Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged Justice Prosser

Impeachment Back in the News

Impeachment is back in the news.
To impeach, or not to impeach?
Articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama were filed just a few weeks ago by a group of black American citizens, the National Black Republican Association (NBRA).
Throughout August, conservative constituents at towns halls have also been pressuring members of Congress to impeach the President.

  • What has Barack Obama done to deserve this public outcry?
  • What did other recent impeachment candidates do to deserve impeachment?
  • How do Barack Obama’s offenses compare with the offenses of the last two Presidents to be impeached?
  • Could impeachment of President Obama succeed, and what would it accomplish?

Blatant Lies and Lost Credibility

At the very least, whether successful or not, impeachment attempts expose the blatant lies and reflect the loss of credibility of a President.

 Obama Impeachment

Blatant lies told by Presidents undermine not only their own authority, but also the Office of President of the United States.
Presidential lies undermine the credibility and moral integrity of our entire nation.

Comparing Articles of Impeachment

The articles of impeachment summarize accusations  made during an impeachment:

.

richard-nixon-pointing

Richard M. Nixon
Articles of Impeachment:

  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Abuse of Power
  • Contempt of Congress

 “He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to ... cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

-Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Article II, Section 1

Results: Richard Nixon’s impeachment did not go to the House or Senate for trial, because Nixon first resigned in disgrace.

.

index

 

William J. “Bill” Clinton
Articles of Impeachment:

  • Perjury
  • Obstruction of Justice

The judge wrote:
“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false….”

Results: Bill Clinton was Impeached by the House of Representatives, and acquitted by the U.S. Senate.  He received a contempt of court citation, and a suspension of his Arkansas law license, as well as a suspension from the U.S. Supreme Court bar.
Bill Clinton did not resign, and today seems unashamed of his misdeeds.
Incredibly, half of America seems to have little problem with Clinton’s moral and legal transgressions, as he continues to play a prominent role in the Democrat Party today in 2013, despite the public demolition of his integrity.
.

obama_cropped_blog_main_horizontal

.

Barack H. Obama
Articles of Impeachment filed by a “black American citizens”:

  • Obstruction of Benghazi investigation
  • Disclosure of grand jury material
  • Authorization of DOJ to conduct Fast and Furious
  • Authorization of IRS to release confidential information ot unauthorized individuals and organization
  • Initiation of  discriminatory IRS audits
  • Permission of unjustified NSA surveillance of 300 million average Americans
  • Permission of DOJ to spy on over one hundred Associated Press Journalists and on Fox News Reporter James Rosen
  • Thwarting Congress by failing to enforce laws including the Defense of Marriage Act, No Child Left Behind Act, and Affordable Care Act, and by directing immigrations officers to stop enforcing immigration law when Congress refused to pass his Dream Act.
  • Violations of the Constitution, bypassing the US Senate to appoint 3 members of the National Labor Relations board and to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection bureau.
  • Intimidation of whistle blowers and bringing twice as many prosecutions against whistle blowers as all prior presidents combined.

WOW

Ten Articles of Impeachment.
That’s a first.
Black Americans accusing the first black President of tyranny and of despotism.
That’s even more of a first.

This nation has been very proud of theObama serious historically significant 2008 Presidential election, in which our first black President was elected.  America prides itself on freedom, on fairness, and on opportunity.  I am the child of poor Lithuanian immigrants, and love America deeply for it’s just (Judeo-Christian) system of government and law, and the resulting opportunities it offers to those who work hard and follow the rules.  My entire family has risen from poor immigrants to successful and prosperous Americans in less than one generation, thanks to the opportunities offered by this country.  Despite my conservative political beliefs, even I was impressed with this aspect of the 2008 Presidential election outcome-a tribute to what children of all backgrounds can achieve in the United States – because we have a fair and just country.

Reasons Not to Impeach

What a tragedy and heartache it would be if the first black President abused the office so badly that he had to be impeached.  This is the sentiment that probably prevents most of us from discussing the impeachment of Barack Obama.  Some Obama supporters state candidly that they refrain from opposing the President because he is black.  When black Americans start proposing impeachment, we know this man has really abused the authority granted to him as President. And when liberal black leaders start proposing impeachment, this man has really crossed the line.

If a Lithuanian were ever elected President, I (as a Lithuanian) would be pretty reluctant, pretty ashamed, and pretty hard-pressed to demand his impeachment.

Reasons to Impeach

Slide1Yes, I would be reluctant to impeach a Lithuanian.

But I would demand the impeachment nevertheless, because I know that true equality includes accountability and includes keeping ALL leaders subject to the law, not just some.

Lithuanians, or blacks, or any other group of human beings, are not well served by condoning the misdeeds of one of their members.  Protection of offenders carries the unspoken implication that the entire group is complicit.  Protection sends the message that the entire group is not capable of responsible and accountable behavior. Excusing unacceptable behavior can even carry the bigoted implication that better cannot be expected from this minority person.
Wise minorities, whether Lithuanian or black, would demand accountability from their President, in order to demonstrate that the malefactor is the exception, not the rule, in their group.

And So, Black Americans Accuse President Obama of a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations

National Black Republican Association:
Slide1

We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.  Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  -  Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

Comparison of Charges

All three recent impeachment candidates, Nixon, Clinton and Obama, were clearly guilty of lies, and of mis-using the power of the Office of President.
Details of the accusations vary, and some overlap.

All three broke the law.
All three lied.

Slide1

The articles of impeachment above show many MORE accusations against President Barack Obama than against Nixon and Clinton.

