Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

oldright · A BATR Yahoo Group
  • Members Only
  • Post
  • Files
  • Photos
  • Links
  • Database
  • Polls
  • Members
  • Calendar
  • Promote

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 118
  • Category: Politics
  • Founded: Sep 15, 2003
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Messages
Message #
Search:
Advanced
 Messages Help
Messages
Topics
Hot Topics
Messages 17357 - 17386 of 18440   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#17357 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:54 pm
Subject: YouTube: Opera Company of Philadelphia "Hallelujah!" Random Act of Culture 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
"And He shall reign forever AND EVER!!!"

"And, so it is and SHALL be beyond the end of time,
from the rising Sun unto the setting Sun, forever
in monuments placed and built by Angels of God,
the Earth shall proclaim beacons at His Birth
and Redemption for All who Love the Lord.
Amen."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU
 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17358 From: "John Perna" <JPerna@...>
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:18 pm
Subject: CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites 		jperna2
Send Email Send Email
 
 

CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites.html 

So much for the “racist” smear. Recycling a lie that was debunked 15 years ago was the ultimate of "scraping of the bottom of the barrel", and was doomed to accomplish nothing other than a demonstration of desperation. Here is the "coup de grate":

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Thursday, December 22, 2011

CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non Whites 110700 Ron Paul jt 10

While the establishment media continues to hype a 15-year-old story concerning decades old newsletters as part of a dirty tricks campaign to smear Ron Paul as a racist, the latest CNN poll shows that Paul has the most support from non-whites out of all the Republican candidates.

The latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday finds that Congressman Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head.

Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.

Ron Paul is clearly the most popular GOP contender amongst non-whites out of the entire field, suggesting that the “racist” smear, which was heavily pushed back in 2008, has had very little impact whatsoever on the views of those who presumably would be the most likely to be offended by it.

Indeed, it’s a remarkable coincidence that those who seem to be most offended by the non-controversy are well to do, white, establishment Republican cheerleaders, Paul’s foremost political adversaries.

The establishment media has predictably launched a second round of smear concerning the “racist newsletter” controversy that was first reported in 1996 and firmly debunked when it cropped up again in 2008.

Unsurprisingly, the hit piece was originated by a hardened anti-Paul neo-con who enjoys membership of the same shadowy billionaire-financed lobbying group as Paul’s election rival Newt Gingrich.

Paul has repeatedly pointed out that he had nothing to do with writing the offensive statements and didn’t even read them until years later, at which point he completely disowned the content.

The key piece of evidence, universally ignored by the race baiters, which proves Ron Paul’s stance was the exact opposite of that portrayed in some of the newsletters released under his name in the early 1990′s, relates to Martin Luther King.

The attack dogs have attempted to imply that Ron Paul either wrote or at least signed off on the characterization of civil rights hero King as a violent philanderer who “seduced underage girls and boys,” and that he criticized Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, which Paul’s newsletter (not written by Paul) labeled “hate whitey day”.

If this was Paul’s belief in the early 90′s then why, over a decade previously and then again in the early 80′s, did Paul vote to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution?

Ron Paul has accepted responsibility for the newsletters, he did so no less than 15 years ago, but he has maintained the fact that he never wrote or approved what was written in them. His support for a day to honor Martin Luther King years before newsletters were written by other authors denigrating King, provides concrete evidence for this assertion.

Paul’s support for King back in the 70′s proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself, debunking the entire farce for what it is – a craftily manufactured smear attack.

Ron Paul is the most popular Republican candidate amongst minorities because he seeks to end the war on drugs and the biased, racist court system it engenders that unfairly targets minorities.

The video below illustrates how Ron Paul’s policies are almost universally in the same spirit as Martin Luther King, and how minorities are resonating with his message of true liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39LybI5Dz6w&feature=youtu.be 

----------------

Busted! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape! OMG! OMG!

------------------

Denzel Washington and Ron Paul 2012
 
--------------------------------------

Black folks are singing about Ron Paul

Ron Paul is Here! "Three Shoes Posse" Reggae Jam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naMtwqBzja0 

Ron Paul Musical Part1--Start of something new

 
Ron Paul Song Rap - Constantine
 
Rise, Consise, Krookid -Ron Paul 2008 - Original* music vid
 
Please visit the ultimate resource for defending liberty.

CLICK HERE:
 
If you get a message that says "address is not valid" then copy and paste the address into the address bar.
 
This is the Most Extensive Collection of Freedom Videos Ever Compiled:

John Perna
My email is:   
JPerna at sc.rr.com
which, if not censored, will show as: 
 
Are you looking for a book about defending liberty?
Many rare and out of print books are still available.
Look here:
 
Then look here:
 
 
 
If you get a message that says "address is not valid"
then copy and paste the address into the address bar.
Please Watch these videos: 
REAL EYE OPENERS. DOWN LOAD THEM NOW BEFORE THEY DISAPPEAR.
 
