Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
April 3, 2012


Caesar Obamus Plays By One Set of Rules--His

by Thomas A. Droleskey

All the property of the Christian Church was to be confiscated and sold, the proceedings to be delivered to the imperial treasury. Such persons as persevered in the belief and activity of the sect were to be declared unfit to hold office or to be employed by the state. Slaves adhering to the Christian sect could not be freed. No Christian was allowed to go to a court of justice, except as an accused person. All churches of the sect and all houses used for the performing of their vile and horrible rites were to be demolished.

"Given at our palace in Nicomedia," read Velleius, "on the day of the Terminalia Festival in the year one thousand and fifty-six of the foundation of Rome."

There was a pause. The caesar rose. "You have heard the orders of our divine emperor," he said with a little shrug. "My chancellery will send it on to all the magistrates in Britain. No one--I repeat: no one is permitted to take measures on his own. The matter must be dealt with in an orderly fashion. Now as far as you are concerned, officers, officials and servants of my household, this is what I want to tell you. Until now I haven't cared much about what you believed in and what you did not. From now on I have to, it seems. I know that some you are Christians. You will have two days to decide whether you wish to give up such dangerous beliefs or not. All of you will come back here in forty-eight hours. Then we shall have a test. Your fate is in your own hands. That is all."

Abruptly he left the room. Some of the faces in the assembly, which now dispersed slowly, were grave and anxious; some even showed despair. But others were smiling and content. Soon there would be promotions for a number of people, for in forty-eight hours a good number of valuable posts would be vacant. . . .

When the caesar's household gathered again two days later, the main hall was changed. Near the caesar's throne an altar had been erected with a bust of the emperor on it. Despite the art of the sculptor, Diocletian looked in marble as he looked in life: a shrewd, cunning, hard-faced peasant.

In front of the bust stood a small tripod and a vessel with incense.

Caesar Constantius rose from his throne, stepped before the altar, and threw a few grains of incense into the tripod. The smoke curled up into the impassive face of the crowned peasant.

Velleius followed his superior's example and after him the six bodyguards behind the throne.

The caesar said sharply, "All those who profess the Christian faith will step forward."

A hush fell over the assembly. After a while a number of men began to move through the throng--five, then twenty, and still they were coming.

"Stand on one side," the caesar ordered. he counted them very carefully. "There are more Christians than that," he said, "and I know who they are. Their names are on the list in my hand. Shall I read it or are you going to step forward on your own accord?"

Tribune Sarto raised his hand. "There are eighteen of us, Caesar, who are ready to give up a belief condemned by the emperor and his council."

The caesar looked at the list compiled by the intelligence people. He mentally added Sarto's group of eighteen to the number of Christians lined up before him. "Eighteen--that's right," he confirmed. "Let those men form a group of their own on the other side."

There was still another name on the list, not accounted for by either group, but he was not going to pursue the matter that far. The man was not present in the hall anyway.

"Very well," he said aloud. "Now all those faithful to the state religion will sacrifice to the divine emperor. Step forward one by one. Velleius, not their names."

It took over half an hour. When it was over, the caesar said, "Now the group around Tribune Sarto will sacrifice."

The eighteen men did, and the caesar looked on impassively. "Now the Christian group," he ordered.

An elderly office stepped up as their speaker. "We can't do that, Caesar," he said quietly. "Christ has commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. We can die for the emperor, but we cannot worship him."

The caesar looked at them in silence. None of the men moved. From the entrance of the hall came the sound of steps. He looked up.

The Legate Curio walked across, gave a polite salute and . . . joined the Christian group.

The caesar nodded thoughtfully. "Thank you, my friends," he said. "The test is over. Now it seems to me that what the emperor really wanted to know was whether he could rely on the loyalty of his servants or not. That must be the spirit behind this edict. It seems to me also that one cannot very well rely on the loyalty of men who are ready to renounce their faith as soon as their position is in danger. Therefore the group around Tribune Sarto is dismissed from my service forthwith."

The assembly stared at him dumbfounded, thunderstruck.

"These  Christians here, on the other hand," the caesar went on, "have proved that they are ready to resist and to uphold their faith. Men like that do not have to sacrifice to the genius of the emperor. Their simple word is their bond. They will therefore retain their posts. The officers among them will be transferred to my bodyguard. I know that with them my life is as safe as the honor of the emperor. You may go, all of you, except for the Legate Curio."