They include IRS discrimination, NSA spying, prosecution of whistleblowers, wiretapping of journalists, the torture program and the Benghazi cover-up. Obama’s troubles do not seem to stem from one error as in the case of Nixon or Clinton, but from numerous errors and numerous cover-ups.  The list of articles of impeachment reflect a pervasive and systematically unscrupulous administration.  Phrases like Chicago tactics, Imperial Presidency, and Gangster Government surface in the news.

Bellver Lucifer

Lucifer – Ricardo Bellver, Madrid, 1877

Perhaps this is not so surprising after all, in reference to the man, Obama, who used to teach  Alinksy Tactics (aka Satan’s handbook, or the antithesis of the Ten Commandments) in Chicago.

It is interesting to note that accusations against Nixon did include “income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,” an accusation very similar to the IRS discrimination recently tolerated and probably initiated by the Obama administration.

There has been much discussion of President Obama’s misdeeds and misrepresentations.  One discussion compares President Obama with President Nixon extensively, in an article entitled Obama’s Watergates, in which numerous parallels are drawn between Nixon and Obama.   The author, Victor Davis Hanson,  a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, calls the Obama administration’s methods and aims “Nixonian to the core.”

Hanson predicts that the scandals, beginning with Benghazi, and continuing with the IRS, the Associated Press and James Rosen, as well as with Edward Snowden and the NSA, will not end until “the truth sets us all free.”  He predicts a long-drawn-out and sordid saga.

So Could An Impeachment Succeed?

Theoretically, an impeachment could succeed; this President has left such a “long train of abuses and usurpations” that he has been accused of an Imperial Presidency (characterized by greater power than the Constitution allows).
Obama is even despised by Vladimir Putin; Putin’s is not a respectful dislike, as might be expected toward a competitor, but actually a scorn and contempt towards Obama as a “weak ruler of Sodom & Gomorrah.”  There’s another first – Putin moralizing at the United States!

photo_1378286057088-1-HD

Obama’s extensive collection of offenses, and of domestic and global enemies, certainly makes impeachment seem possible, and even desirable.
Obama’s bad boy résumé is much longer than Clinton’s or Nixon’s, and he seems to be less well liked than Clinton was.  Obama’s popularity has been slipping rapidly this summer, and has particularly suffered during the present Syria crisis.

Yet, impeachment is not likely to go forward.
In addition to our collective and bipartisan reluctance to impeach the first black President, an impeachment is also likely to fail for the same reasons that Clinton’s impeachment failed in the Senate.

Not because Clinton or Obama are innocent of charges made against them, but because the Democrat party seems to have redefined moral standards in recent decades, and now the Democrat-dominated Senate is not likely convict a member of their own party, no matter how heinous his offense.

Democrats have forgotten the principle that all authority must be held accountable to the law.
Democrats  have substituted in it’s place the principle “the ends justify the means.”

Morality Redefined

The Democrat Party, previously commended for some virtuous policies including concern for the poor, and previously not in favor of abortion, seems to have abandoned numerous traditional Judeo-Christian ethics in recent years:

6a011570579907970b017742bf5159970d-800wi

  • The word GOD was almost struck from the Democrat party platform in 2012.
  • Abortion, the killing of pre-born citizens, is now prioritized and actively promoted by the Democrat party.
  • Redefinition of marriage is now favored by Democrats.
  • Our nation’s work ethic has now been damaged by excessive Democrat handouts, which surpass relief of poverty and resemble more the purchasing of votes.
  • Taxation and governmental control of all aspects of society have been taken to new heights, which border on totalitarianism, and violate the principle of subsidiarity, a founding principle of the United States and today a founding principle of the European Union.
  • Under Democrats we have recently suffered attacks on religious liberties of Americans, which border on Communism and which violate the moral principle of tolerance.
  • Totalitarianism and religious persecution in the name of government are incompatible with the definition of democracy.
  • Gangster methodology seems to be in routine use now by the Obama Administration, a methodology in direct conflict with the Constitution, with the laws of the United States, and with Ten Commandments.

This redefined morality is outlined in Saul Alinsky’s  book  Rules for Radicals.  Alinsky’s book was dedicated, in fact, to Lucifer, a alternate name for Satan. Incidentally, Barack Obama taught Alinsky tactics in Chicago.

Alinsky dedication
The Alinsky method welcomes dishonest tactics, unlawful behavior, perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of furthering one’s political goals.

Yes, morality HAS been redefined.

Morality Inversion

We now have a  Morality Inversion, the substitution of Democrat/Alinsky morality for traditional Judeo-Christian Morality.Slide1
Under morality inversion, something is wrong only if you think that it is wrong, and you are allowed to prioritize your own agenda above the law.
Under a morality where unlawfulness is allowed, the only order is the order chosen and imposed by those in power. i.e. totalitarianism.
Half of America seems to be on board with this.
They don’t seem to realize that granting dictatorial powers to a President you like today will also extend dictatorial powers to the President you DON’T like tomorrow.

With Morality Inversion, Impeachment Becomes an Oxymoron

Morality Inversion says that it’s O.K. to break laws when it feels right.
Impeachment says the opposite, that you remove officials for breaking laws.
So which is it to be?
You cannot have both.
You cannot impeach a President for lying and breaking laws if it’s O.K. to lie and break laws.
That’s why the Senate, dominated by Democrats (who have actually become radical Progressives in recent years), failed to convict Clinton during Clinton’s impeachment, and are almost certain to acquit Obama if impeachment were attempted.  The House, dominated by Conservatives, did impeach Clinton for his offenses.

santa_claus_patriarchal_morality_630495If Judeo-Christian morality is already on it’s way out, and the Senate refuses to impeach a President who has broken laws and who has not upheld the Constitution, then impeachment becomes an oxymoron and a contradiction.
So impeachment is not particularly useful at this moment in history; restoration of morality is needed first.
And that’s what our Pope is working on.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that half our nation now tolerates and votes for people who lie and who break laws.
Whether it’s intentional or not, that half of our nation is tolerating anarchy (lawlessness).
They like what President Obama is decreeing now: handouts and lollipops for everybody, just vote for me!
For now, those receiving handouts will not tolerate impeachment, and impeachment is not likely to succeed.