Invisible Empire - full version NWO video An absolutely amazing expose' of the power brokers of the world: No criminal tyrant left behind.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The American Dream - a very important video
http://tinyurl.com/USADream    (NOT CLICKABLE)
or
 
or
 
-----------
 
One Video that says it ALL - the VERY BEST
Ron Paul: The Only One We Can Trust
------------

A Day In The Park - coming soon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE6MKwW2nfQ  

------------
Ron Paul 2012 - Can you Hear us Now?
------------

To be removed from my address book,
reply to this message with the word remove or unsubscribe in the subject line.
 
To be added to my address book,
reply to this message with the word add in the subject line.
 
Send this to JPerna at sc.rr.com 
which, if not censored, will show as: 
 
V ~ For Victory
 
 
Ron Paul buttons and bumper stickers:
Ron Paul bumper sticker:
Ron Paul the Hope & Change You Wanted

10 pack of Ron Paul bumper stickers:
Ron Paul the Hope & Change You Wanted
 

===============
Ron Paul buttons:
Ron Paul the Hope & Change You Wanted

10 pack of 2.25″ metal, 2 color, buttons: 
 

 THE CORRUPT FEAR US.
THE HONEST SUPPORT US.
THE HEROIC JOIN US.
 
HERE IS your Free DISCOUNT Card FOR Prescription, Lab and Imaging. UP TO 75% OFF

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17359 From: "John Perna" <JPerna@...>
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:19 pm
Subject: To My Sheriff : WILL YOU ALLOW S.1867 TO REPEAL THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTY? 		jperna2
Send Email Send Email
 
To My Sheriff : 
 WILL YOU ALLOW S.1867 TO REPEAL THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTY?
 
To YOUR Sheriff :
 
     I AM SENDING THIS TO YOU, AND TO A LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE.
IF PEOPLE, WHO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION, DISAPPEAR WE WILL BE ASKING YOU WHERE THEY ARE.
 

http://targetfreedom.com/american-concentration-camps/bill-of-rights-born-dec-15-1791-died-dec-15-2011/ 

Happy Bill of Rights Day. The controlled media is not reporting this. ASK THEM WHY NOT?

Americans can be detained without due process Bill - S.1867
 
You, as an American citizen, can now be held
without charges and indefinitely detained. You can
also be sent to another country to be tortured. You
are subject to secret arrest and may not have access
to legal council. Your family members are not entitled
to know your where abouts.
 
Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law
or
 
 

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
             -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials.

 
What Adolph Hitler did was LEGAL, in Germany, when he did it.
What Stalin did was LEGAL, in Russia, when he did it.
What Mao did was LEGAL, in China, when he did it.
NOW THOSE SAME THINGS ARE LEGAL IN AMERICA.   

A Day In The Park - coming soon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE6MKwW2nfQ     

 
THE BILL OF RIGHTS HAS BEEN KILLED!
This is no exaggeration.
The House has passed the National Defense Authorization Act and the Senate will vote on it and pass it on Thursday, December 15, Bill of Rights Day.  It will go to the President and will be signed on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
This is a summary execution of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  There is no longer an inalienable right to Due Process and Habeas Corpus in America.  Guilty of this crime are the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, the Military and the News Media Establishment.
Will you stand up for the Bill of Rights on Bill of Rights Day?  From the grave all those who sacrificed to establish and preserve Freedom in this country are calling out for you to gather with others and stand together.
 
On December 15, Congress passed the bill legalizing the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. On December 15, 1791, our Founding Fathers ratified the Bill of Rights. Tomorrow, December 16, Obama is expected to sign the bill into law. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773. It should be clear, except to the most naive, that these politicians intended to pass and sign into law this draconian bill on these two historic days in our nation's history. This is a summary execution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is no longer an inalienable right to Due Process and Habeas Corpus in America. This means no one anywhere will be safe, including law-abiding U.S. citizens. It means anyone anywhere may be indefinitely held without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, baseless allegations or none at all.
 
Dec. 15 marked the 220th anniversary of the day the Bill of Rights were officially added to the Constitution.

Ironically, the U.S. Senate killed the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments of that Bill of Rights on this same date.

The U.S. House approved the Conference Report version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions that would allow the President to throw American citizens in jail and keep them there indefinitely.
 
Federal Government Takes Final Step to Suspend Constitution
Rand Paul on Indefinite Detention Bill:
 
 

Jon Stewart Bashes Obama for Backing ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill

 
From InfoWars
 
 
Watch Lindsey Graham: "Shut Up. You Don't Get a Lawyer!"
Sieg Heil
 
 
 
The US military is hiring concentration camp guards for civilian detainees. U.S. Detention Camps political prisoners have been built all over the USA. NDAA S.1867 has passed making it possible to arrest Americans without any charge, and to detain them indefinitely without any trial. The federal government is gathering intelligence to confiscate food supplies.
Senate Passed NDAA 1867 
America is now officially a Police State
http://community-2.webtv.net/ranger116/doc/  

Here is what Ron Paul told the House of Representatives about this Building of Tyranny:
 
The Proper Role of Law Enforcement by  Sheriff Richard Mack
http://americanistbookstore.com/books/proper-role-of-law-enforcement/  
 
 
 