The elderly officer heading the Christian group roared suddenly, "Victory and long life to Caesar Constantius!" and the call was taken up by almost the entire assembly. The group around Sarto no longer existed. Its members were trying to get out of the hall without so much as looking at each other. Everyone else made room for them as if they were unclean.

"You shouldn't have come here," Constantius told Curio. His tone was very gentle. "I deliberately didn't tell you about my little ceremony, and I knew you were still laid up after your attack of fever last week.

The old legate smiled. "You knew about my being a Christian too. Your intelligence department seems to be working well."

"Come into my study," the caesar said. "We'll have a goblet of wine."

In the study Curio said, "You yourself did well too, if you will permit me to say so."

The caesar laughed. "Diocletian will be furious, of course. But I'm Maximian's man, as you know, and my dear father-in-law doesn't care much about such matters. Besides, Nicomedia is very far away. Mind you, I shall have to carry out my orders."

Curio looked up frowning. "Do you really believe that Christians are dangerous to the state?"

"I think Diocletian must have become a little mad. Most emperors do, after a while." (Louis de Wohl, St. Helena and The True Cross, Vision Books: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1958, pp. 74-79.)

Although the account above is contained in a novel about the life of Saint Helena, who was married to the future Roman Emperor Constantius, the father of Constantine, it nevertheless conveys a truth about many who acquire power. Many of those who acquire power do indeed become demigods, at least in their own very fertile imaginations, as they demonstrate utter madness in their words and deeds. Reality matters nothing to these mad caesars. What matters to them is what they imagine reality to be.

The current caesar, Barackus Obamus Ignoramus, has a degree and depth of hubris that is amazing to behold. Caesar Obamus has told friends and journalists that he considers himself the "LeBron James," a participant in the so-called sport called professional basketball, I believe, of politics. Caesar Obamus believes in his statism. He believes in his nationalization of the health-care industry. He believes in chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law. He believes in himself. Remember, this is the man who said the following on "Super Tuesday," February 5, 2008:


Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for.


We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who've been told that they cannot have what they dreamed, that they cannot be what they imagine.

Yes, they can. We are the hope of the father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake with doubt that tells him he cannot give his children the same opportunities that someone gave him.

Yes, he can.

We are the hope of the woman who hears that her city will not be rebuilt, that she cannot somehow claim the life that was swept away in a terrible storm.

Yes, she can.

We are the hope of the future, the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided, that we cannot come together, that we cannot remake this world as it should be. (Raw Data: Text of Barack Obama's Super Tuesday Speech.)

Even more so than his predecessor, who called referred to "Islam as a religion of peace," Barack Hussein Obama, who is the son and a step-son of men who were raised as Mohammedans before embracing their own forms of Kenyan or Indonesian socialism, has used his bully pulpit as a means to propagandize in behalf of a hideous false religion that denies the doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity, thus denying, of course, the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of Our Lady by the power of Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and ignoring the fact that this false religion incites its followers to hatred and violence against infidels. Barack Hussein Obama is an international propagandist in behalf of Mohammedanism as he ignores history and doctrinal truth to show his fealty to those who are immersed in this diabolical sect that has the power to save no human being's immortal soul and whose adherents have to this very day unleashed acts of great violence against anyone professing the name of Christian as they profess loyalty to the Koran, that "dear and precious book" as it was termed in 2008 by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, all the while.

Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus, desiring to pay his public obeisance to the "great" religion of murder and deceit that formed his father and step-father and for which he has such great and profound respect and gratitude, expressed himself as follows in a speech at the University of Cairo (Egypt, not Illinois or new York) on June 4, 2009:

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.  Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight.  I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.  But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.  There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.  As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."  (Applause.)  That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims.  As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.  As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam.  It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment.  It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed.  Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.  And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.  (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story.  The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.  In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.  They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.  And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library.  (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.  That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't.  And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.) (Remarks by Caesar Obamus at Cairo University, 6-04-09)


