Important information for the future.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
After a visit to Phoenix to get a first-hand look at evidence collected by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his investigative team, former Margaret Thatcher policy adviser Lord Christopher Monckton says he is convinced that the document presented by the White House as Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Monckton, known internationally for his climate-change skepticism, told WND he didn’t pay much attention to the controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate until he watched Arpaio and his team present their preliminary findings at a March 1 news conference. The sheriff’s Cold Case Posse has concluded there is probable cause that Obama’s birth document and his Selective Service registration are forgeries.
Monckton’s interest in Arpaio’s investigation came out in an interview last week on Dennis Miller’s nationally syndicated radio show.
At the invitation of a mutual friend with Arpaio, Monckton came to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on Monday to examine the evidence gathered by the team of retired law-enforcement investigators.
“My assessment is that they are right to be worried,” Monckton said in a video interview at the end of the day with WND’s Jerome Corsi. “That document is not genuine.”
More @ WND
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
It reads like a story taken from a best-selling crime novel, yet it is a true criminal case of a jewel heist staged in a castle in the 1940s, starring U.S. military officers, German royalty, and $2.5 million in treasure. The tale is rife with deception, conspiracy, and international intrigue. The records are on Fold3.
Major David F. Watson, Colonel Jack W. Durant, and Captain Kathleen Nash were the perpetrators. The court cases for the three defendants, brimming with documents, photos, testimony, and correspondence, can be viewed in the Court-Martial Case Files Relating to the "Hesse Crown Jewels Case", 1944-1952.
As the Allies moved into Germany toward the end of World War II, Prince Wolfgang of Hesse abandoned his family's castle in Kronberg, north of Frankfurt, Germany. Before leaving, he placed family heirlooms and jewels in a zinc-lined box, buried it in a hole in the castle basement, and covered it with concrete, hoping it would be safely hidden until the end of the war. It wasn't.In April 1944, American Forces occupied the castle to use as an officers' club. Shortly thereafter, Capt. Nash discovered the cache. She, along with Watson and Durant conspired to steal the valuables.
All parties arguing before the Court were in agreement on one thing: that Wickard v. Filburn is good law. That’s right, both sides begin their analysis with the assumption that Wickard is a valid interpretation of the commerce clause.
Liberty Legal Foundation has been warning you about this since the beginning. I was still hoping for a pleasant surprise. I was hoping that one of the lawyers arguing against Obamacare would make some statement that Wickard leaves no limits on Congressional authority. But it didn’t happen.
The lawyers opposing Obamacare all argued that the test from Wickard is valid, but that the individual mandate goes too far. Their argument is that the individual mandate forces individuals into commerce. They concede that once an individual has entered commerce by performing any affirmative act, Congress can essentially do anything to that person in relation to the commercial activity. They claim that the individual mandate is different because a person who has done nothing can be forced into commerce. They urge the Court to add to the Wickard standard a requirement that Congress can’t regulate a person until that person voluntarily enters commerce by performing some affirmative act.
This is an enticing argument. It might temporarily kill the individual mandate in its current form. However, it must be understood that this proposed new requirement would not limit Congress in any way. You see, any “non-activity” can also be described as an activity by simply changing perspective. The government has already demonstrated this by arguing that the current individual mandate regulates activity, not non-activity. The government argues that the individual mandate is a regulation of the decision to not purchase insurance. Making a decision, they argue, is an activity. This is just one example of how a non-activity can be re-defined as an activity.
Before you think that such an absurd argument could never work, remember the Wickard standard: A farmer growing wheat on his own land for use by his own family on his own farm is interstate commerce because if many other farmers did the same thing it would reduce demand on the interstate wheat market. This logic is as twisted as the new absurdity: making a decision to not act, is activity. Never underestimate the ability of power-hungry men to twist logic.
The danger here is that the Court will go along with this activity/non-activity test. Such a test will leave no real limits on Congress. Even if the Court rejects the government’s current argument that making a decision is an activity, the government will find another way to describe non-activity as activity. In other words, even if the Court strikes down the individual mandate, if they do it for the wrong reasons we will see the individual mandate back again under another name.
The proposed activity/non-activity test would allow the Court to avoid changing the mistake it made 70 years ago in Wickard. Adopting an activity/non-activity test would amount to slapping a proverbial BandAid on the gaping chest wound that is Wickard.
For 160 years the limited and enumerated powers granted to the Federal government in the Constitution acted as a control against power-hungry and corrupt men. For 160 years the growth of the federal government and federal spending mirrored the growth of the American population (see chart in the side bar). In 1942 Wickard removed the Constitutional limits on federal power. Since Wickard every aspect of the federal government has grown exponentially, and completely unchecked. Now the Supreme Court has an opportunity to fix its 70 year old mistake.