What every citizen should know. What every cop should believe. "To serve and protect" - This time-honored mission statement of American law enforcement is steadily giving way in police departments all across the nation to an ethos of intimidation, military-style siege, and disdain for citizens' rights. Richard Mack - the man who as sheriff of a rural Arizona county fought the Brady Bill gun-control law all the way to the Supreme Court and won - gives us an insider's glimpse into the pervasive forces that are relentlessly driving America towards a police state. In almost confessional style, he recounts how he came to realize, while working as a beat cop, how wrong the all-too-common orientation of police officers is when they think of their job as being "to write tickets and arrest people." Richard Mack tells of his personal transformation from "by-the-numbers" cop to constitution-conscious defender of citizens' rights and freedoms. This book is a wake-up call for all law-enforcement officers. It is a must-read for every man and woman wearing a badge. If you have a friend or relative in law enforcement, make sure you get a copy into their hands. You'll be shocked to learn just how far American law enforcement has strayed from its mission.
 
 

Federal Agents Demand Customer Lists From Food Storage Facilities. What reason is there for government demanding to know who is storing food?  Is it now a crime to have enough food to resist tyranny? The individual who leaked this information now denies what he said.

FOLKS! TYRANNY IS IN A FULL CHARGE AGAINST THOSE WHO MIGHT DEFEND LIBERTY. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS DEFINED THOSE WHO DEFEND LIBERTY TO BE "ENEMY COMBATANTS". IF THERE IS COMBAT BOTH SIDES ARE ENEMIES TO THE OTHER. THE ACT OF DECLARING SOMEONE TO BE YOUR "ENEMY COMBATANT" IS DECLARING YOURSELF TO BE HIS "ENEMY COMBATANT".
=========
  Why will Obama need foreign troops to impose martial law?

Military and law enforcement personnel are organizing to resist illegal orders to impose tyranny.
Visit:
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT can be a defense against central tyranny. 
Alert your local representatives and police.
Ask them to protect your civil liberties.
Our county Sheriff's have the same obligation, and we all need to contact our local departments and remind them of their duties and the oath they are sworn to uphold.
For details visit:
Sheriff Mack The Power of the County Sheriff

 


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002PKCMFO?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12   

Sheriff Mack's latest book covers decades of research to prove once and for all that the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff absolutely has the power and responsibility to defend his citizens against all enemies, including those from our own Federal Government. History, case law, common law and common sense all show clear evidence that the sheriff is the people's protector in all issues of injustice and is responsible for keeping the peace in all matters. He is the last line of defense for his constituents; he is America's last hope to regain our forgotten freedom. This short but powerful book is a must read for all citizens, sheriffs, and government officials that we may all work to return America to the constitutional republic she was meant to be. Amazing as it might be, the sheriff can make this happen!

Richard Mack Tells Sheriffs: You Can Fight NWO at County Level
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1743#more-1743
 
-------------------------------

Senate Passes NDAA S.1867-"93 to 7" Allowing the U.S. Military to arrest U.S. Citizens in the USA without charges and hold them indefinitely without the Right to a Trial, Making America a Police State! Watch and Pass these links on if you value Freedom: 
 
http://www.google.com/news?q=ndaa+S.1867&hl=enhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&gbv=1&q=NDAA+S.1867 
  

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face (Forbes)
http://tinyurl.com/7a6v8tl   

An Open Message to Police & Military
 
  
1. The US Army National Guard's help wanted ads for "Internment / Resettlement Specialists" in text.
 
AND THE Actual Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkkbsy5QHEg 
 
also here:
 

 2. Definition of Internment- imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment    

3.The US Army's regulation's for managing a concentration camp right from the US Army's own web site.

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/R210_35.PDF    

4. Videos of a few of the concentration camp's that have already been built.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4&feature=related   

5. Video of Undercover FBI agent Larry Grathwohl telling how he sat in on the meeting discussing liquidation (Internment Resettlement) of Americans in "re-education camps".

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5742    

6. Videos  before the House and Senate showing testimony on the plans to declare martial law. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0IL7k3elQ&NR=1http://tinyurl.com/lghl4e   

7. HR 645: To Authorize & Legalize FEMA Camps right from the federal site
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h645_ih.xml   
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8J_lcHwkvc  
 
9. Mainstream media discussions

San Francisco Chronicle: RULE BY FEAR OR RULE BY LAW
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL   

Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler, Dan Hamburg

Monday, February 4, 2008

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

        - Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

 
THIS ARTICLE IS ALSO POSTED AT:
 
http://targetfreedom.typepad.com/targetfreedom/2011/12/billofrightsdied12-15-11.html 
 
SOMETHING HAS BEEN BLOCKING CLICKABLE HYPERLINKS IN THIS MESSAGE,
EVEN AFTER I RELOADED THEM.
YOU MAY HAVE TO USE COPY AND PASTE TO THE ADDRESS BAR.
 
Please visit the ultimate resource for defending liberty.

CLICK HERE:
 
If you get a message that says "address is not valid" then copy and paste the address into the address bar.
 
