Additional Titles









"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges





PART 3 of 3


By Jon Christian Ryter
November 21, 2008

The House, also controlled by the GOP, quickly replaced HR-666 with a closely scrutinized HR-2703 that became law. When President George W. Bush championed the the first USA Patriot Act of 2001, every provision stripped from HR-666 appeared in that piece of legislation. The USA Patriot Act was enacted into law on Oct. 26, 2001 and, as Bush signed the measure, New York Times columnist William O. Safire observed the following day that Bush-43 had seized dictatorial powers. But, because Sept. 11 was still vivid in everyone's mind, few people objected, believing that Bush-43—the cowboy—was more ideologically akin to Cowboy Reagan that he was to his predecessor, Bill Clinton. They were wrong. Fearing for their jobs, Congress left the most radical aspects of the Patriot Act on the cutting room floor. Doing so required an encore in 2003 when Patriot Act II, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 was enacted to make permanent several aspects of the USA Patriot Act that contained sunset clauses.

Those measures included: applying provisions of Woodrow Wilson's Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 (as amended by FDR in 1933) against the American people even without a national emergency. Among the provisions was the abrogation of the 4th Amendment; the abrogation of the 5th Amendment by forcing citizens to testify against themselves; eliminating the subset clauses in the original Patriot Act; authorizing the government to use any type of covert surveillance on those suspected of planning terrorist acts by using FISA courts to secure their warrants; authorizing warrantless searches; and authorizing surreptitious access to all public and private sector information databases on all citizens. Further, the law would allow government to deny anyone access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. It would also authorize the creation of a DNA database on all US citizens and resident aliens and authorize Homeland Security to extradite American citizens to any country they wish—even if the US citizen had never been there and has no genealogical ties with that country. And by no means finally, the Patriot Act II provides no statute of limitations for terrorism. There are over 500 abrogation of civil liberties found in Patriot II that wore the magic eraser to a "nub."

After winning the White House in the "national lottery" on Nov. 4, 2008, President-elect Barack Hussein Obama noted that, in his view, the Constitution of the United States was fatally flawed because it was written by white men at a time when black men were slaves. Obama noted in his book, Audacity of Hope, that "...[I]implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth—the infallibility of any idea or ideology, or theology, or 'ism,' any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, inalterable course...The Constitution," he observed, "envisions a road map by which we marry passion to reason—the ideal of individual freedom to the demands of the community."

Like the liberals on the high court, Obama sees the Constitution as a "living document." But he sees it the same way he sees taxation—as a tool for income-leveling. Like most liberals, Obama doesn't care about the strict reading of the Constitution since, in his view, the fact that it's a living document trumps the words penned by the Founding Fathers 232 years ago. Today's liberal believes they have the right to amend the Constitution by adding and subtracting a word here and there.

Today's liberals on the high court—Stephen Breyer, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—believe the same thing. Their choice is to couple unrelated amendments and/or case law (sometimes international case law) to arrive at entirely new interpretations of established law. Obama takes his views a step farther. In his view the Constitution is a blank slate upon which his judicial appointees can write anything they want—providing those words coincide with his views of Black Utopia.

In a 2001 interview with Chicago radio station WBEZ.FM radio which surfaced a year or so ago, Obama sadly observed that the Supreme Court never ventured into the area of redistributing the wealth of the nation. (Probably because the idea of stealing the wealth of one man solely to give it to someone else who has no wealth is not only unconstitutional it's immoral.) Obama noted in that interview that he was not optimist that redistributive change would ever take place through the courts. Therefore, if its going to happen, new principles would have to be applied. Obama believes the Constitution of the United States is currently on life support. He intends to be the President that pulls the plug. What remains of our inherent constitutional rights will be completely erased during Obama's administration, and brand new "communal" rights that will, in his view, "restore fairness to the economy," will be penned into Obama's living Constitution by the three or four justices he expects to appoint while in office.


Obama has said he expects the high court to view the Constitution through the prism of political correctness When asked by what yardstick he would measure judges as President, Obama said: "...we need [judges who have] heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Obama fails, or simply refuses, to grasp the fact that the reason for the Constitution, and the prescribed method of amending it is to prevent this very type of arrogant tyranny.