Slide1

Aside: Even if impeachment were to succeed, the successors to the impeached President in this moral climate are just more of the same: The Bidens, Pelosis, Reids, Kerrys, Sebeliuses…

The question becomes which way will the morality inversion shift?
Which side of the morality balance will win?
Progressives or Judeo-Christians?

Future Directions

Chariot race in the Circus Maximus, ancient RomeSome conservatives believe that the same form of progressive policy now being exercised by the Obama administration was responsible for the collapse of ancient Rome.  They include some pretty smart people, like Steve Forbes.  Astute parallels between the Roman empire and the United States are pointed out in Are We Rome?

Circus Madison Goes On, a blog post here, made similar analogies between progressive Madison, WI, and Rome’s ancient Circus Maximus, an ancient site famous for chariot races, gladiator fights, Christian slaughter and games, as well as a local marketplace. Very much like Madison, where Capitol Square hosts bicycle and track races, farmer’s markets, and even quite a few “lynchings” of those who are conservative or religious.  This has included the harassment of Bishop Morlino by gay demonstrators, the Madison Teacher protests during which conservative senators were chased by crowds around the Capitol building, and the hanging of a baloon effigy of Justice Prosser. 

Mercifully, many conservatives, including myself and Steve Forbes, are optimistic about the fact that Americans are now more aware and more involved, and we believe that the degeneration of American values can still be turned around.  Steve Forbes claims that awareness and involvement, and movements like the tea party may prevent us from collapsing like Rome. I am Slide18-e1376614703643convinced that the morality inversion can be reversed and a return to Godliness can prevent us from collapsing as Rome did.

Whether we succeed in correcting previous errors and thus recover from a temporary derailment, or whether the civilization built in the United States collapses like that of Rome, is in our hands and in the hands of God.
Let’s not forget our most powerful ally. Religion is power.

Related Articles:

Political Puzzle Pieces Falling Into Place

 

“President” Cyrus;  No Leader In the World is Powerful Enough to Thwart God’s Purposes

or

Bishop Morlino: Difficult Week?  Rejoice!

This Week’s Bad News (not reported by mainstream media, of course!):

To start with, this week’s news was less than cheerful for the 80% of us who are Christians:

  • mandate=dictate

    President Obama and his administration continue to mandate (or dictate, as in dictatorship) the ObamaCare Contraception provision by Catholic employers.  Many fail to realize that this issue is not about contraception, but about whether a President can mandate ANYTHING, particularly against the religious beliefs of people, like making Jews serve pork.  Obama has given Obamacare exemptions to the Amish, and eagle-hunting permits to an Indian tribe in Wyoming based on religious exemptions, but Catholics get an exemption for religious beliefs? No way.  They’re just the largest religion in the United States, and 24% of Americans belong.

  • Catholic Bishops have had to issue another protest, explaining the civil rights violations involved, and requesting dialogue with the Obama administration.  
  • Now Obama’s administration (Department of Health and Human Services, HHS) has added another mandate to ObamaCare, mandate #2 is abortion! Not only will Catholic employers have to pay for abortifacients and contraception, but all Americans will have to pay for abortion.  This, despite the fact that 70% of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion, and the fact that we were repeatedly promised by the Obama administration (remember Stupak?)  that abortion would not be included in ObamaCare.
  • It’s also turning out that the cost of Obamacare will be more than double the previously promised cost
  • Contraception and Abortion added to Obamacare not enough to get you down?  HHS has just added mandatory provision of sterilizations for all female college students to ObamaCare, free of charge.  Yes, between the ages of 17 and 21, when young women are not yet decided on what they wish to do with their lives, while they are experimenting with decisions and with belief systems at college, let them make the irreversible decision never to have children, so that they could never have the joys of family life or pass on their education to future citizens.  Let’s hurry up and sterilize them before they know any better!
  • Not enough bad news yet?  HHS has approved the use of aborted babies’ brains for experimentation in humans.  Aborted babies’ brain cells are being injected into people’s eyeballs in an attempt to reverse macular degeneration.  Yes, those same elders whom ObamaCare wants to euthanize will now be the beneficiaries of the deaths of pre-born infants. That is, if there is any benefit, and if no monstrous result comes from the experiments.
  • Global Rule by Mandate Next?

    Wait, there’s more!  Agenda 21, a United Nations action plan started 20 years ago towards global control of “sustainable development,” a global, national and local plan, is making tremendous strides towards establishing a world government based on environmentalism.   To be truthful, this was not this week’s news, but I found out about it from an email this week.  Did you know that more thatn 600  American cities are participating in this plan through ICLEI, though most residents of those cities are unaware that their local governments are agreeing to rules and regulations dictated by a UN-based organization regarding property rights?  This organization is funded by George Soros, and opposes private property and energy usage, and supports depopulation of the earth.  Tenessee has just passed a bill in opposition to implementation of Agenda 21.    Bill Gates supports the depopulation plans of Agenda 21, pretending to support it with flimsy “science.”   Meanwhile, increasing numbers of scientists are calling the population/pollution/CO2 alarmists just plain wrong.

And, just for good measure, let’s add a local Madison scandal into the news cocktail:  Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Prosser has just been accused, yet again, of misconduct.  All my previous investigations into this issue 9 months ago, including reading the Dane County Sheriff’s report on this incident, indicate to me that this man is an innocent victim of Alinsky tactics, in which Madison liberals are trying to accomplish with false accusations and lies what they could not accomplish in the ballot box last year- to change the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from conservative to liberal.