Barack Hussein Obama, who sounds at times like he's running to be the next conciliar "pope," was back at it again two days ago, Wednesday, November 10, 2010, when he addressed students in Jakarta, Indonesia, praising Mohammedanism's spirit of "toleration," which he said was realized in a special way in, of all places, Indonesia:

Because Indonesia is made up of thousands of islands, and hundreds of languages, and people from scores of regions and ethnic groups, my time here helped me appreciate the common humanity of all people.  And while my stepfather, like most Indonesians, was raised a Muslim, he firmly believed that all religions were worthy of respect.  And in this way -- (applause) -- in this way he reflected the spirit of religious tolerance that is enshrined in Indonesia’s Constitution, and that remains one of this country’s defining and inspiring characteristics.  (Applause.)
Now, I stayed here for four years -- a time that helped shape my childhood; a time that saw the birth of my wonderful sister, Maya; a time that made such an impression on my mother that she kept returning to Indonesia over the next 20 years to live and to work and to travel -- and to pursue her passion of promoting opportunity in Indonesia’s villages, especially opportunity for women and for girls.  And I was so honored -- (applause) -- I was so honored when President Yudhoyono last night at the state dinner presented an award on behalf of my mother, recognizing the work that she did.  And she would have been so proud, because my mother held Indonesia and its people very close to her heart for her entire life.  (Applause.) . . . .

In the years since then, Indonesia has charted its own course through an extraordinary democratic transformation -- from the rule of an iron fist to the rule of the people.  In recent years, the world has watched with hope and admiration as Indonesians embraced the peaceful transfer of power and the direct election of leaders.  And just as your democracy is symbolized by your elected President and legislature, your democracy is sustained and fortified by its checks and balances:  a dynamic civil society; political parties and unions; a vibrant media and engaged citizens who have ensured that -- in Indonesia -- there will be no turning back from democracy.
But even as this land of my youth has changed in so many ways, those things that I learned to love about Indonesia -- that spirit of tolerance that is written into your Constitution; symbolized in mosques and churches and temples standing alongside each other; that spirit that’s embodied in your people -- that still lives on.  (Applause.)  Bhinneka Tunggal Ika -- unity in diversity.  (Applause.)  This is the foundation of Indonesia’s example to the world, and this is why Indonesia will play such an important part in the 21st century.  (Remarks by Caesar Obamus at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia, November 10, 2010.)


Spirit of "tolerance," eh, Caesar Obamus? Go tell that to the Catholics and Orthodox Christians in Iraq who are being attacked by your "religion of peace" in a "spirit of tolerance." You are mad. You are deluded by grandeurs of an intellect that is puny and by a sense of self-importance, omnipotence, infallibility and impeccability that are beyond even the likes of one of the all-time past masters of hubris in the White House, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

Ah, Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus has no "spirit of tolerance" for those who disagree with him and his administration's edicts, most of which are made by unelected political appointees who hold positions that do not require confirmation by a majority vote in the United States Senate and who even have been given the power in the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010," aka ObamaCare, of making "nonbinding" life and death decisions concerning medical care that should be rendered to the elderly and others whose lives are considered too "costly" to maintain.

Barack Hussein Obama hates criticism.

Barack Hussein Obama hates any scrutiny of his past promises and plethora of failed policies that are bankrupting the nation with even more and more trillions of dollars in debt than were amassed by his predecessor, Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus.

Barack Hussein Obama seeks to demonize and cast as illegitimate actors on the national stage any of those who provide dispassionate analyses of his budgets and budgetary proposals.

Barack Hussein Obama turns a deaf ear and raises in voice in utter indignation when anyone dares to mention. the scandals associated with "green energy" projects such as Solyndra.

Barack Hussein Obama cares not about the pain that his refusal to authorize drilling for natural gas and oil within the boundaries of the United States of America and off of its Atlantic coastline is causing consumers at gasoline pumps as "his" vision for a "greener" America requires higher prices for fossil fuels and an elimination of coal and nuclear energy altogether.

Barack Hussein Obama cares nothing about even consulting or informing the Congress of the United States of America when he commits American military personnel to conflicts such as the civil war erupted in Libya last year that has been won, it appears, by believing Mohammedans intent on making the entirety of North Africa what it was following the decimation of the true Faith there in the Seventh Century as the hideous false prophet named Mohammed spread his man-made religion by the power of the sword and utter mass destruction.

