post by tingler

Post by Dave U. Random
The "constitution" was never worth the paper it was printed on. All
of it is lies. All of it.

good thing you're dizum'd, talk like that could inspire a lead curtain

I suppose you're right. But life is filled with ironies. Leading up
to the first American "Civil" War (don't you just love oxymorons,
"friendly fire," "bank & trust," etc.), when blue-coat Union soldiers
entered saloons and marched in the streets of New York City to conscript
"volunteers" at gun-point, they shot dead any man that didn't make his
mark on the dotted line . . . so much for their "constitutional rights."

During the Vietnam "police action" better known as the "Vietnam War,"
Selective Service, the draft, forced many thousands of able-bodied young
men into atrocious wartime active duty in the US Military, under the
direct threat of being forced at gunpoint into serving heavy prison time
(if they didn't flee to Canada in time). Muhammad Ali was lucky enough
to be a much-admired world champion boxer at the time, but still they
ruined his career in the prime of his life.

The point being that brute force and intimidation is the only reality
that there has ever been. Did you know that in a court of law, a judge
can order a defendant held in jail indefinitely for something they call
"contempt of court?" It's like Big Brother's version of "for reasons
of national security," where they can commit the most heinous crimes,
injustices, and atrocities, routinely and with absolute impunity "just
because they say so." The government always lies to the public about
everything and does so with impunity. Try lying to the government once
and see what happens.

The word "government" is simply a euphemism for organized crime.

[Charles Bell]

On May 8, 4:16 pm, Dave U. Random <***@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>
wrote:
.

Post by Dave U. Random
The word "government" is simply a euphemism for organized crime.

So, let's do that: just as in Lincoln's War and much that led up to
it, remove the protections of the Constitution. Georgetown University
Professor Louis Michael Seidman whom you quote, Obama's mentor Harvard
Law School Laurence Tribe, and the entire Progressive gang of thugs
hate the Constitution as written and intended, and your opinion of the
Constitution and history is plagiarized from those very criminals who
want to organize government outside the Constitution's limitations on
government.

Post by Dave U. Random
Try lying to the government once and see what happens.

Yeah, and you have to pay yucky taxes and serve jury duty, too! Mow
your lawn occasionally, drive on the right side of the road, wear
clothes at least to the extent to cover the naughty bits. Why have a
lying Constitution that lies a bunch of lying lies if you still have
to wear something to cover your junk?

Post by Dave U. Random
During the Vietnam "police action" better known as the
"Vietnam War," Selective Service, the draft, forced many
thousands of able-bodied young men into atrocious wartime
active duty in the US Military,

"All we are saying is give peace a chance" for international communism
to spread throughout Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim like the Ho
Chi Minh swore to when he signed onto the Third International in
1920.

Post by Dave U. Random
The point being that brute force and intimidation is the
only reality that there has ever been.

Not to North Vietnam supporter, Khmer Rouge loving, (anarchist-
socialist-anti-American) libertarian Noam Chomsky :

“if you go back to the Constitutional debates, they are all very
clear: Madison, the framer of the Constitution, makes clear that the
prime responsibility of government is to protect the minority, the
opulent, against the majority.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JkXhF2DJ7fc#!

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm Chomsky Lies