Is it just me, or are Obama and liberals on all levels, global, national and local, issuing mandates that trample human rights faster than anybody can keep up with them, doing it before the election, and doing it unilaterally?  And isn’t Obama forcing America to do to small human beings all that Hitler did to larger human beings, only in far, far larger numbers?  See Abortion: a Much Bigger Deal Than You Think.

So What Do We Do?
Rejoice!

So Bishop Morlino’s has a message for all of us: Rejoice!

Rejoice!

He also sends a message to all our families and friends.
As usual, Bishop Morlino is inspiring and he is right.

Bishop Morlino’s Remarkable Laetare Sunday Homily

Audio: click here

Transcript : click here

Summarizing the Bishop’s three major points, which he drew from the Mass readings today:

  • We should not forget God is in charge and does not discard us.  We need to acknowledge our sins; Catholics ought to use the Sacrament of confession.
  • No earthly leader is powerful enough to thwart God’s purposes. King Cyrus, a pagan who cared nothing for God, was inspired by God to become God’s instrument and to save God’s people.
  • We , the children of the Light, are attracted to the Light, to the Truth, and we must seek and speak the truth.  We must vote, and we must not allow campaign advertising to influence us. Why are we being attacked?  Those who want to work evil in darkness need to put out the lights.

These points really do not do justice to the Bishop’s very inspiring homily; nor do I claim to have paraphrased it correctly; you should really read it or listen to it yourself at the above links.

Audio: click here

Transcript : click here

Conclusion:

Bishop Morlino has wisely reminded us is that all will work out as it must. We should fret less, trust more, pray more, confess more, sacrifice more this Lent, and rejoice!

We also need to pursue the Truth, share the truth, and vote for the truth.
President Obama does not seem to see the Truth at present.

President Obama is very swiftly mandating dictating what opposes all that America stands for .  America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.  80% of us are still Christians, and we still vote Christian values.  No number of billions in advertising can sway us. Our future and our souls are not for sale.

Why is he going after Catholics with such determination?  He needs to knock out the lights and the video cameras, the conscience of America.  Catholics are the Christians with the largest numbers and the biggest organization.  If he can knock out Catholics, others will soon follow.

Cyrus Restoring the Vessels in the Temple

Barring a Cyrus-like conversion in President Obama, (which is not completely outside the realm of possibility; remember the Soviet Union?), it is incumbent on us to fix the problem by voting him out of office.

God has actually already achieved through Obama what all us us Christians have not been able to achieve in decades of ecumenical effort:  he has galvanized a massive reunion of Judeo-Christian faiths.  It warmed my heart to hear a Rabbi defending the freedom of Catholics to exercise their religion before the Senate! Who would have thought that President Obama would do more for ecumenism than we could accomplish ourselves?!

That is the mystery of God, Who works in mysterious ways.
Take heart, and pray, pray, pray.
Fast.
Speak out.
Vote.

Prosser-Bradley Investigation Ends
“Chief, I Have Lost Confidence in Your Leadership”
Supreme Court Disgraced
Democrat Delays and Cover-Ups Yet Again?

Justice Prosser has finally been cleared in “Chokegate,” two months after Justice Bradley made the false allegations. National Review Online

Yet disturbing problems remain for Wisconsin in the aftermath of this scandal.

How is Justice Prosser supposed to regain his reputation?

How is Justice Prosser supposed to regain his reputation after Wisconsin Democrats tried to smear it twice with lies twice this year? –

Which individuals need to apologize to Justice Prosser?
Where does David Prosser go to get his reputation back?

Why was Justice Prosser’s accuser, Justice Bradley, not charged?

Why was Justice Prosser’s accuser, Justice Bradley, not charged with politically motivated false accusation of criminal conduct against a fellow member of the bench, as well as with assault of a Supreme Court Justice?

Three Supreme Court Justices who were present support Justice Prosser’s innocence and refute Bradley’s account. They say that it was Justice Bradley who attacked Justice Prosser with raised fists, which caused Justice Prosser to

"smack upside the head"

block her, while a third Justice, Justice Roggensack, pulled Bradley off Prosser (National Review Online).  This report is quite credible, since Justice Bradley was previously known to strike a fellow Justice– she had whacked Justice Gableman on the head for addressing the Chief Justice by her first name previously, NOT in jest.  Apparently, Justice Bradley has a very protective attitude toward Chief Justice Abrahamson, and is quick to attack anyone who does not treat her as Bradley sees fit.   So why is Justice Bradley not being charged with criminal conduct? continue reading…

Why the Bradley-Prosser “Choking” Investigation is So Prolonged

.

Overheard at brunch in Madison, WI; retiree attorneys (Democrats) conversing…

.

Attorney 1: “I’ve worked with Prosser for years.  My politics was completely different from his, entirely different.  But he was always very calm and composed.  My politics was on the other side, but when you met him on the street, he was always very pleasant.”

Attorney 2: “Well, every one of us has a veneer.  Under pressure, the veneer cracks and the real person comes out.  His veneer must have cracked.”

Attorney 1: “I never saw his veneer crack in 20 years.”

And yes, these were Democrats speaking.

.

The same conversation included a discussion of how the investigation on which Justice assaulted which Justice could not conclude with pointing a finger at either Justice– this would discredit the entire Wisconsin Supreme Court tremendously.

.

Yet, what are the options?
Pretend it did not happen?
Hope it goes away?
Censure the guilty Justice and let her/him continue judging after being proven a liar?
What about the witnesses who backed each Justice?  They are Justices, too, and clearly some of them lied – should those supporting the guilty Justice also be censured?

