Notice: Free Republic IS and will remain a pro-Life & Liberty Web site

We're receiving lots of complaints lately from freshly banned liberals, trolls and malcontents. Well, Free Republic has not changed and will not change. We are NOT "fair and balanced." Never will be.

We are biased toward God, country, Life and Liberty. Marriage, family and traditional values. Constitution, inalienable rights, private property and limited government. Small government, small spending, small taxes. National security, national sovereignty, strong defense and secure borders. Individual rights, individual responsibility and self-government. Privacy, individual and family security, self-defense and right to keep and bear arms. Rights to freely exercise our religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of dissent and freedom to resist government intervention, intrusion, tyranny or abuse. Right to constitutional government and constitutionalist/originalist judges, not liberal activists.

Free Republic is not a government project, not an IRS non-profit organization and not a charity. Free Republic is private property and we reserve the right to control content, association, political direction and access. No "fairness doctrine" applies.

We are a loosely associated group of independent CONSERVATIVE grassroots activists working together to expose government corruption, abuse, tyranny, unconstitutional expansion, or trampling on our rights, freedoms or liberty and it is our express intention to freely do this unimpeded and unrestricted by government or liberal intruders. DO NOT TREAD ON US!

If you sign up here to spread your godless, obnoxious, repugnant liberal/socialist/Marxist, abortionist/homosexualist, defeatist/anti-America propaganda your account will be summarily terminated. Do not write asking why. Your whining pleas or insults will be ignored.

Free Republic supports our troops and the war against Islamic extremism. If pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-America, fiscal conservatism, small government, low tax, strong defense, pro-gun, pro-borders discussion is not your cup of tea, don't bother signing up for an account here. Trolls, liberals, malcontents, anti-war activists, etc, will be sho.., er, banned on sight.

Oh yeah. And you can shove global warming and the U.N. where the sun don't shine!

Dear Jim,

I appreciate you being vigilant & quick to yank thread which you deem inappropriate. I salute your caution.

Before you pulled my thread on Obama’s bedfellow, which part of it was untrue? The Brzezinski part is verifiable, so is Soros’ support of Obama.

If it’s because a couple of people complain it’s accusation of Rahm Emmanuel’s being a Mossad agent is far out, here’s the evidence. Have you looked into first? No hard feeling. It’s no big deal.

Respectfully submitted

“WMR has learned from informed U.S. intelligence sources that prospective Barack Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has an active FBI counter-intelligence file maintained on him. Emanuel’s rise to the Chief of Staff position may pose a significant security problem for President-elect Obama if the FBI insists on conducting the full background security investigation normally required for senior White House officials.”

IS RAHM EMANUEL A SECURITY RISK?

by Mac McKinney

Rahm Emanuel’s background is well-known. His father was a member of the Israeli Irgun, which was a violent underground movement against the British in Palestine. Rahm has deep ties to Israel and served as a civilian volunteer in the IDF in 1991. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make him a security risk. What is disturbing, though, is that the FBI has, according to Wayne Madsen, a Counterintelligence file on him for his past connections with Mossad, and that this is what forced him out of the Clinton White House in 1998.

Is this far-fetched, that Rahm Emanuel may have active links to the Israeli Intelligence Service, Mossad? Not according to Wayne Madsen. We certainly should not be surprised that Mossad wants to penetrate the White House, whether it is through Emanuel or someone else. Apparently they may have done so in the past to great advantage. To say the least, the FBI must be allowed to do a full background check on everyone, including Emanuel. No free passes on such a critical issue, the security of the President.

This is an excerpt from the Nov 6 Wayne Madsen Report, which you will have to subscribe to at: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ to read the entire article:

November 6, 2008 — Obama faced with security problem at outset of transition process

WMR has learned from informed U.S. intelligence sources that prospective Barack Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has an active FBI counter-intelligence file maintained on him. Emanuel’s rise to the Chief of Staff position may pose a significant security problem for President-elect Obama if the FBI insists on conducting the full background security investigation normally required for senior White House officials.

Questions about Emanuel’s links to the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, were allegedly so great that President Bill Clinton was forced to dismiss Emanuel from the White House staff in 1998............

Link is http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=2929.0;topicseen

Speaking of abortion, I'd like to connect some dots concerning major constitutional problems with this sensitive issue. I am sorry if this information has already been mentioned in this thread.

To address constitutional problems with abortion, first consider that, since the federal Constitution says nothing about abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to regulate abortion to the state governments.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the following about the 10th Amendement.

"The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

So what happened to 10th A. protected state powers to regulate abortion when Roe v. Wade was decided? Indeed, to my knowledge, the Roe v. Wade opinion doesn't even mention the 10th Amendment.

It turns out that the 10th A. was scandalously politically repealed by the USSC, in my opinion, in order to allow FDR to start his New Deal federal spending programs. More specifically, the problem is that the amendable Constitution was initially an obstacle for FDR's programs. This is because the Founders had written the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government to those expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. But since the amendable Constitution said nothing about FDR's spending programs, the USSC initially told FDR that the federal government didn't have the constitutional power to implement his programs.

BTW, did I mention that the Constitution was amendable?

So all that FDR needed to do to get his New Deal programs going was to rally the Article V majority to amend the Constitution to expressly authorize the feds to administer his programs and lay appropriate taxes, right? After all, FDR was a popular president, so the Article V majority should have been happy to oblige FDR. Indeed, amending the Constitution to essentially add his spending programs to Section 8 of Article I would have preserved 10th A. protected state powers, in my opinion.

Instead, the unthinkable happened. FDR, defender and protector of the Constitution that he had sworn to defend, acted like he didn't know that the Constitution was amendable, like it was chiseled in granite. So what he did was to foolishly get corrupt justices to politically repeal the 10th Amendment. And once 10th A. protected state powers were out of the way, at least by judicial fiat, he got his New Deal programs.

Given that pesky 10th Amendment, is anybody beginning to see a connection between FDR's disdain for 10th A. protected state's rights, initially a stumbling block for his New Deal programs, and the USSC's scandalous, 10th A.-ignoring legalization of abortion decades later? Indeed, FDR unthinkingly helped to establish a Court precedent for ignoring 10th A. protected state powers.

But wait, there's more!

In Roe v. Wade, special-interest majority justices "ingeniously" found abortion rights in the "wild card" 9th A. and then used the 14th A. to effortly apply this non-enumerated right to the states. After all, regardless that the 10th A. should have caused as much "friction" in legalizing abortion as it had given FDR headaches when he first tried to start his New Deal programs, it seems that hidden-agenda justices had cunningly held on to FDR's "license" to ignore 10th A. protected state powers for such an occasion.

But the USSC's argument in using the 14th A. to apply the non-enumerated 9th A. right to have an abortion doesn't hold water for the following reason. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., clearly indicated the following in congressional records. Bingham had explained that the 14th A. was intended to apply only those rights enumerated in the Constitution by the Article V majority exercising its power to amend the Constitution, as opposed to arbitrary, barbaric "rights" pulled out of the 9th A. "magical hat" by renegade justices.

And now you know the rest of this sad story.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.