So, I’m frustrated that the attorneys arguing against Obamacare this week utterly failed to make the right argument. They’re offering the Court an easy out. The Court will likely take it.
When that happens Liberty Legal Foundation will pick up where they left off and make the right argument. We will be ready to keep fighting our Obamacare Class Action lawsuit after the Supreme Court rules. If the Court leaves the Wickard standard, with a BandAid, Liberty Legal will give the Supreme Court another opportunity to correct its mistake. This time the true solution will be presented.
We need your help to continue our fight. Please continue to spread the word about Liberty Legal Foundation. Please give what you can.
Van Irion, Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION
Bryant, in a note to “Song’s from Dixie’s Land” says, “In the popular mythology of New York City, Dixie was the Negro’s paradise on earth in times when slavery and the slave trade were flourishing in that quarter.”
Dixie owned a tract of land on Manhattan Island, and also a large number of slaves; and his slaves increasing faster than his land, an emigration ensued such as has taken place in Virginia and other States. Naturally, the Negroes who left it for distant parts looked to it as a place of unalloyed happiness and it was the ‘old Virginny” of the Negroes of that day.
Hence Dixie became synonymous with an ideal locality, combining ineffable happiness and every imaginable requisite of earthly beatitude. It has been the subject of several popular songs.”
(A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1861-1865, James D. Richardson, Volume I, US Publishing Company, 1906, page 594)
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Jackson Another Pompey on Earth:
“But when it came right down to the legality of nullifying the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 [Senator John] Tyler was far less sure of himself. What he attempted to do was discover and occupy a middle ground on an issue which had no detectable middle. On one extreme of the question Calhoun maintained the legality of both nullification and secession and the unconstitutionality of Jackson’s Force Bill. [Daniel] Webster, on the other hand, consistently upheld the illegality of secession and nullification and argued the propriety of using force in the circumstance. Tyler upheld the right of secession while denying the right of nullification. But he also denied the right of the federal government to employ force against nullification when it occurred.
Even firm States’ rights Virginians like St. George Tucker could not accept this peculiar dichotomy in Tyler’s thinking. It was a question of either submitting or seceding, and since South Carolina had not seceded, the federal government had no alternative but to compel the State to comply with federal legislation.
…Tyler informed Virginia’s Governor John Floyd on January 16, the day Jackson asked for a congressional authorization of force, that:
“If S. Carolina be put down, then may each of the States yield all pretensions to sovereignty. We have a consolidated govt. and a master will soon arise. This is inevitable. How idle to talk of me serving a republic for any length of time, with an uncontrolled power over the military, exercised at pleasure by the President….What interest is safe if the unbridled will of the majority is to have sway?”
By February 2 Tyler had warmed further to the theme that General Jackson was seeking to establish a military dictatorship in America. The old 1819 vision of the Man on Horseback returned. “Were men ever so deceived as we have been….in Jackson?” He asked Littleton Tazewell. “His proclamation has swept away all the barriers of the Constitution, and given us, in place of the Federal government, under which we fondly believed we were living, a consolidated military despotism….I tremble for South Carolina. The war-cry is up, rely upon it….The boast is that the President, by stamping like another Pompey on the earth, can raise a hundred thousand men.”
A few days later, on February 6, 1833, Tyler delivered his Senate speech against the Force Bill.
“Everything, Mr. President, is running into nationality. The government was created by the States, and may be destroyed by the States; yet we are told this is not a government of the States….The very terms employed in the Constitution indicate the true character of the government. The pernicious doctrine that this is a national and not a Federal Government, has received countenance from the late proclamation and message of the President. The people are regarded as one mass, and the States as constituting one nation. I desire to know when this chemical process occurred….such doctrines would convert the States into mere petty corporations, provinces of one consolidated government. These principles give to this government authority to veto all State laws, not merely by Act of Congress, but by the sword and bayonet. They would pace the President at the head of the regular army in array against the States, and the sword and cannon would come to be the common arbiter….to arm him with military power is to give him the authority to crush South Carolina, should she adopt secession.”
(And Tyler Too. A Biography of John and Julia Gardiner Tyler, Robert Seager, II, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963, pp. 92-93)
Andrew Jackson Another Pompey on Earth
First, this is illegal.
“SANFORD — Members of the New Black Panther Party are offering a $10,000 reward for the “capture” of George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin.
New Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad announced the reward during a protest in Sanford Saturday. And when asked whether he was inciting violence, Muhammad replied defiantly: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
The bounty announcement came moments after members of the group called for the mobilization of 10,000 black men to capture Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon in a gated Sanford community on Feb. 26.