.

Even if a “choking” did occur, what was Justice Bradley thinking when failing to use legal channels, but leaking this story to Madison’s liberal press, to Bill Lueders, of the Soros-funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism?  Is this how the Supreme Court handles legal complaints? continue reading…

Media malpractice and Justice Prosser

or

We’re still in the U.S.A., aren’t we?

In typical Madison fashion, the biased media has yet again given voice to radicals – now to militant feminists and atheists -  in their attempts to smear Justice Prosser.

Isthmus - Madison’s radical “news” paper. No mention of the fact that Justice Bradley may in fact be the guilty party.

Justice Prosser has my support until someone is proven guilty –  we’re still in the U.S.A., arent’ we?

My contribution at Isthmus:

This story is a prime example of media malpractice.

No mention of the fact that numerous witnesses claim that Prosser was attacked by Bradley, not vice-versa? See http://sytereitz.com/2011/06/which-supreme-court-justice-assaulted-which-justice/ .

To make matters worse, radical females – militant atheist leaders and pro-abortion leaders are leading the attack on Justice Prosser.

How dare they pretend to represent all women, and how can Isthmus cast this twisted attack on Justice Prosser in a pro-woman light?

Tragically, abortion is used globally to eliminate female children selectively, a problem a bit more serious than whether Judge Prosser touched Judge Bradley’s neck while fending off her fisted assault on him.

Finally, if witnesses are anything to go by, Judge Bradley is not only guilty of assault, but also of shameful blatant lies and slander.

Judge Bradley should step down from her duties. Period.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Justice Assaults Fellow Justice

or

What is Happening in Wisconsin, AGAIN!?

or

Alinsky Tactics, Supreme Court level

or

Which Justice Assaulted Which Justice?

.

Madison media’s lack of balanced reporting is reaching epic proportions, while some members of Wisconsin’s highest court are making a mockery of the powers entrusted to them by the people.

.

Following Wisconsin Supreme Court’s June 14th decision to uphold Wisconsin’s collective

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson

bargaining law, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson issued official statements criticizing respected members of her Court.  The stinging unprecedented dissent accused the conservative majority of the Court of making “numerous errors of law and fact” and stated that they “set forth their own version of facts without evidence.” She wrote that “They should not engage in disinformation,” and called their view “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant.” The Chief Justice stated that this decision opens the Court “to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law.”

What kind of leadership is this?

The Chief Justice’s job is one of upholding and respecting our democratic system of government, of fostering communication and unity in our highest court, not of fomenting division when a closely split ruling occurs, dividing liberal and conservative Judges of the Court.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley

To further inflame the situation, now Justice Bradley (liberal), has accused Justice Prosser (conservative), of assaulting and choking her in the presence of 5 other Justices!  The correct procedure for such a complaint would be through legal channels, and the incident should not be discussed publicly before the investigation is complete, as any lawyer should know.  However, Justice Bradley made this accusation through the liberal media, and has not yet filed any official legal complaints in the 2 weeks since the supposed incident.

The conservative judges, as befits the legal profession, are not giving details to the press.  Justice Prosser stated his confidence that he will be cleared with investigation.  “Confidential sources” seem to indicate that Bradley has one witness supporting her claims, while 4 witnesses support Prosser’s innocence.  Yet Madison’s

Justice David T. Prosser

liberal media continues to decimate Judge Prosser’s reputation with headlines like “What To Do About High Court’s Prosser Problem,” , in which they question whether Justice Prosser remains fit to serve!

I have been struggling to assemble information on the latest happenings in Wisconsin’s dysfunctional Supreme Court in the absence of clear facts.

Now that I have managed to unearth facts that Madison’s media is unwilling to divulge, I can paint a more accurate picture.

Bottom line, for those who are impatient, is that liberal Justice Bradley seems to have used Supreme Court level Alinsky tactics.   –She physically attacked Justice Prosser, turned the tables by accusing HIM of what she had done, lied about the incident, leaked reports of the “event” to the obliging Bill Lueders of (George Soros-funded) Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, and now has the assistance of Madison’s media in smearing Justice Prosser and calling for his termination, in the hopes that the liberal 3 would shift the balance of the other conservative 4 judges in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  With conservative Governor Walker at the helm, this seems to be a pointless pursuit.

The details of the sparring were uncovered and reported by Christian Schneider and can be found at the National Review.  If you read just one reference, this would be the one to read.

Another report summarizes events even more concisely:

Long story short: a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice named Ann Bradley has apparently tried to claim that another Supreme Court Justice, David Prosser, “choked” her.

The story had been leaked to a George Soros muckraking group, and then the incident seemed to get turned on its head when other witnesses came forth to indicate that while Prosser did put his hands up and touch Bradley’s neck, it is because she was coming at him with fists raised, meaning the contact was defensive in nature, and Bradley was the aggressor.

The plot appears to be thickening now, with news that Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson may have had a hand in orchestrating the leak in an attempt to get the conservative Prosser impeached.

As the investigation moves forward, it appears than instead of collecting a conservative scalp, that the two liberal Wisconsin SCOTUS justices may face impeachment instead. If they are impeached—and that is far from certain at this point—Republican Governor Scott Walker will have the opportunity to add two conservative justices to the bench.

It appears that the plot to frame up Prosser has backfired spectacularly.

I can only wish for such a happy ending for all of convicted felon Soros’ investments in deception.

This report of two liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, one the Chief Justice, attempting to smear and discredit a conservative colleague with lies, is symptomatic of a more general dissolution of integrity among Democrats in Madison, Wisconsin today.  The problems with Madison’s Democrats, in turn, are reflective of a growing general dissolution of Democrat integrity in the United States.