This is the Most Extensive Collection of Freedom Videos Ever Compiled:

John Perna
My email is:   
JPerna at sc.rr.com
which, if not censored, will show as: 
 
Are you looking for a book about defending liberty?
Many rare and out of print books are still available.
Look here:
 
Then look here:
 
 
 
If you get a message that says "address is not valid"
then copy and paste the address into the address bar.
Please Watch these videos: 
REAL EYE OPENERS. DOWN LOAD THEM NOW BEFORE THEY DISAPPEAR.
 
Invisible Empire - full version NWO video An absolutely amazing expose' of the power brokers of the world: No criminal tyrant left behind.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The American Dream - a very important video
http://tinyurl.com/USADream    (NOT CLICKABLE)
or
 
or
 
-----------
 
One Video that says it ALL - the VERY BEST
Ron Paul: The Only One We Can Trust
------------

A Day In The Park - coming soon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE6MKwW2nfQ  

------------
Ron Paul 2012 - Can you Hear us Now?
------------

To be removed from my address book,
reply to this message with the word remove or unsubscribe in the subject line.
 
To be added to my address book,
reply to this message with the word add in the subject line.
 
Send this to JPerna at sc.rr.com 
which, if not censored, will show as: 
 
V ~ For Victory
 
 
Ron Paul buttons and bumper stickers:
Ron Paul bumper sticker:
Ron Paul the Hope & Change You Wanted

10 pack of Ron Paul bumper stickers:
Ron Paul the Hope & Change You Wanted
 

===============
Ron Paul buttons:
Ron Paul the Hope & Change You Wanted

10 pack of 2.25″ metal, 2 color, buttons: 
 

 THE CORRUPT FEAR US.
THE HONEST SUPPORT US.
THE HEROIC JOIN US.
 
HERE IS your Free DISCOUNT Card FOR Prescription, Lab and Imaging. UP TO 75% OFF

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17360 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:12 pm
Subject: "Pretty incendiary?" asks CNN's Gloria Borger -- WE'LL SHOW YOU "INCENDIARY," GLORIA!! responds Private Attorney General 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 3:10 PM
Subject: "Pretty incendiary?" asks CNN's Gloria Borger -- WE'LL SHOW YOU "INCENDIARY," GLORIA!! responds Private Attorney General
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RLonnC_ZWQ0


Let me tell you about INCENDIARY, Gloria!

It was pretty INCENDIARY for the Union Army to RE-INVADE every Southern State
that had already voted AGAINST ratification of the so-called Fourteenth amendment [sic],
and then force white Southern Legislators out of office and onto the streets -- AT GUN POINT.

It was pretty INCENDIARY for the Feds to blow up the USS Maine,
and thereby fabricate a reason to go to war with Spain.

Not much has changed in all the years that have passed:
I'm obviously omitting a MEGATON of evidence proving
similar treachery by employees of "Uncle Sam".

Fast-forward to the recent past:

It was pretty INCENDIARY for the USS George Washington to launch
a heavily modified A-3 Skywarrior and AGM from an anchorage off Long Island,
and remotely pilot that jet straight into the Pentagon's Naval Command Center.

It was pretty INCENDIARY for U.S. Military personnel to assist a
full El Al 747 to depart JFK at 4:11 PM on 9/11/2001 for destination
David Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv.

It was pretty INCENDIARY for George W. Bush to order
a military invasion of Iraq that resulted in the premature deaths
of AT LEAST 1.25 Million Iraqis, even though no weapons of mass destruction
were found in Iraq.

In point of verifiable historical fact, it was pretty INCENDIARY
for the Mossad to receive plutonium at the Port of Amsterdam
after the Russian Mafia stole it from former Soviet nuclear stockpiles
in the Ural Mountains, and Niger yellow cake with the help of German spies
during a secret transfer in the middle of the Mediterranean.

And, it was pretty INCENDIARY for George W. Bush to authorize
The New York Times and the Washington Post to blow the cover
off Valerie Plame Wilson's extensive team tracking black market traffic in
fissionable materials, high-speed centrifuges, oscilloscopes and such.


But, I guess, solely for semantic reasons, it was NOT "incendiary"
for CNN to do a hack job on your rude interview with Ron Paul recently.


My conclusion is that you are just too chicken to confront the
facts about Zionist infiltration of the Federal Government --
all three Branches.

SHAME ON YOU, SHAME! SHAME!! SHAME!!!


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17361 From: "BATR@..." <batr@...>
Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:23 am
Subject: BATR Inherent Autonomy essay - A Christmas Wish List for Obama 		sartre
Send Email Send Email
 

Which is it? Ho Ho Ho or Bah! Humbug!

 

When it comes to the Barack Obama presents you received during his administration, what you got is a visit from a Christmas basher without the redeeming value of a Grinch or Scrooge. Examine the generous gifts this "Bad Santa" doled out during his holiday season. Postponing another indulgent vacation is a small price to pay for the enjoyment of keeping the cheer and folly celebration going. Be damn the cost, it is just too much fun to stop this excitement of stuffing coal in your stocking, once again.

