Magna Carta - The Point of a Sword

06/29/2015 08:51

by Allen Williams


Failing to learn the Magna Carta lesson of Britain's Prince John at Runnymede in 1215 AD, the majority of Supreme Court justices, along with the Obama Administration, should be handed the US Bill of rights on the point of a sword.  And that sword should go straight through the US tenth Amendment for sufficient emphasis.  Most of these justices should be disbarred for ignoring the fact that the 10th Amendment is reserved to the states and to the people in deciding social constructs like marriage, healthcare, etc, never the courts. Nowhere in the framers constitution is this authority ceded to any of the federal branches of government. So, how has this come about you might ask?


The US High Court operates under an international constitution having "..turned sodomites lose amo ng o ur young, implemented foreign laws, rules, regulations and procedures within the body of the country" in its quest to protect special interests that direct its activities. "The Emerging Constitution" by Rexford G. Tugewll, which was accomplished under the auspices of the Rockefeller tax-exempt foundation called the "Center For The Study of Democratic Institutionsis the leading thrust behind the co-opting of the American judiciary.


The Supreme Court today is a puppet tribunal, a body acting in an adjudicative capacity with no inherent authority from either the US Constitution or US decide social issues. It derives its ubiquitous authority from foreign treaties and is a useful tool of international banking and other special interests.  In the emerging new America defined by this gulag, all rights are transient, continuing only at the pleasure of the state. It interprets the meaning of words as it chooses: "The Supreme Court of the United States effectively rewrote the text of Obamacare to save the legislation...By a 6-3 majority, the Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s decision in King v. Burwell and decided that federal subsidies were available on state Obamacare exchanges, even though the text of the so-called Affordable Care Act said that such subsidies were only available on “State” exchanges."

The quest for socialized medicine wasn't about health anymore than gay marriage is about the right of same sex couples to marry but rather is a highly organized psychological attack on First Amendment choices, practicing ones personal beliefs and speaking their mind freely. The notion that ones speech and views must not be offensive to others is the work of a band of slick propagandists who have sold the public on the idea that perversion is true freedom  having gotten a huge boost from the court in Lawrence v. Texas. The notion that a nation's internal laws may be changed or eliminated through international treaty is a treasonous perversion of original intent. However, other nations have succumbed to this logic as speech that disagrees or challenges gay assertions has been criminalized in Canada and readers may expect the United States to follow suit. Why is this happening? Because increasingly due to debt, nations are falling under the authority of UN declarations on human rights  as a condition of being rescued from financial insolvency.

So, if laws have no inherent specificity based on word choice, structure and content other than the whimsical and general interpretations of the court then anything is possible and decisions will occur in the favor of those with the most political clout and ability to command money.  America and other civilized nations function on agreements and when words fail to mean what they portend, then civilization and civility breaks down. And, when government alone believes it has the right to change laws and statues without due process then no one or anything is safe and such a society will ultimately be ruled by despots. Doubt that? The French too proclaimed Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity under Robespierre as blood flowed through the streets of Paris.


The United States has undergone a number of reorganizations through secret foreign treaties triggered under bankruptcy laws. The first bankruptcy was " 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and Executive Order 6260 ." There's no further need to pack the courts anymore, all that's required is to sign a treaty to get whatever court decision you want.  "On January 17, 1980, the President and Senate confirmed another "Constitution", namely, the "Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization", found at Senate, Treaty Document No. 97-19, 97th Congress, 1st Session. "  And, if the treaty process is unsuccessful, there's always reliable blackmail information available from the NSA to get the court puppets moving in the preferred direction. Judging from the convoluted reasoning employed in King v Burwell, it appears that Roberts may have already been blackmailed into upholding the law.

So, what's next? We can expect to hear soon from other groups who have similarly been victimized by 'discrimination', i.e. polygamists, incesters, bestiality advocates and we've already heard from pedophiles who want rights to pursue children. Why have laws to ban any form of behavior?  And, shouldn't human sex trafficking be legal?  How long before the Supreme court upholds these supposed rights?


I leave you with the words of Wallace Henley: "Previously, I wrote in The Christian Post about the process by which the prophetic voice is silenced in a culture: Marginalization, caricaturization, vilification, criminaliza tion, elimination...We have reached the stage of vilification – conservative Christians are now regarded by the consensus establishments as the villains in "transformed" America. The Supreme Court may well take us to the criminalization stage."


One thing is certain, this court no longer has the consent of the governed.