Most of us trust automatically that respected high officials support the laws they were appointed/elected to administer and that their goals include the peaceful, fair and tranquil functioning of society.

There is, however, a growing new philosophy/methodology, particularly among some in high office, which attempts to circumvent the legal democratic process in order to implement radical change rapidly against the wishes of the majority.

The new methodology welcomes and creates chaos, in the knowledge that it is easier to implement change during chaos.  The new philosophy spurns dialogue and advocates polarization, demonization of opponents, and dispensation of traditional moral constraints such as truthfulness or limiting oneself to civilized behavior.

Saul Alinsky

The new methodology is patterned after what has become known as Alinsky tactics.  Radical Democrats, including President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, teachers unions, and numerous Wisconsin Democrats have been implementing these tactics more and more often, particularly in recent months.

For example, in Madison, 14 Democrat legislators violated the Wisconsin Constitution by fleeing to Illinois to prevent a quorum on legislation they opposed.  Protesters at the Madison State Capitol have adopted new aggressive techniques, including blowing air horns in Republican Senator’s and in conservative demonstrators’ ears. Unions have shipped aggressive out-of-state protesters into Madison by the thousands, while Madison’s liberal Mayor called off the Madison police.  Radicals brag about “peaceful” protests, while Republican Senators are being chased around the Capitol building by hundreds of protesters, unhindered by police, and damage/security bills mount to over $8 million.  Madison’s police and firefighter’s unions, as well as Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider), have joined in support of teachers’ unions that are bleeding the State dry with benefits which radically exceed what other Wisconsin workers get.  Republican Senators have received death threats for carrying out campaign promises and attempting to pass responsible legislation.  Wisconsin’s liberal Secretary of State has helped to stall publication of the collective bargaining legislation repeatedly, enabling unions to rush through new contracts before implementation of the law.  Liberal judges have procrastinated making decisions on the pending legislation, taking vacation, and making bad rulings, which must be heard, reprimanded and reversed by the cooler-headed individuals on the Supreme Court.  Wisconsin’s media, seriously dominated by radial liberals, publishes only glowing reports of the radicals, omitting any of the reality mentioned above.  The dirty tactics observed in Madison are overwhelming.

I have been so appalled by the chaos and trampling of democracy I have witnessed in Madison recently that I have written numerous articles documenting and referencing the above facts on my website,  since February.

I don’t jump to the defense of people in the absence of conclusive evidence.  However, in the light of the above facts, particularly those collected by Christian Schneider, I am willing to stick out my neck and venture to say that there is only one logical interpretation of what happened between Justices Bradley and Prosser in Madison on June 13th, the story which was leaked to the liberal press by Justice Bradley and which has spread like wildfire in the national news, accusing Justice Prosser of choking her.  Radical Democrats, yet again, are using Alinsky tactics in an effort to further their (now minority) agenda by eliminating a conservative voice from the Supreme Court.

Prosser was smeared with lies previously by Democrats during his campaign , and his installation was delayed by Democrat challenges and recounts after the election.  The latest June 14 decision of the Supreme Court approving the collective bargaining legislation was almost made in the absence of Judge Prosser, when Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg threatened to sue yet a second time for recounts, which would have delayed Judge Prosser’s appointment yet again.

Aside from the original reports accusing Justice Prosser of choking his colleague, Madison’s media is not correcting the skewed initial reports.  They are still spreading the dirt and calling for Prosser’s removal: Madison’s Cap Times wrote an editorial entitled “What to do about high court’s Prosser problem” yesterday (6-29-11), in which they suggested that Justice Prosser was “no longer fit to serve.”

The truth cannot be found in Madison media, with very few exceptions.  – go to the National Review for truth in reporting.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Bradley did not file charges against Justice Prosser, which would have put her credibility at risk when the truth was revealed.   She just leaked the fictitious smear story to newspapers to foment liberal frenzy, a la Alinsky tactics. This is certainly not the type of behavior expected from a Supreme Court Judge, or anyone whose job function is to provide reasoned deliberation on matters that distinguish our society from anarchy.

More references from both sides of the dispute, by date :

Clashes between Liberals and Conservatives – Washington, United Nations, Madison — Common denominator?

Dirty tactics in Washington

A group of Washington liberals apparently decided that the recent government stalemate on spending was entirely Republican Speaker Boehner’s fault, despite the fact that President Obama and his Democratic House and Senate failed to schedule and pass the budget in a timely manner last year before the November 2010 election.

Not one or two, but over 8,700 of these liberals recently committed to a Facebook campaign to dump their trash outside Speaker John Boehner’s residence today, because a government shutdown (from failure to pass the budget) would have halted trash collection in Washington.

When a compromise was reached late last night on Federal budget issues, preventing the looming government shutdown, the Facebook group claimed victory, cancelled the trash-dumping while ridiculing Speaker Boehner:

Liberal facebook campaign

“Moments ago, a very orange Speaker of the House just announced that he caved into some of our demands. This is Victory Accomplished.”

Trash dumping is illegal. Ridicule of elected officials is unprofessional. Speaker Boehner represents the majority of Americans who voted in an election.  The use of such bullying tactics in a democracy is unacceptable and uncivilized.

Dirty tactics at the United Nations

The United States State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary

Cllinton addresses Human Rights Coucil Feb 28, 2011

Clinton, has recently been misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s position on a sexual orientation declaration, in a effort to win votes for this resolution:

The officials (of the U.S. State Department) purposely misled Latin American delegations into believing the Holy See (Catholic Church) had changed its position on a sexual orientation declaration that called for “sexual orientation and gender identity” to be new categories of non-discrimination in international law… The Holy See, in fact, opposed the declaration…

– National Catholic Register

The US Department of State (headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) is telling Latin American delegations to the United Nations that the Vatican has changed its position on a sexual orientation declaration that was just released at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

-Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute


The practice of such duplicity by United State officials at the United Nations is more than shocking.

