Department Of Justice Embraces Obam's Politics Of Tyranny

from The Post & Email:

Department of Justice embraces Obama’s Politics of Tyranny


ARGUES IN KERCHNER VS. OBAMA APPELLEE BRIEF THAT U.S. CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND

Legal Analysis by John Charlton





From the American Revolution to today, there has been an intimate bond between our armed forces and the very political notion of liberty upon which our independence and Republic are founded.

(March 9, 2010) — Many U.S. Citizens have not awakened to the fact that the U.S.A. is no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a tyrannical state, overthrown from the very day Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to the ineligible candidate, Barack Hussein Obama II.



Those in denial of this bitter political reality need look no further for the evidence of the paradigm shift in the minds of lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice than the opposition brief filed by Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. Fishman, U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern and Eric Fleisig-Green, of the Appellate Staff Division of the DoJ, before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kerchner et al. vs. Obama & Congress.



The core of the Department of Justice’s argument manifests in the clearest terms that they no longer hold the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, but rather consider it merely as a theoretical construct, the violation of which harms no one in particular, on pp. 9-10 (Bold Face added):



Plaintiffs suggest that their injuries are analogous to those of states affected by global warming or individuals injured by government displays of religion. See Pl. Br. 39 (citing cases). But none of plaintiffs’ cited cases suggests that a mere interest in the proper application of the law, unaccompanied by more concrete consequences particular to a plaintiff, can serve as the basis of Article III standing. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) (reinforcing that under Article III “a litigant must demonstrate that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent”); Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1086 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[A] mere abstract objection to unconstitutional conduct is not sufficient to confer standing.”) (cited at Pl. Br. 39).



As a sworn upholder of the Constitution, Commander Kerchner is no longer a private citizen-per-se, but a Constitutional officer who is bound to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land against all enemies, foreign and domestic.



Considering that Obama holds foreign citizenship and has used his claim to U.S. Citizenship to enter into an office for which he is not eligible by the mere fact of holding British Citizenship from birth (cf. our article, 4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen” ), he is rightly considered both a foreign and a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution.



Considering that Commander Kerchner is duty-bound to defend the Constitution against such an enemy, his case and his appeal are perfectly lawful, right, and just, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has a constitutional duty to hear the appeal and overturn the anarchical decision of Judge Jerome B. Simandle, who dismissed the case.



Furthermore, Kerchner, in being forced to accept an ineligible Commander-in-Chief by the action of the Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 2009 when they selected an ineligible candidate to be U.S. President, is harmed directly and most intimately in his adhesion to the very Armed Forces which is duty-bound to uphold that Constitution.



If the violation of the U.S. Constitution’s explicit, facial obligations for holding the office of the U.S. President is a crime which harms no one in particular and which thus presents no basis for a judicial review, then the Republic has been overthrown by the Chicago Mob, and there is no recourse left but ballots and armed counter-revolution.



By claiming such violation is no grounds for a case in Federal Court, the Department of Justice has publicly admitted that it accepts a political theory of usurpation and tyranny whereby a small coterie of individuals, controlling both parties, can overthrow the constitutional order of our Republic and nullify any constitutional restriction as long as they, and they alone, are unanimous in their action.



In other words, the Department of Justice has just confessed and admitted a theory of dictatorship of the few over the democratic rule by the People. And that is the Politics of Tyrants.



The Third Circuit Court would be well-advised to consider that without a U.S. Armed Forces bound to a constitutionally eligible and respectful Commander-in-Chief, once they refuse to uphold the rights of members of the U.S. Military to contest the claims of such an illegitimate commander, they expose themselves to become the next victims of the use of such military force against the other branches of government: for if you render the military oath of no force or value before your court, you have declared that the armed forces are no longer are bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution in any term or obligation which that document declares.



It’s a simple choice then: the Constitution or tyranny; liberty or death!



© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.