In his WBEZ.FM radio interview Obama said he regarded the worst failure of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren's court was the way the high court ruled on civil rights issues in the early 1960s. The Warren Court, he said, "...failed to break free from the essential constraints..." of the Constitution by ordering a major redistribution of wealth. Then Illinois State Senator Obama said that, in his view, the legislative branch of government and not the courts, would probably be the best venue for accomplishing his goal.

However, the US Constitution precludes the targeted taxing of one class of people solely for the benefit of another class of people. Both State and federal courts have consistently ruled that it is arbitrary taxation for governments to subject one class of citizens of a punitive tax solely to benefit another class of people. In 22 Missouri 835, Wells v City of Weston, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the legislature the right to tax property in one taxing jurisdiction to benefit of another class of citizens in a different taxing jurisdiction. The Supreme Courts in Kentucky, Wisconsin and Iowa also ruled in similar cases and rendered similar decisions. When it ruled on a case of arbitrary taxation, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that dipping into the pockets of one class of taxpayer to benefit another class of taxpayer violates the principles of uniform taxation which, the Justices said, was a settled principle of constitutional law.

Obama noted that the "...tragedy of the civil rights movement was...[that it] became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change." The major change Obama expects to implement during his presidency is to permanently erase the concepts of limited government from the United States. He sees himself as America's black Franklin D. Roosevelt. Like Roosevelt who knew, going in, that the Supreme Court would not sanction the core socialist principles of the New Deal—which violated the Constitution—Obama knows that what he wants to accomplish cannot be achieved through court action. "The court's not very good at [this type of thing]," Obama noted. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues." Obama concluded by saying he needs to scrap the limits placed on government power because they will get in the way of the planned redistribution of wealth.

During his campaign against Sen. John McCain for the presidency, Obama ran on a promise of change. Sadly, no one—not the media nor Obama's supporters pushed him for a definitive answer to the question: "What specific types of changes are you talking about?" The American people, tired of eight years of George W. Bush, thought any change would be better than what they had. The American people were wrong. The change Obama plans to implement is to legislatively erase the tenets of limited government and create a socialist democracy modeled after the Soviet Union. To achieve this goal, the Constitution must be substantially modified—or erased. The Utopians need the Bill of Rights—in particular, the 2nd Amendment's provision that allows private citizens to own guns—erased in order to make the United States an economic vassal of the New World Order without triggering a second American Revolution.

Listening to Obama's current rhetoric and his recorded conversations prior to seeking the office of President (which were adroitly concealed from public scrutiny by the media) it's clear that his campaign slogans: "change you can believe in," and "change we need," were merely synonyms for redistributive change. Obama, the Messiah of black liberation theology addressed the 99th Annual NAACP Conference on July 14, 2008 and promised that, if elected, he would redistribute the wealth of America and that he would return for the 100th Anniversary celebration of the NAACP in 2009 as the "...President of the United States. At that moment," he said, "you and I will truly know that a new day has come in this country..." Obama promised that the members of the NAACP would see the fulfillment of his promise to redistribute the wealth of America. "Social justice," Obama said, "is not enough. The inseparable twin or racial justice is economic justice....It matters little if you have the right to sit in the front of the bus if you can't afford the bus fare. It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch."

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Several times when he was campaigning for the White House, Obama told his audiences: "We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change it!" Conservatives latched onto the phrase because it sounded as though Obama wanted to change the greatest nation on earth and make it less great. In point of fact, that is precisely what Obama, who sees himself as greater than the rest of us, plans to do. And that is the change he plans to make. Making America less great and, of course, making White America less wealthy as he uses arbitrary taxation to strip the "haves" of the wealth earned by their own sweat equity investment in America in order to give it to the "have nots" who are sitting idly at the lunch counter but can't afford lunch.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3,

� 2008 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

[Read Jon C. Ryter's book, "Whatever Happened to America?" It's out of print and supply is limited.]

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

E-Mail: [email protected]









The authority of the federal government to spend the money of the taxpayers was very limited by the Constitution. That is, until Congress and the federal court system erased the 10th Amendment to allow constitutional lawyers to argue that the Preamble of the Constitution...