New Jersey Cop: “Obama has decimated the freak’in Constitution, … so we don’t have to follow the Constitution.”
A shocking video shows a New Jersey cop responding to a complaint about corruption by asserting that law enforcement officers no longer need to follow the Constitution because it has already been decimated by President Obama.
Seeking to file a complaint about the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter, Steve Wronko visited the Helmetta Police Department to air his grievances about the shelter falling prey to nepotism and corruption as a result of Helmetta Mayor Nancy Martin appointing her son Brandon Metz to head up the facility.
“I’ve made objections about what’s going on at the shelter over there,” Wronko tells the police officer, adding, “My first and fourth amendment rights were violated, my civil rights were violated.”
“Obama just decimated the freakin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn. If he doesn’t follow the Constitution, we don’t have to,” responds the cop, brazenly violating the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.
The comment is self-evidently shocking, but it also provides an insight as to how corruption from the very top reaches all the way down to the bottom, providing law enforcement with a twisted form of justification for their unconstitutional activities.
At the end of the video, other police officers arrive to kick Wronko out of the building, with the cop who doesn’t give a “damn” about constitutional rights stating, “Either you get out or you’re gonna get locked up.”
“Maybe this instance, captured on film for the whole world to see, will serve as a wake up call to those who may still be asleep,” writes Matt Agorist. “Please share this so that it can help others to see the leviathan for what it is, a gang of thieves writ large.”
The only question that remains is if police officers feel they no longer need to follow the Constitution, should Americans be expected to obey the law?
Video link here:
https://www.infowars.com/cop-if-obama-doesnt-follow-the-constitution-we-dont-have-to/
I invite anyone anywhere to provide one example of unconstitutional behavior on the part of our current President.
That officer should be relieved of his duties-and most importantly, his weapon.
#1, I invite you specifically to give me one good reason to risk losing my temper by failing to change the channel or lower the volume to zero when the object of your affection appears on my television and begins to speak. By the way, how well steeped are you in the law, particularly constitutional law, the fine points of civil society, leadership, morality and moral hazard, true spirituality, military service and Esprit de Corps, personal dignity and integrity, balance of powers doctrine, officeholder’s immunity, prosecutorial discretion, upholding and defending the constitution, faithful enforcement of the law as written by Congress, the concept of a nation of laws and not of men, the motivation and intention of John Jay when he suggested to George Washington that none but natural-born Citizens be permitted to seek or attain the office of Commander-in-chief, international law, natural law, the Law of Nature and Nature’s God, the Cloward-Piven strategy, Saul Alinsky and Rules for Radicals, tax policy and theory and the american tradition of allowing and encouraging charitable deductions, fundamental transformation of society, electricity rates necessarily skyrocketing, encouragement of legal immigration, splitting of evidence, corruption of minors, substantive versus procedural rulemaking, exceeding statutory all mandates, executive overreach, electioneering by federal employees, protection of whistle blowers, citizenship versus subjectship, unreasonable search and seizure, security and dominion over one’s personal effects, encryption technology, the Posse Comitatus act, Declaration of War, Congressional Recess, sovereignty and it’s relation to border control, abuse of federal authority and misuse and misdirection of federal resources and employees, having more flexibility once one’s last election is behind oneself, American exceptionalism, democracy versus a republican form of government, the Uniform code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention and non-state actors, due process and the rule of law, denuding curricula of substance by emphasizing process over subject matter mastery, master-servant legal theory and the law of agency, positional versus absolute authority, RICO law contempt of congress, bearing false witness…, etc cetera?
You strike me as someone who spends his or her whole life on a hair trigger, just dying to deliver the following brilliant and disarming riposte to his obviously clueless and dolt-like interlocutors: “So what!?!”
#1 made a clearer point than #3. Perhape #3 should outline before posting.
Lol at #3. That post is a classic. The only way to improve upon it would be to remove all punctuation and capitalization. What’s your point? Did you log into Westlaw and click on the “Randomize All” button?