Barack Hussein Obama does not care that his high-handed support of the so-called "Arab Spring" is resulting in the institutionalization of a regime in Egypt that is dedicated to the spread of Mohammedanism throughout the Middle East as persecutions have risen against Catholics and Coptic Christians there.

Barack Hussein Obama wraps himself up in a mantle of superiority and sanctimony as he portrays himself as a defender of "women's rights" Obama and Axelrod know that most people don't know and don't care about the Obama administration's effort to force religious institutions to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization to their employees.

Barack Hussein Obama just tells lies to obfuscate the simple fact that his administration has refused to protect the borders of the United States of America and the decision to sue the State of Arizona by daring to seek to protect itself from a wave of violent criminals who have crossed into this country from Mexico.

Barack Hussein Obama believes that he is setting past "wrongs" "right" by bowing and scraping before foreign leaders, thus demeaning American national sovereignty and security, which he showed us just last week means nothing to him whatsoever (see Fragile Is The House Of Cards).

Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus plays by one set of rules--his.

He, a Chicago ward politician who always resented the Irish-Catholic "white power structure" of the Cook County, Illinois, political machine of the family of Mayors Richard J. and Richard M. Daley, believes that those who criticize him must be rolled over by his efforts to bulldoze truth and take demagoguery to depths that are even remarkable in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic farce of naturalism that is the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity. The disgraced former Governor of the State of New York, Elliot Spitzer, who once proclaimed himself to be a (unprintable adverb) bulldozer, has nothing on the bare-knuckles, lie and demonize-at-all-times Barack Hussein Obama. Nothing. Bill Clinton, no chump when it came to such methods, is an old, washed-up Class D minor leaguer in comparison to Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is the very embodiment of the spirit of the late Saul Alinsky, in whose "community organizations" he cut his political eyeteeth as an intimidator par excellence:

Opening page - Dedication

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to


the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... 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.


"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....

     "The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your functionto agitate to the point of conflict." p.117

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

     "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.)


This is a perfect description of how Barack Hussein Obama sees the world and how he presents himself to the public. Indeed, this is how he sees himself. He is right and thus he has the "right" to play by his rules. Those who disagree with must be target and frozen with personal attacks in order to polarize public opinion against his critics. This is the way that this man has governed as President of the United States of America that he has governed and this is way that he is running for re-election so that he can have more "space" in his second term to do the things that he really wants to do to consolidate his power and impose his agenda upon us all while he continues to surrender more and more of American national sovereignty and security.

As noted above, Barack Hussein Obama has utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America. Utter contempt.


Congress makes the laws, not Caesar himself?

Elections are held every two-years that can change the composition of the membership of the two houses of the United States Congress in a manner that he does not like?

At least some Federal judges, including, quite possibly, some on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, have the temerity to take the words of the Constitution seriously?

Not if Barack Hussein Obama has anything to say about these "offenses" to his delusional sense of infallibility, and he is saying a lot as he seeks to intimidate the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America as they are now, most likely, in the process of drafting (or having their law clerks draft) their opinions in the case of United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al. that was argued before them on three successive days (March 26, 27, 28) before they held their closed session on Friday, March 30, 2012 to take their initial vote on the case. Here is a report of what the Intimidator-in-Chief said yesterday:

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld. 

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress. 

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said. 

The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace. 

Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care. 

"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional." 

Republican lawmakers slammed the president for his Supreme Court comments. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused the president of misrepresenting the implications of a ruling against the law. 

"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist,'" he said in a statement. "Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals' purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional." 

The president spoke following meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Until the heath care case remarks, the press conference was focused mostly on economic issues, as well as the war on drugs. (Obama Warns 'Unelected' Court Against Overturning Health Law.)

Although past presidents, such as the thirty-third degree Masons by the names of Andrew Jackson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have fulminated about Supreme Court decisions after they were rendered (and Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried, famously, to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices, a measure that failed in Congress but did indeed send a message that was heeded by the Court), I cannot recall--and my knowledge of this subject is pretty exhaustive, although not infallible--any precedent in the history of the United States of America where a sitting president attempted to publicly criticize the possible overturn of a piece of legislature he supported and which, in this case, was ramrodded through the Congress with a succession of "deals" and promises that have been broken before the high court's justices had rendered a decision. In essence, you see, Obama is telling the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that he will demonize them as "judicial activists" for daring take the words of the Constitution seriously and striking down any part, no less the entirety, of ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

Judicial activism? From a man who supports the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Roe v. Wade on Monday, January 22, 1973, that overturned in whole or in part the laws that had been passed by forty-four different state legislatures to permit surgical baby-killing on-demand up to and including the day of birth?

