Category Archives: Second Amendment

Cass Sunstein, Obama Czar, Information and Regulatory Affairs, White House office, Sunstein quotes, US Constitution, Sunstein radical ideas

Speaking about the US Constitution:

“it is an imperfect document.”   Barack Obama

“Why should we be governed by people long dead? … In any case, the group that ratified the Constitution included just a small subset of the society; it excluded all women, the vast majority of African Americans, many of those without property, and numerous others who were not permitted to vote.”  Cass Sunstein

“we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”          Signers of  The Declaration of Independence

I am not aware of Barack Obama or Cass Sunstein pledging their lives, their fortunes or their sacred honor to preserve the US.

I received the following article in an email today:

“In the world of Obama there cannot be any dissent or criticism of the master designer (no, not God – President Barack Obama) and any attempts to impugn the Obama plans for “change” must be demolished. So if negativity comes from the internet , then of course the blogosphere must be added to litany of government control and censorship.

The recent Obama intended appointment of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. In this position Sunstein will have powers that are unprecedented and very far reaching; not merely mind-boggling but with explicit ability to use the courts to stifle free speech if it opposes Obama policies. In particular, Sunstein thinks that the bloggers have been “rampaging out of control” and that “new laws need to be written” to contain them. Advance copies of Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the new position to which Sunstein is about to be appointed, the powers with which Sunstein will be endowed are very, very, troubling.

The Wall Street Journal reported that “the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.””

“Sunstein will be another Obama “Czar” but will really be the chief regulator of what can or cannot appear on the internet. It is very scary that the person who will be in charge of public cyberspace believes that – “Whether you’re a blogger or the York Times or a Web hosting service – you should be held responsible even for what your comments say.” Currently you’re immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Reasonable people,” he says, “might object that this is not the right rule,” though he admits that imposing liability for comments on service providers would be “a considerable burden.””

Read more:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907215607/homeland-security/obama-outrage-controlling-the-internet.html

I decided to find out more about this radical law professor with a long time association with Obama. Below are a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein. It is beleived that these quotes are accurate.

Second Amendment
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds.”

“The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests
typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle
Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as
jurisprudential twins.”

Hunting & Animal Rights
“We ought to ban hunting”

“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”

Free Speech

“A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”

“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”

“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”

Taxes
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

Second Bill of Rights
“My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.”

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust “government intervention” and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”

“For better or worse, the Constitution’s framers gave no thought to including social and economic guarantees in the bill of rights.”

Read more:

http://stopsunstein.com/media/pdf/Sunstein%20quote%20file.pdf

Lt Col Donald Sullivan, update March 30, 2009, Sullivan’s son’s arrest, Burgaw, NC, Miranda rights, Obama thugs, Lt Col Sullivan lawsuits, NC state trooper, Son arrested for not answering questions

We have illegal aliens getting benefits an illegal president but
the son of a Lt Col, Donald Sullivan, gets arrested for not
answering questions. Here is an update from Lt Col Donald Sullivan
on the arrest of his son.

“Events of March 24, 2009 – My son’s Arrest for not being from NC; and the beat goes on, only it’s getting more personal.

Short Version:  On March 24, 2009, my son was stopped at a checkpoint; arrested for not answering questions; and jailed under $50,000.00 bond for committing no crime.

Long Version:  Just when I thought it could get no more ridiculous, Tuesday came.  It was the 24th of March, 2009, and I was in Burgaw, NC, the county seat, at the courthouse to serve the DA timely with my record on appeal for the right to bear arms trial of November, 2008.  As I walked into the courthouse from the bright North Carolina sunshine, I saw a familiar face just coming down the stairway from the courtrooms upstairs.  Not only did the face look familiar, it was my son; and he was in handcuffs!  I casually walked up to him and the State policeman who had him in tow and said, “Well, I see they finally broke your cherry, Myson.”  He smiled, and said, “Looks that way, Dad.”

I turned to the officer, introduced myself, and asked him why my son was being charged.  He told me straight up, “He wouldn’t answer my questions.”  “That’s the way I taught him”, I said.  “He doesn’t have to answer your questions.”  I turned to my son and asked him what was going on, not thinking the trooper would let him answer; but he did.  He said he was on his way to my house along NC Highway 210 when he ran up on a police checkpoint. When I interrupted and asked why he didn’t just turn around and go the other way, he said there was no need, since he was not breaking any laws.  Besides, he said he was towing my trailer and turning around on a two-lane road would have been difficult. 

