Leftist judges rule with a new Constitution - and it's less than 20 words!

[M]

Source; https://www.westernjournal.com/leftist-judges-rule-new-constitution...

Leftist judges rule with a new Constitution - and it's less than 20 words!

 

By Mike Weinberger
January 23, 2019 at 5:14pm

Did you know that federal judges have given us a new U.S. Constitution? It’s true. We’ve had the old one for years, but its lengthy, over 4,000 words. More recently federal judges have discovered a new and “improved” Constitution, which is about 20 words long.

In the old version, words had specific meanings and they were used carefully. For example, the old Constitution has an article entitled “Article Six”, which talks about, among other things, “oaths” of office.

Although “Article Six” may sound like “Article Sixty” — and “oaths of office” may sound like “oafs of office,” under the old Constitution these words had different meanings.

Modern judges now understand this was foolishness. Under the new Constitution, six can indeed mean sixty, it all depends. If you don’t know how this works or if you haven’t seen a copy of the new Constitution I have included all of it, in full, in the next paragraph:

ARTICLE 1: Judges have the power to make things fair. ARTICLE 2: Judges also have the power to make things good and nice.

That’s it. The judges see this as a tremendous improvement. It makes things simple. Congressmen can be ignored, as can senators. Even the president is just an impotent Twitter Tweeter. All power now resides with the judges, who are tasked with the solemn duty to make things fair — or good and nice, depending on the case.

For example, are the words “cross-dressing murderer” not mentioned in the old Constitution? No bother. They are certainly implied in the new version. This gives modern judges the power to order that a cross-dressing murderer, locked up in prison, is constitutionally entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation.

How, you may ask? Why, under Article 1. Because it seems “fair” to the judge he has the power to order it. Or under Article 2, if the judge thinks it would be “good and nice.”

Not that there are no rules of English Construction in the new Constitution. No, no, no. That is certainly not the case.

Under Article 2 for example, a judge only has the power to order things that are “good AND nice.” If something is only “nice” the judge has no power to issue an order. Of course, he can still issue the same order under Article 1, but only if he thinks it is “fair.” So you see, there are rules of construction after all.

How does the new Constitution work with the old one? I shall explain. If a judge does not have the power to do something, such as banning guns, under the old Constitution, he may then get the power he needs under the new Constitution. But, if he does, he must then mumble some words from the OLD Constitution to justify his power grab.

Justice Breyer showed us how it’s done. He explained that the Second Amendment does not include “the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.” Justice Breyer came to this conclusion under Article 2 of the new Constitution because he doesn’t think guns are “good and nice.” But he then had to mumble some words from the old Constitution about “militias.” And there you go. It’s done. He now has the power to prevent you from keeping a gun in your bedroom. It’s really quite simple.

How, you may ask? Why, under Article 1. Because it seems “fair” to the judge he has the power to order it. Or under Article 2, if the judge thinks it would be “good and nice.”

Not that there are no rules of English Construction in the new Constitution. No, no, no. That is certainly not the case.

Under Article 2 for example, a judge only has the power to order things that are “good AND nice.” If something is only “nice” the judge has no power to issue an order. Of course, he can still issue the same order under Article 1, but only if he thinks it is “fair.” So you see, there are rules of construction after all.

How does the new Constitution work with the old one? I shall explain. If a judge does not have the power to do something, such as banning guns, under the old Constitution, he may then get the power he needs under the new Constitution. But, if he does, he must then mumble some words from the OLD Constitution to justify his power grab.

Justice Breyer showed us how it’s done. He explained that the Second Amendment does not include “the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.” Justice Breyer came to this conclusion under Article 2 of the new Constitution because he doesn’t think guns are “good and nice.” But he then had to mumble some words from the old Constitution about “militias.” And there you go. It’s done. He now has the power to prevent you from keeping a gun in your bedroom. It’s really quite simple.

[M]

Make no mistake. We are losing ground on a daily basis to the Left. No one seems to address the 800lb Gorilla in the room. All the Conservative protests are being allowed to play out by the Left to give false hope, stop a concerted effort to block them, and as an exercise in futility.

 

These are the turncoats we need to work against at every turn, and keep it up until their next election, to insure they will never get elected again. Make no mistake. We are losing ground on a daily basis to the Left. No one seems to address the 800lb Gorilla in the room. All the Conservative protests are being allowed to play out by the Left to give false hope, stop a concerted effort to block them, and as an exercise in futility.

 

Rinos that voted for and with the Democrat plan!!!!

 

Mitt Romney (Utah)

Susan Collins (Maine)

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Johnny Isakson (Georgia)

 

Corey Gardener (Colorado)

 

Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)

 

With False Representatives like that we have ZERO chance of winning against the onslaught of the Left headed by none other than Soros.

 

Soros himself has stated that his life's work would be the Destruction and downfall of the United States simply because it stood between him and his goal of ruling the world. Satanic isn't it?

 

Guess what, Nobody to date has developed an active workable plan to stop him and his family. They are moving right along with their quest. Soros uses Socialism because it gains the most benefits for him and his designated retinue. The proletariat ( that's us ) all the work for false promises in the beginning of ever more "Free Stuff" and no work. Soon after the first flush has faded the people find themselves in a living hell of servitude.

 

It always begins with the Disenfranchised and the Youth because while the opportunity to succeed is supposed to be there, it usually is not. Socialism gives a false sense of being able to rectify that condition by " Making everyone equal financially ". Unfortunately it follows through and fulfills it's promise. It makes everyone equally poor with the glaring exception of the top 1% who by that time are fully ensconced Dictators who can't even be questioned without risking being eliminated by them. Look to History; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, in fact every Dictatorship is ruled by terror. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship when it comes to a government.

 

As it sits, we are just spinning our wheels and thinking we are making some kind of progress against the forces of the Left. No one is seriously challenging them to stop them from completing their agendas to create a world wide Oligarchy of a one world government. All who have tried have either been side tracked, bought off, or broken. It would take a massive uprising on a world wide scale to defeat the entrenched forces of evil, and we have no infrastructure to accomplish that any more. It has been destroyed by a hundred years of lies and step by step concessions. I don't know how we can get it back.

 

Your Thoughts?