 

Read the entire article on the BATR Archive page

http://batr.org/autonomy/122511.html

 

Discuss or comment about this essay on the BATR Forum

http://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=1929

 

 

 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17362 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:26 am
Subject: HILARIOUS "MUZAK" VIDEO: Internet Killed Israeli PR (fun2watch) -- "Wait a second, THAT'S BARBRA STREISAND!!" 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 5:25 PM
Subject: HILARIOUS "MUZAK" VIDEO: Internet Killed Israeli PR (fun2watch) -- "Wait a second, THAT'S BARBRA STREISAND!!"

Atzmon, you're in trouble now, buddy!!  LOL!!!


Internet Killed Israeli PR (fun watch) 

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/internet-killed-israeli-pr-fun-watch.html


"The way we were.
"The way we are now.
"The way we're gonna be too!"
-- New Rothschild Motto (DIG IT!!)

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#17363 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:45 am
Subject: RT: Pakistan Choosing China as Closer Partner, American Ties Evaporate 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
  Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 5:42 PM
Subject: RT: Pakistan Choosing China as Closer Partner, American Ties Evaporate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhgH7uK_Yd4&feature=player_embedded#!


Pakistan has its eyes on the east for future partnerships,
with the President now firming-up the country's friendship with China.

This, after a rocky year with the United States,
where ties have been all but severed
- from the raid to kill Osama bin Laden without informing Islamabad,
to last month's deadly drone attack.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17364 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:59 am
Subject: Fake "Al Qaeda" Actors EXPOSED! Adam Gadahn & Yousef al-Khattab 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
... aided and abetted by the U.S. FIB and the Agency for Importation of Cocaine
(abbreviated Cocaine.Import.Agency) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0&skipcontrinter=1

 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 5:25 PM
Subject: HILARIOUS "MUZAK" VIDEO: Internet Killed Israeli PR (fun2watch) -- "Wait a second, THAT'S BARBRA STREISAND!!"

Atzmon, you're in trouble now, buddy!!  LOL!!!


Internet Killed Israeli PR (fun watch) 

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/internet-killed-israeli-pr-fun-watch.html


"The way we were.
"The way we are now.
"The way we're gonna be too!"
-- New Rothschild Motto (DIG IT!!)

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice





Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#17365 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:28 am
Subject: Articulate Pakistani Speaks: Imran Khan at his Book Launch in Leicester, UK: "Rule of law means making the powerful and the weak equal in front of the law. That's justice!" 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 6:25 PM
Subject:
Articulate Pakistani Speaks: Imran Khan at his Book Launch in Leicester, UK:
"Rule of law means making the powerful and the weak equal in front of the law. That's justice!"

Imran Khan at his Book Launch in Leicester, UK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjR-an4lHpg&feature=related


"Rule of law means making the powerful and the weak
equal in front of the law.

"That's what justice is.

"The opposite of rule of law is 'might is right'
which is what is in Pakistan now."

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17366 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:54 am
Subject: Re: [freedomfightersforamerica] Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/911.truth.12.answers.htm


Ask your friends and other contacts to achieve positive identification
of the objects in this photo:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/crane.lifting.parts.jpg


("Negative identification" doesn't count e.g. it wasn't this, or it wasn't that.)


Our studied conclusions were documented here for U.S. Coast Guard Investigations
(but, save this until AFTER your "expert" friends have identified the objects in the above photo):

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/executive.summary.htm


We have also reviewed several reports claiming that a Russian satellite
photographed the launch of that A-3 Skywarrior from the flight deck
of the USS George Washington, while it was anchored off the coast
of Long Island on the morning 9/11/2001.

If this can be confirmed, then the Captain of that carrier is also implicated.


And, Wayne Madsen has also reported that a FULL El Al Boeing 747 departed
JFK at 4:11 PM on 9/11/2001 for David Ben Gurion International Airport
in Tel Aviv:  that was the "getaway" vehicle, and British Intelligence reportedly
has the passenger manifest.

p.s.  There is a large amount of documentary evidence in these early pleadings:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/vcc.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mariani/notice.intent.htm

If you would be a grand or petit juror, kindly suspend your verdict(s)
until you have reviewed ALL of the evidence.

But, be aware also that there are many people who have no love for the truth.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess.%202:10&version=NIV


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
From: Phil Holtz <philholtz54@...>
To: PAUL MITCHELL <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 9:22 PM
Subject: Fw: [freedomfightersforamerica] Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA <chris@...>
To: freedomfightersforamerica@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [freedomfightersforamerica] Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate


                                                                       
                                          FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA
                                     "FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"     http://www.freedomfightersforamerica.com 

GREAT NEWS FOR MONTANA, I THINK I WILL MOVE THERE.
                                                


--- On Mon, 12/26/11, Deon M. <deonm@...> wrote:

From: Deon M. <deonm@...>
Subject: [freedomfightersforamerica] Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate
To: ctrl@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, December 26, 2011, 3:43 PM

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Linda Robb
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 12:31 PM
Subject: [TheFinePrint] Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate
 
 
 
 
From: W.G.E.N.

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate Follow Share26.8K permalink 77 Comments Disclaimer: I am now a volunteer press contact for this campaign.

From the press release: Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill. Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses. Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads: "(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor." The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts. Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens.  Rhodes said:
"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."