Judicial activism? What about presidential tyranny?

Even though he pouted over the results of the 2010 Congressional midterm or "off year" elections for months on end, Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus still refuses to accept the fact that it was precisely ObamaCare that was responsible, at least in large measure, for making it possible for the naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" to gain control of the United States House of Representatives on November 3, 2010.

ObamaCare was passed by the United States House of Representatives on Passion Sunday, on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219-212 after  most of those voted for the bill, save for a very few exceptions, did not even bother to read any of the 2700 pages of its massive text, much of which surrendered decision-making power over the lives and deaths of Americans to unelected apparatchiks accountable to no one other than the caesar himself. Most of the members of the Democratic Party caucus in the United States House of Representatives who voted in support of ObamaCare voluntarily abdicated legislative powers to the apparatchiks who would interpret and enforce it. ObamaCare has been an issue of power politics, not of serious public policy, from its inception as all considerations of its inherent costs to American taxpayers in terms of increases in the annual Federal budget deficit and the overall national debt and in terms of the price of their health insurance premiums and deductibles were dismissed with the gratuitous claim that ObamaCare would pay for itself over time, a false assertion that was rejected in 2010 even by the "non-partisan" Congressional Budget Office. Obama wanted it. Then House Speaker Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi wanted it. The Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, wanted it. Thus it is that all manner of last minute deals were cut in order to secure the votes of wayward House Democrats and one United States Senator, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, at the last minute.

Here's a news flash to the former professional of constitutional law, Barack Hussein Obama. Like it or not, the Federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Although the power had been exercised by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Hylton v. United States on March 8, 1796, to uphold a Congressional law imposing a tax upon carriages, the first exercise of judicial review to strike down part of a Congressional law (the U. S. Judiciary Act of 1789) occurred in a case with which former Professor Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetero, Jr.) might be somewhat familiar: Marbury v. Madison. Perhaps caesar remembers the following passages from Chief Justice John Marshall's decision, which was rendered on February 24, 1803:

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

"No person,' says the Constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? (Marbury v. Madison, February 24, 1803, 5 U.S. 177-181.)

How is it "judicial activism" to seek to examine a Congressional statute's constitutionality?

Alexander Hamilton mentioned judicial review quite explicitly in The Federalist, Number 78:


If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. (The Federalist, Number 78.)

What does any of this mean to Barack Hussein Obama? Nothing. Everyone, including each of the justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is expected to agree with him lest they be declared guilty of overstepping their powers. This is the distorted, perverted world of Barack Hussein Obama, and he will use it with great, ready abandon to bludgeon Willard Mitt Romney, whose RomneyCare was and remains the prototype for ObamaCare makes him utterly incapable of saying much, if anything, if the Supreme Court strikes down, at the very least, the "individual mandate" in ObamaCare to purchase health insurance that was modeled after Romney's own state takeover of the health care industry in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Hey, Caesar Obamus, you arrogant ignoramus of a Marxist-Leninist ideologue: judicial activism, properly understood, refers to legislating from the bench, to the invention of human "rights" that have no justification in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and whose existence cannot even be justified by the words of a written constitution.

Judicial activism? Try Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, that invented so-called penumbrae that emanate from shadows or emanations of various provisions in the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America to justify a so-called "right of privacy" that was used to overturn a long unenforced law on the statute books in the State of Connecticut that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples. Even Associate Justice Hugo Black, the Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama who became a court liberal on many matters, found that kind of judicial activism too much to stomach, denouncing it very plainly even though he did not like the law, which we know as Catholics is objectively just and good of its nature, in question:


The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.' To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.

One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term 'right of privacy' as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' 'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1, 85 S.Ct. 577, 588, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right or privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions.[1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.. . .