Anyway, I am still waiting.
And for the record I could take or leave Obama. I change the channel when he comes on, too. That doesn’t make the majority of his more vociferous detractors any less pointless.
President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/01/13/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/
25 Violations of Law By President Obama and His Administration
25 Violations of Law
By President Obama and His Administration
https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration
KNIGHT: Trashing the Constitution
Obama has compiled a lengthy list of violations
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/14/trashing-the-constitution/?page=all
Has Obama Violated All 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights?
https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/has-obama-violated-all-10-amendments-in-the-bill-of-rights
Obama: “I Won’t Violate The Constitution, Unless You Make Me”
Obama: Violating the Constitution with Impunity?
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364048/obama-violating-constitution-impunity-john-fund
Perhaps I’m reading incorrectly, but #1 asked a question, did he not? I presume he doesn’t think he can make a useful point solely by asking a question. The subject is a serious one, not only based on the gravity of the subject, and the undeniable fascination one of our major political parties currently has with it. Surely #1 is not so cavalier as to think that mere snark or derision will be sufficient to persuade the untutored masses to put down their torches and pitchforks.
#1, your attitude is not helpful, and I question your sincerity, frankly. Does the case for impeachment loses its force, incrementally, if you will, with every fresh outrage we are forced to endure from the federal executive branch? Logically, no, of course not, but when you consider the unavoidable emotional side of the issue, and the nature of people in general to succumb to issue-fatigue when presented with leadership crisis after leadership crisis, such a perverse circumstance could conceivably obtain. Knowing this, a major political party having a member in the white house who clearly deserves to be removed might be wise to embark on a strategy of cowing opposing members of Congress into silence while at the same time doing everything they can to litigate the issue in the court of public opinion. If the public cannot see through this, then the fundamental transformation the man you can take or leave told us he intended to carry out may already have been accomplished, and our Constitution is no longer operative. By the way, what I’ve just described constitutes a textbook example of the Cloward-Piven strategy, not that that interests you in the least.
That’s ‘spoliation of evidence’, and ‘exceeding statutorial mandates’. Darned autocorrect!
#1, I saw this today and thought of you. This commentator leaves no doubt whether their ultimate decision to ‘take or leave’ a certain individual depends on what side of the bed they get out of in the morning (edited lightly to meet local standards):
Just as a reminder, as you watch the world descend into war and pestilence, remember, this has all been done intentionally. The Obama regime is the explicit, conscious, declared enemy of western civilization, and really ALL civilization, and EVERYTHING that the still-braindead pundit class is desperately trying to blame on mere incompetence is no such thing. All of this, from the implosion of the economy and the healthcare delivery matrix, to the dissolving of the Mexican border and the attendant invasion of disease-ridden welfare recipients/”voters”, mercenaries and terrorists, to the reformation of the islamic caliphate and genocide of Christians (using U.S. weaponry supplied directly and consciously to the [Muslim] Brotherhood/al Qaeda/ISIS via the Benghazi beachhead and arms supply depot), to the surrender of Europe to Moscow, is all completely, totally, maliciously INTENTIONAL. If you operate or base an argument from any other premise that this one-and-only TRUE premise, then you are a deluded fool who is wasting everyone’s time with your imbecilic mental [games].
Don’t kid yourselves. The oligarchs are hoping and praying that Ebola breaks out in North America, because crises are the afterburners on their scramjets to hell.
It is amazing that infowars has information that no one else has. Why haven’t they filed suit? My guess is that fringe elements are better at writing screeds than they are at doing anything. Maybe they know that they do not have a case.
maybe people in the media should start doing their job ?
Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap
By Joel Gehrke
August 21, 2014 2:57 PM
President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.
“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”
The GAO rejected the idea that the action was legal and sidestepped the Obama team’s suggestion that the law is unconstitutional.
“It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes,” the report says. “In our view, where legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President, thereby satisfying the bicameralism and presentment requirements in the Constitution, that legislation is entitled to a heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality.”