Rhodes noted that:
"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." Time to fight. "

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..." Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws. Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:
”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past." Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country. References: Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"http://www.facebook.com/... "Recalling Senators and Congressmen"http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/... "How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/...[]

Tags

77 comments | Permalink

 
 



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17367 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:16 am
Subject: re-sending Re: [9-11-NeXuS] Re: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
Sorry about the mixed messages: 
this next message from me was in response to the Subject:
[9-11-NeXuS] Re: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/911.truth.12.answers.htm


Ask your friends and other contacts to achieve positive identification
of the objects in this photo:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/crane.lifting.parts.jpg


("Negative identification" doesn't count e.g. it wasn't this, or it wasn't that.)


Our studied conclusions were documented here for U.S. Coast Guard Investigations
(but, save this until AFTER your "expert" friends have identified the objects in the above photo):

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/executive.summary.htm


We have also reviewed several reports claiming that a Russian satellite
photographed the launch of that A-3 Skywarrior from the flight deck
of the USS George Washington, while it was anchored off the coast
of Long Island on the morning 9/11/2001.

If this can be confirmed, then the Captain of that carrier is also implicated.


And, Wayne Madsen has also reported that a FULL El Al Boeing 747 departed
JFK at 4:11 PM on 9/11/2001 for David Ben Gurion International Airport
in Tel Aviv:  that was the "getaway" vehicle, and British Intelligence reportedly
has the passenger manifest.

p.s.  There is a large amount of documentary evidence in these early pleadings:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/vcc.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mariani/notice.intent.htm

If you would be a grand or petit juror, kindly suspend your verdict(s)
until you have reviewed ALL of the evidence.

But, be aware also that there are many people who have no love for the truth.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess.%202:10&version=NIV


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Phil Holtz <philholtz54@...>
To: PAUL MITCHELL <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 9:09 PM
Subject: Fw: [9-11-NeXuS] Re: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax
ongoing.
 
 
 
 
 
Ok, so Rumsfeld played his part.  Big deal.  The question remains: who actually did the "attacks"?  And who would listen to his "delegation", anyway?  WhoTF is he to command such authority where everyone simply genuflects?  Are you THAT deluded?

you say: "possibly" to Mossad...  now THAT is funny.

Oh for lack of a Grand Jury investigation...........................

LC
 
*************************************************************************
Are you tired of this "recession" yet?  Had enough "stimulus"?  Perhaps it's time for a tax revolt.  Let me know when you think so, too.  214-230-2187
*************************************************************************

From: Rolf Lindgren <rolfusaugustusadolphus@...>
To: "Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com" <Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: 9-11 Nexus forum <9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax

 
Rumsfeld delegated that part of the operation, possibly to MOSSAD agents.

Rumsfeld made sure the military did not interfere with the 9/11 attacks.  He also scheduled the war games.

From: Louis Charles <lcharles14@...>
To: "Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com" <Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: 9-11 Nexus forum <9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax

 
prove it.  How did nano-thermite get placed to bring the towers down?  Who were the henchmen who took Building 7 down?  How did Larry Silverstein know the charges were there so he could say "pull it"?  Who allowed those "terrorist" hijackers on the planes? 

a "few" henchmen"?  NAME NAMES.  Prove their involvement.

What did Rumsfeld actually do?

LC
 
*************************************************************************
Are you tired of this "recession" yet?  Had enough "stimulus"?  Perhaps it's time for a tax revolt.  Let me know when you think so, too.  214-230-2187
*************************************************************************

From: Rolf Lindgren <rolfusaugustusadolphus@...>
To: "Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com" <Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax

 
9/11 was planned and executed by Donald Rumsfeld and a few henchmen.

From: Louis Charles <lcharles14@...>
To: "Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com" <Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax

 
Ironically, the point of supporting Ron Paul is to help dismantle this ugly triangle on which you report.  I guess 9/11 "just happened", according to Rolf. 

LC
 
*************************************************************************
Are you tired of this "recession" yet?  Had enough "stimulus"?  Perhaps it's time for a tax revolt.  Let me know when you think so, too.  214-230-2187
*************************************************************************

From: R.P. McCosker <mcfrandy@...>
To: Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 10:18 PM
Subject: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax

 
So, Rolf, that was pretty awesome the way Obama took out Gaddafi. Go,
Barry, go!

Yes, real revolutions and secession movements used to occur. The CIA,
Mossad, and MI6 work real hard, spending tens of billions of our money,
to make sure those things don't happen without setting them up, and
stopping them when they aren't in control. The evil triangle are at work
everywhere on earth. The US has military bases on three quarters of the
nations on earth, but the central banker-controlled espionage agencies
don't let that inhibit them. If there was some semblance of a real "Arab
Spring," you can be sure the Mockingbird media would conceal it.

Why do you even belong to this group? I guess this is a good place to
promote Ron Paul.