I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.[16]

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat oldfashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an 'arbitrary and capricious' or 'shocking to the conscience' formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937. That formula, based on subjective considerations of 'natural justice,' is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, and many other opinions.[17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74, 25 S.Ct. 539, 551 (Holmes, J., dissenting). (Associate Justice Hugo Black, Dissenting Opinion, Griswold v. Connecticut,  June 7, 1965.)

What do you say about caesar, baby?

Judicial activism? Try the "incorporation" of various provisions of the Bill of Rights, which were written to limit the power of the Federal government and not the state governments, to the state governments by means of the Fourteenth Amendment's "nor shall any state deprive any person of the right to life, liberty and property without due process of law" clause. The incorporation process started with "freedom of religion" in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, June 1, 1925, continuing a week later with "freedom of speech" in Gitlow v. New York, June 8, 1925, expanding over the course of time to include "freedom of press" in Near v. Minnesota, June 1, 1931, "freedom of assembly" in DeJonge v. Oregon, January 4, 1937, "free exercise of religion" in Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, New Jersey, February 10, 1947, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as found in the Fourth Amendment in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, June 19, 1961, the Eighth Commandment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment in the case of Robinson v. California, June 25, 1962, the Fifth Commandment's protection against self-incrimination in the infamous case of Malloy v. Hogan, June 15, 1964 (a case that held that the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America apply to the states), various provisions of the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments in the aforementioned case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1964, the Fifth Commandment's "double jeopardy" protection (one's life and limb being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime) in the case of Benton v. Maryland, June 23, 1969, a case that explicitly overturned the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Palko v. Connecticut, December 6, 1937 (a famous case that put a brake on "incorporation" cases for ten years as the court held to Associate Justice Hugo Black's dictum of "ordered liberties," which meant that only that rights deemed "essential" for "ordered liberty" were meant by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to be applied to the states), and, among many other cases dealing with the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, the landmark decision of the court in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, March 18, 1963, that extended the right "incorporation" of the right to counsel in capital cases, established in Powell v. Alabama, November 7, 1932, to the provision of legal counsel for those who could not afford one on their own.

That's judicial activism, Caesar Obamus, not the just exercise of judicial review to determine whether a law passed by Congress is in accord with the words of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was intended to created a limited government, not a government of unlimited powers of you our own arbitrary choosing.

Alas, of course, as has been mentioned so frequently on this site in recent months, there would no discussion of "rising health care costs" if we lived in a Catholic world as our hospitals would staffed by Catholic physicians and by consecrated religious who worked for the honor and glory of God and not for the bottom line of monetary profit. Decisions concerning legitimate health care would be subordinated to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and their application in individual cases according to the moral principle of subsidiarity. The mess that we are in at present is the direct result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the multifaceted, interrelated forces of naturalism that can be labeled as Judeo-Masonry. There would be ObamaCare in a state informed by Catholic principles and there would thus be no need for any  set of judges to rule on it. Catholicism is the precondition, although not an infallible guarantor, of limited government whose leaders seek, despite their own limitations and sins, to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. 

We are to live by God's laws as He has revealed them to us through the Catholic Church, not by the arbitrariness of the rules of a man who believes himself to be the "one" for whom so many were "hoping" to arise to take his place in history to lead us to secular salvation under his benighted and quite infallible reign over us poor mortals, for whom he has such horrific condescension and contempt.

We must pray as well, however, for the unconditional conversion of all of those who are steeped in the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity and Modernism that offend Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ so much and has done so much damage to the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and to the nations in which they live. We must pray for the conversion of the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and all naturalists, whether they be of the "left" or or the "right."

We must also pray daily for our own conversion away from our sins as we seek to live more penitentially as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, consoling the good God and making reparation for our sins as best as we can by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. Maundy Thursday is but two days way. Good Friday is but three days away. There is much for which we need to make reparation as we storm Heaven to help us carry our own individual crosses and those of this time in human history with joy and gratitude for having been chosen by God from all eternity to live in these times that require our own personal sacrifices and prayers without delay.

This time of chastisement, and it is a time of chastisement, will pass. There will be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and it will be a glorious triumph beyond all telling in perfect fulfillment of her Fatima Message as people of different ethnicities and races live and work united as Catholics for the greater honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity as the clients of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the shouts of:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.