Due to silence on these issues by the liberal media, few people know of United States efforts (headed by Hillary Clinton) toward the global spread of abortion rights and redefinition of marriage.

The fact that the U.S. State Department has been so emboldened now as to LIE about the Catholic Church’s position on these moral issues (in order to garner votes for this global liberal agenda), is very disturbing.

Latest dirty tactics in Madison

The latest development in Madison’s struggle between taxpayers and unions has involved the use of slander by liberals to influence Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice elections – an attempt to radicalize the composition of the Supreme Court, which will soon be making decisions on Governor Walker’s budget and collective bargaining law.

Toward this end, there was an outpouring of national union funds for defeating (and slandering ) Wisconsin’s conservative incumbent Supreme Court Justice Prosser.

Slanderous ad attempting to smear Jutsice Prosser

.

Democrat ads falsely accused  Prosser of injustice in the handling of a 35 year old Catholic Church sex scandal case – a double punch to conservatives and to the Catholic Church( If You’re Looking for Child Abuse, the Catholic Church is the Last Place to Look).

.

Joanne Kloppenburg

JoAnne Kloppenburg

Despite protests by the sex scandal victim and his demands that JoAnne Kloppenburg (the liberal candidate challenging Justice Prosser) pull the slanderous advertisements,  the untrue and malicious ads were not pulled. JoAnne Kloppenburg claimed that the ads were not run by her, but by a third party, and that she did not wish to deprive them of their “freedom of speech.”

Justice Prosser

.

.

Clearly a display of unethical behavior and a poor choice by a candidate who might have served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the next 10 years!  Fortunately, as of this writing it appears that she is no longer a contender .

.

I have survived a nuclear firestorm of criticism and attack and smear” –Justice Prosser

.

History of dirty tactics in Madison

Being driven to political activism has been a real eye-opening experience for me—occurring, as it has, in Madison, WI, where I have been living for 22 years.

Reeling in disbelief at the recent below-the-belt political tactics exercised by the left, and mystified by the escalating frequency of illegal and quite frankly uncivilized behavior of previously respected elected officials and “teacher” demonstrators, I embarked on some research into liberal tactics.  The name of Saul Alinksy began to surface—the author of a new disgusting form of “activism” which is in direct conflict with Judeo-Christian values and which specializes in undermining democratic rule, for use by radicals who want to force change against the will of a majority.

It was easy for me, as well as for many Americans, to steer clear of political involvement previously, under the pressures of career, child-rearing and (for me) home-schooling, particularly while practicing the forbearance we were taught as a good Christians —assuming the best possible about others; treating them as you would be treated; assuming they are doing the same to you.

.

Bad assumptions, as it turns out, in Madison, Wisconsin, USA in 2011.

SO bad, that I marvel at and have started blogging about the discontinuity between media reports and actual reality in the recently publicized budget struggles between Governor Walker and union leadership in Madison Wisconsin (A Word from the Silent Majority; What’s Really Happening in Wisconsin; What is REALLY going on in Wisconsin).  My blogging is the product of my frustration and indignation in watching the discontinuity between reality and left-leaning “progressive” media reports.

.

Fred Risser, the senior Democrat member of the Wisconsin Legislature

While unions (which historically have done much good work), and the Democrats who represent them, now break laws, slander, malign, misrepresent, and conspire to stall the democratic process, and while the Madison police who support them fail to enforce the law, while the Mayor of the City of Madison assists liberals in stalling the progress of the State Legislature’s work, and while liberal judges overlook State law (also helping unions to stall impending budget legislation), the media, and much of liberal Madison, continue to applaud and idolize all these agents who are actually impeding the fair implementation of democracy (A Word from the Silent Majority; What’s Really Happening in Wisconsin; What is REALLY going on in Wisconsin).

Dirty tactics appear systematic, not isolated

The tactics being used in Madison today (unreported by most media) are shocking even to someone like me, hardly an “innocent,” who grew up in New York City, commuting to high school daily on New York City subways, and attending the State University of New York at Stony Brook in the 1960’s and 70’s, at the height of student unrest in the Vietnam protest era.

Research on these tactics led me to findings that would surprise most Americans who value Judeo-Christian ideals (that would be over 80% of us).

The apparent abandonment of political ethics and morality which we have been observing evidently is not a random, unplanned general degeneration of public standards that one might initially suspect.  There are actually methods and calculated political action being implemented (primarily by liberal radicals, although occasionally conservatives have been known to lash back with similar tactics).  These efforts are well organized, and have achieved much success in implementing radical agendas against the wishes of the majority in the United States.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

As it turns out, these “new” radical methods stem from the radical philosophy of Saul Alinsky (author of Rules for Radicals ), and have been embraced and used quietly and surreptitiously by powerful individuals and organizations including Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was an American “community organizer” and writer .  Born in Chicago to an orthodox Jewish family, his plans to become an archaeologist were disrupted by the depression.  Instead, he embarked on a career of political activism, organizing first for the labor movement, then in ghettos across the United States.

.