Muhammad said members of his group would search for Zimmerman themselves in Maitland — where the 28-year old worked before the shooting, employees there told the Orlando Sentinel. He declined to say when the group would begin their search.
Muhammad said the group’s national chairman, Dr. Malik Zulu Shabaz of Washington, D.C. is receiving donations from black entertainers and athletes. They hope to collect $1 million by next week, Muhammad said.
The party said they would not release the names of donors nor would they provide documentation to support the existence of donations.”
Won’t have to. Should they find and capture Zimmerman it will considered kidnapping and all “donors” considered co-conspirators. I texted a friend with the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) and spoke with a special agent who told me that they will so consider any move to capture Zimmerman a crime and will protect Zimmerman from such capture if necessary. He hinted that Zimmerman may be placed in protective custody or relocated pending the results of the investigation.
However you have to ask where is the Department of Homeland Security. The New Black Panthers are a terrorist group and considered a homeland threat. Why are they letting them set up shop in Sandford Florida and threaten a citizen’s welfare?
For those who don’t know, here are some of their beliefs.
“Our lessons talk about the bloodsuckers of the poor… . It’s that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating, Johnny-come-lately, perpetrating-a-fraud, just-crawled-out-of-the-caves-and-hills-of-Europe, so-called damn Jew … and I feel everything I’m saying up here is kosher.”
— Khalid Abdul Muhammad, one of the party’s future leaders, Baltimore, Md., Feb. 19, 1994
“Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!”
—Malik Zulu Shabazz, the party’s national chairman, protesting at B’nai B’rith International headquarters in Washington, D.C., April 20, 2002
“I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate it. We didn’t come out here to play today. There’s too much serious business going on in the black community to be out here sliding through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore bitches on our arms, and we call ourselves black men. … What the hell is wrong with you black man? You at a doomsday with a white girl on your damn arm. We keep begging white people for freedom! No wonder we not free! Your enemy cannot make you free, fool! You want freedom? You going to have to kill some crackers! You going to have to kill some of their babies!”
— King Samir Shabazz, head of the party’s Philadelphia chapter, in a National Geographic documentary, January 2009
Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Vietnam Victorious Over Democracy:
“In July of 1963, nine years after the debacle at Dienbienphu, Denis Warner, the Australian journalist, told me how astounded he was to find the American generals in South Vietnam deluding themselves with the same false optimism the French generals had professed during the first Indochina war.
Warner….had just returned from a trip through the villages and rice paddies of the Mekong Delta south of the capital. Warner noted sadly that the Saigon government’s position was crumbling there just as rapidly under the hammer blows of the Vietcong guerillas as the French position in the Tonkin Delta in North Vietnam had eroded under pressure from the Vietminh insurgents in 1952.
On his return to Saigon, however, Warner had been shocked to hear the American generals assure him with the same false self-confidence the French had shown, that they were winning the war in the Delta. They had cited similarly meaningless statistics on the number of guerillas supposedly killed and on the number of fortified hamlets that had been supposedly built. “I’ll bet I could dig out my old notebooks and find almost identical statements by the French,” Warner said.
The enemy was no longer called the Vietminh. They were now know as the Viet Cong (Vietnamese Communists), but they were the same black-clad little men, lean and hardened by years of warfare, determined to finish the revolution they had begun against the French in 1945 and to unite Vietnam under their rule. At home in the United States, most Americans, just as the French before them, were too preoccupied with their own lives to become interested in a war in a small Asian country thousands of miles away….Many probably didn’t even know where Vietnam was.
Listening to the Americans one got the impression that the French had fought badly and deserved to lose. In any case, they said, the French had been attempting to maintain an outdated colonial system and thus were doomed to failure. They, the Americans, knew how to fight wars, since they had defeated the Nazis and the Japanese and had bludgeoned the Chinese Communists to a stalemate in Korea. They were also fighting for democratic ideals and deserved victory, since Communism is bad and Democracy is good.
The Americans, however, did not know that the French Expeditionary Corps had usually fought with more bravery and determination than the Vietnamese government troops they were arming and advising. The Americans also forgot that many Vietnamese peasants saw little difference between the corrupt and brutal administrators of the Ngo family regime the US was trying to preserve and those who had plagued them during the earlier French days. Like the French before them, the Americans placed their faith in classic Western military axioms and in practice sought a conventional military solution….[and] overwhelm the Vietcong with their vast amounts of money and materiel, their thousands of advisors, and the helicopters, fighter-bombers, armored vehicles and artillery batteries they were pouring into the country.
I remember with what confidence Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara assured us….”Every quantitative measurement we have shows we’re winning this war.”
(The Battle of Dienbienphu, Jules Roy, Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1963, pp. xi-xvii)