--- In Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com, Rolf Lindgren <rolfusaugustusadolphus@...> wrote:
> Right, and the American Revolution was also cooked up by the CIA, Mossad,
and MI6.  Sam Adams was CIA, Thomas Paine was MOSSAD, and Patrick Henry
was MI6.  George III was the good guy.
> ________________________________
> From: R.P. McCosker <mcfrandy@...>
> To: Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 9:01 PM
> Subject: [Libertariansfor911Truth] Re: The "Arab Spring" hoax
>
> The longtime leftist Global Institute, based in Canada, is well-respected for
> its research. David Ray Griffin credits it for helping him initially to see 9/11
> for what it really was. Its economics is terrible, but it doesn't just post
> anything about international affairs that isn't well-researched.
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section&sectionName=about
>
> I think you were fooled by all the folderol about how Arabs were rising up
> against their leaders. But it was a manipulation by the espionage agencies
> to change Arab regimes, culminating in the unconstitutional, undeclared war
> of aggression against Libya. All these paid shills with signs against these
> regimes were cooked up by Western and Israeli espionage rackets (falsely
> known as "intelligence") as a cover to displace various Arab rulers.
>
> --- In Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com, Rolf Lindgren <rolfusaugustusadolphus@> wrote:
> > bullshit.
> > ________________________________
> > From: R.P. McCosker <mcfrandy@>
> > To: Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 7:57 PM
> > Subject: [Libertariansfor911Truth] The "Arab Spring" hoax
> >
> > The "Arab Spring" was cooked up by the CIA, Mossad, and MI6, at your expense:
> >
> > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28343
















Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17368 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:28 pm
Subject: U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Constitution Initiative -- Oath + "Understanding the Constitution of the United States," by Hon. John Charles Thomas 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 8:21 AM
Subjects:
U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Constitution Initiative -- Oath
+ "Understanding the Constitution of the United States," by Hon. John Charles Thomas
http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/speech.asp


Greetings Mr. Thomas:

In your detailed Presentation to the OPM Leadership Conference, you stated:

... in the Dred Scott decision one Supreme Court upheld the principle of racial inequality
by declaring that “a black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect” ....

Here's the full paragraph from which you quoted:
 They had for more than a century before been regarded as
beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate
with the white race, either in social or political relations; and
so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be
reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and
treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic,
whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that
time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white
race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in
politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be
open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society
daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as
well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a
moment the correctness of this opinion.

I believe it is somewhat misleading to refer now to apartheid as a "principle",
particularly when the Supreme Court went to such great lengths to prove
that the Law in America was the culprit in that case, and not the Justices
who made that point rather clear -- if we as a nation would only care
to read and study the entire opinion. 

Are we willing to do so?  Are you willing to do so?


Yes, I am defending the Dred Scott decision, because it was correct
and still is correct even today, for this one very important reason:

The Supreme Court still has no authority to amend the U.S. Constitution!


Please permit me to be so bold as to offer you a better, and clearer explanation:

The High Court ruled that Dred Scott could not petition for Habeas Corpus relief,
because the organic Constitution for the United States of America was written
to recognize and sustain apartheid against people of the black race even if
they were born in America.

Chief Justice Taney explained, in enormous detail, that the High Court has
no authority to amend the Constitution and that, if Americans found this result
offensive, they could and should avail themselves of the amendment procedure
set forth at Article V, to wit:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/excerpt1.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#5


We elaborate on this basic finding, also in some detail here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm


So, I leave you with this one very important and historic question:
Did three-fourths of the several States of the Union solve apartheid
by properly amending the U.S. Constitution?  The Utah Supreme Court
has answered this question in historical detail here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett

If your honest answer to that question is "No!", then
I argue that the Oath of Office Clause has become
extremely problematic -- ever since 1868 right up
to the present time and every day in between.


Thank you!


Cc:  SupremLaw discussion list and message archive


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
5 U.S.C. §3331
As Federal civil servants, we take an oath of office by which we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees - "to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty."

The history of the Oath for Federal employees can be traced to the Constitution, where Article II includes the specific oath the President takes - to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article VI requires an oath by all other government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States. It simply states that they "shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." The very first law passed by the very first Congress implemented Article VI by setting out this simple oath in law: "I do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

The wording we use today as Executive Branch employees is now set out in chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code. The wording dates to the Civil War and what was called the Ironclad Test Oath. Starting in 1862, Congress required a two-part oath. The first part, referred to as a "background check," affirmed that you were not supporting and had not supported the Confederacy. The second part addressed future performance, that is, what you would swear to do in the future. It established a clear, publicly sworn accountability. In 1873, Congress dropped the first part of the Ironclad Test Oath, and in 1884 adopted the wording we use today.