Barack Obama, “community organizer”

Saul Alinksy’s radical methods for community reorganization (does this term sound familiar? Barak Obaman’s campaign credentials included being a “community organizer” in Chicago) were practiced by Alinsky since the Great Depression, were published in 1971, and have slowly been permeating the modus operandi of the unions, and of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which represents them, since then.   Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, outlining his beliefs and methods, can be distilled down to an “anything goes” or “ends justify ANY means” philosophy—a philosophy unhampered by truth, fairness or lawful behavior. A philosophy that scorns communication, compromise and the democratic process, while extolling the intentional generation of conflict toward the purpose of manipulation through fear:

Alinsky was a bluff iconoclast who concluded that electoral politics offered few solutions to the have-nots marooned in working-class slums. His approach to social justice relied on generating conflict to mobilize the dispossessed. Power flowed up, he said, and neighborhood leaders who could generate outside pressure on the system were more likely to produce effective change than the lofty lever-pullers operating on the inside.—Peter Slevin, Washington Post

In his book Rules for Radicals, Alinsky himself writes:

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

.

 

Alinsky’s influence

Alinsky’s “community reorganization” methods have been a common ideological touchstone for Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.  Hillary Clinton wrote her senior honors thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinksky, and was offered a job by Alinsky in 1968.  Following Alinsky’s death, Barak Obama was hired by Alinsky’s followers to organize black residents on the South Side of Chicago, while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.

Teacher’s groups like the National Education Association (NEA) used Saul Alinsky as a consultant to train their own staff, and unions like the AFL-CIO acknowledge their roots in Saul

Alinsky–inspired community organization , and list Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” on their web page under training for shop stewards .

Radical liberals who embrace Alinsky’s philosophy and tactics are well aware of the unpopularity of such tactics with 80% of (Christian) Americans, and they are not in a big rush to acknowledge, name or publicize their techniques.

What ARE Alinksy’s rules?

Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, is prefaced by an acknowledgement to Lucifer, the “very first” radical:

.

Lucifer

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history ( and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.

- Saul Alinsky

.

Alinsky’s rulesinclude:

  • “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.”
  • “Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
  • “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
  • “The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  • “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
  • “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Use name-calling to damage your conservative opponents.  Demonize them.)
  • “One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (For example, choose a conservative to demonize aggressively for political incorrectness, while applying much more lax and forgiving standards to your own radical colleagues.)
  • “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

The contrast between Radical rules and traditional Judeo-Christian rules

The Ten Commandments

..

.

..

These Alinsky rules can be contrasted with the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, which are based on Exodus 20:2-17, and which form the springboard of the U.S. Constitution and of most conservative thinking:

 

Ten Commandments New radical liberal beliefs and tactics
1 I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me. God does not exist.  You shall enforce atheism publicly.  Money is the overriding value, not God.
2 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. You shall not mention the name of God in public.  The only exception to this is cursing, which is welcomed and admired.
3 Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day. There is no Lord’s Day.  Do not honor God.  Honor only ourselves.
4 Honor your father and your mother. Honor the State, which will be your father and your mother and will determine what you must learn and what you must believe.
5 You shall not kill. You shall kill the pre-born, the old and the infirm, as well as anyone else who becomes inconvenient.
6 You shall not commit adultery. Sexual activity and promiscuity will be assumed, and public schools will teach primary school children a sex curriculum dictated by Planned Parenthood.
7 You shall not steal You are encouraged to steal from people, particularly if those people have more than you have.
8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall bear false witness and lie shamelessly, as long it helps you to achieve your goals.  You will slander your opponents during elections.
9 You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You are free to covet your neighbor’s wife.  Marriage will also be redefined.
10 You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods. Not only can you covet your neighbor’s goods, you should also pass laws to facilitate taking his goods away from him.

 

A new set of rules has been introduced by radicals

It is beginning to look like a new philosophy is becoming prevalent in the political arena – the strictly utilitarian Alinsky philosophy, which defies Judeo-Christian morality and despises the exercise of egalitarian democracy.  It reflects a culture of selfish entitlement, by whatever means necessary to advance oneself and one’s friends.  It strives to preserve the illusion that there is a community participating in the decision-making process, while in actual fact the citizens and their opinions are being squeezed out.  This Alinsky philosophy has been adopted widely by numerous liberal groups, including teachers unions,  the DNC, and President Obama’s community organizing friends, including ACORN.

Much evidence is accumulating that Planned Parenthood operates using these tactics too. For example, it has successfully propagandized gullible Americans into believing that killing an unborn human is a “choice” that improves a woman’s “health,” when in actual fact abortion is associated with an increased chance of death in comparison with childbirth.  Even President Barack Obama uses this “progressive” jargon in reference to abortion, contrary to the beliefs of the majority in America.

.

Saul Alinsky

Practioners of the Alinsky method welcome conflict, and use conflict to their own advantage, to circumvent the will of the majority.  Their method often goes unidentified, or lurks under many titles, but is rarely identified as the Alinsky method.  The method often adopts or transforms other techniques such as the “Delphi Technique,” creating spin-offs under different names.

What do we do when they mock us?

ridicule

Until we responsible conservatives recognize this new breed of liberal, and develop our own plan of action for identifying and countering these opponents who despise and violate common sense rules of morality and the foundations of a healthy democracy, much ground will be lost.  While we spin our wheels, bewildered and incredulous, the Alinskiites are continuing to acquire power and to erode our freedoms.

What next?

Knowing the enemy is the principal step towards victory.

Ridicule is the radical liberal’s biggest tool.  Religion (Judeo-Christian values) is their biggest target.

This is a war of values, and we must guard ourselves carefully against the new barrage of lies with which responsible conservatives are being attacked.

Once we learn not to take their attacks personally, and once we realize that our opponents have no interest in honest negotiation, we can move forward with determination and with strength, which, incidentally, leaders like John Boehner and Scott Walker are doing for us.

We must support our conservative leaders with our votes, with our confidence, with our emails, with our words, and with our pocketbooks.

Related Article, 7/27/13:

The Missing Link – Redefining How We Approach Politics 

All Posts