He continued with his story saying the trooper had asked him for his license and registration, which he tendered.  Both are from Michigan, since my son is still a resident of Michigan, but the trooper asked him what his local address was.  (The trooper was aware of my son’s trial a few months ago when the charge was dismissed against him for no NC license for lack of evidence and jurisdiction.  I know for a fact my son has no NC address.)  He responded with, “You have my license.  I’m not going to answer any of your questions.”  The trooper asked him if he had insurance, and my son responded, “I told you I am not going to answer any of your questions.”  The trooper told him he would go to jail if he didn’t answer.  My son persisted, so the trooper ordered him to pull his pick-up off to the side of the road and get out of it.  He complied, and the trooper read him his Miranda rights, the first of which is, “You have the right to remain silent.”  The trooper then told him he would be arrested unless he answered the questions about his local address and his proof of insurance.  My son maintained that he didn’t have to answer any questions, so he was handcuffed and brought to the courthouse for his “probable cause” hearing.  This is where I came in.

I asked the trooper how he could arrest my son for not answering his questions when he had a right not to answer.  He responded that there is a law in NC which requires everyone to give their address when asked by a law enforcement officer or the courts.  When I asked how that could be with our right to remain silent and not incriminate ourselves, and he said he was just doing his job.  How I hate that response.  One day 9it will be the death sentence of anyone who uses it.  I told the officer I had some quick errands to run in the courthouse, but that I would join them upstairs where the magistrate was holding small claims court.  After depositing my record on appeal with the DA, I went upstairs to the courtroom. 

Once inside, I saw that the trooper was about to finish briefing the magistrate on the charges:  No NC operator’s license; no proof of insurance; expired MI registration; no trailer license plate; and refusal to answer questions divulge his local address.  The magistrate called my son forward and asked him for his address.  He told her he was not answering any of his questions, that he had a right to remain silent.  She then asked if he could be in court on the 20th of May, to which he responded, “Yes, Ma’am.”  She then put him under FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS SECURED BOND ($50,000.00), BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ANSWER HER QUESTIONS!  When he told her he was not a flight risk, nor was he a threat to anyone, and should be released on his own recognizance by law, she responded, “You won’t answer my questions or those of the trooper.  Your license says you are from out of state.  You could be an ‘axe-murderer’ for all we know, so the bond stays.”  I then interrupted and asked, “How much was that bond?!”  She said “$50,000.00.”  I then asked her if she would accept cash or a check.  She said, “Certified check or cash.”  I told her I would be back in an hour with the money.  My son went to jail, and I went to get the cash. 

Needless to say, I was very upset, but controlled.  This whole charade was obviously due to the amount of harassment my many legal filings have caused the local law enforcement agencies and the courts along with the several criminal proceedings and appeals I have active at the present.  There was no need whatsoever to arrest my son for alleged statutory violations which do not have jurisdiction over an out-of-state individual, and the $50,000.00 bond was an aberration not seen before in Pender County!

When I returned to the jail with the cash, the magistrate was busy in her office.  I struck up a conversation with some other unfortunates who were waiting in the lobby for their friends and loved ones and told them I was there to pick up my son who had been arrested for “Not answering their questions” and held under $50,000.00 bond.  They were astounded, of course, since no one had ever been heard of such; and it was completely illogical.  I told them it was vindictive and retaliatory, that “they” were using my son to get at me, and I was not going to stand for it.  I said things like, “They’ve made it personal now by going after my children, and they’ve crossed the line!”  These things I said loud enough for the magistrate to hear.  Then, I walked over to her open door and asked if she was ready for me to bail out my son; that I had $60,000.00 cash just in case she upped the ante.  She replied in the affirmative and said, “All he had to do was to answer my questions, and he wouldn’t be here.  And it was not vindictive.  I didn’t know he was your son and had ties to the county.  If I had, I could have reconsidered the bond.”  I told her it was not too late to reconsider, especially since he had a right to remain silent in the first place, and it was a violation of his constitutional rights to deny him his liberty for exercising his rights.   She replied that she had reconsidered, that the bond was reduced to $2,000.00 unsecured.  I told her that was not good enough, that he had objected to any bond due to his not being a flight risk or a threat to anyone’s life, liberty or property.  She said she had to leave the bond in place, since that was the guideline she was given “in school”.  (I assumed she was referring to the same “school” my jailer had mentioned when she told me my “stay would be prolonged” if I didn’t submit to being photographed last month.)  She tapped on the window at the back of her office and told the jailers to “Bring Mr. Sullivan out.  He doesn’t need handcuffs.)  So, they brought my son out; he collected his things and filled out the necessary paperwork; and we left to recover his truck.  I told her it was a good thing she had “reconsidered”, or my son would have filed a civil suit against her.  As it was, he would only file against the trooper, but she might be a co-defendant.

When we got to his truck about 90 minutes later, the State trooper who had arrested him was there waiting in his car, right by my son’s truck.  I got out of my car, with my S&W 9mm strapped on my hip as always, and walked up to his car and tapped on is window.  He rolled the window down, and I asked him if he was waiting to arrest us again when we moved the car.  He replied that he was just stopped doing some paperwork.  I then asked if he would arrest my son when he drove off in the car, or did we have to trailer it home, which I was prepared to do.  He told me he couldn’t drive off if he had no insurance.  I told him my son had insurance, but he just hadn’t felt the need to answer the trooper’s questions.  When he said the truck couldn’t move on its own without proof of insurance, I asked my son to show the officer his proof of insurance, which he readily did.  This set the officer back a bit, and he asked, “Why didn’t you show me this before?”  My son responded, “Because, it’s like I told you, ‘I don’t have to answer your questions if the answer might tend to incriminate me”, so I don’t answer any questions.”

We then proceeded to have a very nice and informative chat with the officer for over an hour, during which time I said nothing to compromise my son’s case, but I did take the opportunity to educate the trooper a little bit.  He admitted he was not so sure things were always as they appear, or as the government tells them, and that he regularly listened to local conservative radio hosts and to Neil Bortz.  As we parted, I informed the trooper that he had violated my son’s rights, and that my son would file a civil suit against him as soon as the charges were dismissed.  He said, “Do what you have to do”, to which I responded, “It’s the only way you and your buddies are going to learn to leave us alone.”  Oh, and as to my sidearm, the trooper asked me just before we parted what kind of weapon it was.  I told him, “S&W 9mm”.

DS
3-29-09″

Lt Col Sullivan, sir, if you need any assistance say the
word, and thousands will come to your aid.

Philip J Berg, Press release March 3, 2009, Obama destroying US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Berg vs. Obama, Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al, Attorney General Eric Holder, Gun ownership, HR 45, House bill

         

For Immediate Release

 

 

 

 

 

: –

03/03/2009

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005

(610) 825-3134

(800) 993-PHIL [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg States Obama is Destroying “our” U.S. Constitution

by “not” following Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution

and “limiting” the 2

 

 

 

 

nd Amendment re “guns”

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 03/03/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who

filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional

“qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are

still pending,

 

 

 

 

Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a

Obama, et al

 

 

 

 

announced today that he is concerned that in addition to Obama

not

following the Constitution, Article II, Section I, by

 

 

 

 

not

being Constitutionally

qualified/eligible to be President now is “limiting” the 2

 

 

 

 

nd

Amendment through his

Attorney General Eric Holder who has quietly introduced legislation to curtail ownership

of guns by individuals throughout our United States.

Berg stated, “Wake up America! Obama is attempting to limit your gun

ownership rights by secretly introducing legislation through Attorney General Eric

Holder, said legislation to curtail gun ownership!”

 

 

 

I:\ObamaPressRlease030209

Berg continued, “ It is very important

 

 

 

 

to be aware of a new bill HR 45

introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &

Record of Sale Act of 2009. [I learned about this from the Peter Boyles

radio program.] Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it

is flying under the radar. To find out about this – go to any government

website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing &

Record of Sales Act of 2009.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a

clip or ANY pistol unless:

•It is registered

•You are fingerprinted

•You supply a current Driver’s License

•You supply your Social Security #

•You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their

choosing

•Each update – change of ownership through private or public sale must

be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the

right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

•There is a child provision clause on page 16, section 305 stating a child-

access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under

18.

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your

gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up

to 5 yrs. in prison.

Listen to Peter Boyles – on KHOW 630 AM in Colorado in the morning. He

suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and

spring into action. Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the

Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and

especially the NRA.

I:\ObamaPressRlease030209

Remember – If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use

against me.

 

 

 

HR 45 only makes individuals less safe.”

Berg continued, “The Obama candidacy is the biggest “HOAX” perpetrated on

the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama

must be legally removed from office.

I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ and we

must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama

‘HOAX,’ that Obama has

 

 

 

 

not

proven he is constitutionally ‘qualified/eligible’ to be

President; that Obama has

 

 

 

 

not

produced his original (vault version) ‘Birth Certificate;’

that Obama has

 

 

 

 

not

produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from

his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be

removed from his office of President of the United States.”

Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A.,

for ‘our’ forefathers

 

 

 

 

and for the tens of thousands of men and women

that have died and/or been maimed defending our

Constitution,

 

 

 

 

 

with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not

constitutionally

qualified/eligible to be President.”

 

 

 

The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my

challenge to Obama’s lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.

Also, I am preparing to file a 4th case – Quo Warranto [challenge person in

office – that does not meet the qualifications].

As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue – having filed my

lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention

Status of Cases:

Berg vs. Obama

 

 

 

 

 

,

Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340

I:\ObamaPressRlease030209

This is case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA

Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of “standing” by Philip J. Berg

This is case that I bypassed Third Circuit to U.S. Supreme Court – where U.S. Supreme

Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.

However, case is still alive in Third Circuit.

Berg vs. Obama

 

 

 

 

 

,

U.S. District Court

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:

obamacrimes.com
 
 

 

Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama

 

 

 

 

 

Berg filed 1

 

 

 

 

st

Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09 after Soetoro/Obama and Biden

filed Motion to Dismiss

Berg also filed Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.

Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama – must he obey an Order by legal

President or disobey the illegal Order by a constitutionally

ineligible/unqualified “Usurper” President.

 

 

 

,

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254

 

 

 

Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09

Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and FEC filed on 2/17/09 (Appellees)