[end excerpt]

http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/speech.asp

Understanding the Constitution of the United States

Presented to the Leadership Conference of the Office of Personnel Management

By The Hon. John Charles Thomas*

We are going to have some fun today talking about the Constitution of the United States. We will try to make you see that in your daily living as officers of the United States Government and as citizens of this nation, the Constitution is something worth thinking about. We will proceed as if we are in law school by going through the Constitution section by section to focus on salient provisions.
But before we delve into the Constitution, it is worth noting that those of you assembled here are part of the very backbone of the United States Government. In large part, those of you in this room see administrations come and go. You see shifts in emphasis within the government based on election cycles, but you are constant in your service to our nation. Thus you have a long term view of governance.
In all that you do, it is crucial to keep in mind that your are part of a government under law. This fact makes you different from those who have served in most other forms of government ever created in the history of the world. And when we focus on what it means to serve in such a government, when we consider the law, when we consider the founding principles of our nation, we can become even more proud of what has been accomplished in America. This is so because we have a government that was created by practical people trying to solve practical problems to secure a better life in a fairly dangerous world; and they accomplished their mission.
It will help us to understand where we are today, as a government, if we focus on how we got from 13 ragtag colonies up and down the East Coast of North America to the great nation we have become; a nation that today stands tall and which, in many ways, is a colossus in the world in the 21st century. And so it is that today we will take a journey through history. I hope that when we are done you will have a deeper feeling for our government and a greater pride in what you do.
The very structure of the Constitution gives us profound insights about what the founders thought was important. Article I of the Constitution concerns the Legislative Branch. Article II concerns the Executive Branch. Article III concerns the Judicial Branch. One, two, three; I suggest to you that branches of government are discussed in that order in the Constitution on purpose. By this I mean, the Founders thought that the Legislative Branch was going to be the great branch of government; they thought that the executive had to be constrained and controlled; and they hardly gave any thought at all to the Judicial Branch. In so structuring the Constitution they were suggesting how the government should work. They knew that a revolution did not make a nation and so they set about to put down in writing a form of government that would foster the making of a nation.
The great sweep of their vision for America can be seen in these beautiful opening words of the Constitution:
We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
The Founders were hoping for justice. They were seeking tranquility. They were looking to defend this new land and they were looking towards the future. They were trying to build something that would endure.
But notice what the Preamble says about where the basic law of America comes from. Our Constitution is not handed down from some higher authority. It is not a situation where some royal person leans over a balcony and says to the people, “I give you these laws.”
To Top
Instead of being handed down to us, the words of our Constitution make clear that the Constitution comes up from the people. The Constitution declares that the people of America call the nation into being. Thus those in government and those who elect governments here in America do well to remember that the Constitution came from people like you and me; from regular folk, thoughtful folk, people who had been to war, people who had toiled on the land, people who knew the needs of their neighbors, people with common sense, people determined to create a government like none other.
Let us return now to what we can learn from the general structure of the Constitution. I have already said that, in my opinion, the One, Two, Three: Legislative, Executive, Judicial layout was meaningful. To check by theory I applied the word count and paragraph count options on my computer to the Constitution. Here is what I found:
- Article I on the Legislative Branch has 2,278 words, 53 paragraphs, 219 lines.
- Article II on the Executive Branch has 1,028 words, less than half, 13 paragraphs, 95 lines.
- And Article III on the Judicial Branch has only 377 words, 7 paragraphs, 37 lines.
I believe this outcome confirms my suggestion that the Legislative Branch was intended to be the most important while the Judicial Branch was an afterthought.
The Founders thought that the Legislative Branch would be the most powerful branch of government because it is closest to the people. In their view, the Legislative Branch would turn over quickest and would thus be most related to the concerns of the people. They thought the people would bring their problems to the Legislative Branch, that the Legislative Branch would debate these problems, and that the Legislative Branch would resolve these problems. That is why the Founders spent so much time discussing the qualifications of members of the legislature and the rules they would abide by: how old they had to be; where they could live; what issues were subject to their control; what procedures had to be followed; what it took to make a quorum; and more. The detail found in Article I is found nowhere else in the Constitution.
The Founders’ treatment of the Executive Branch shows that there was tension among them about the nature of the Executive. Some, like John Adams, argued for a strong Executive because he feared that only a strong leader could hold the new nation together; that if the Executive had limited powers the new nation might unravel. But others, like Thomas Jefferson, feared a strong Executive because they thought that such an Executive could become very much like the King that we had just gotten rid of. So those who thought like Jefferson asked, “Why are we going to create a government that imposes upon us another king?” The tension among the Founders about the nature of the Executive lead to the Executive Branch coming in second. The great detail that can be found in Article I is missing in Article II. To be sure, that Article says how old a President has to be and that he has to be a natural-born citizen of the United States and there is a description of powers and limitations on power. But the design of the Constitution was not for a strong Executive.
And then there is Article III, plainly pulling up the rear. That Article is notable for the many things that it does not say. For example, it does not say that a judge has to be a citizen of the United States; it does not say whether a judge has to be trained in the law; it does not say what age is required to be a judge. That Article simply does not pay much attention to the judges or to the Judicial Branch.
There is a reason that Article III is so threadbare. When the Constitution was drafted, it was not a given that a court would have the last word on what the Constitution meant. For example, In England, the parliament had the last word on interpreting the Constitution. Thus the Founders had no real reason to think that the courts they were creating would claim the power to “say what the law is.” They thought the courts would be fairly weak.
To Top
So again, the design of the Constitution was for a powerful Legislature, a well-controlled Executive, and a weak court system. But I think that is pretty clear, the government now differs from they way it was designed. If you were to ask most citizens today to name the most powerful branch of government, it is not likely that they would say the Legislative Branch.
By the same token, if you were to ask them to name the weakest branch of government, it is not likely that they would say the Judicial Branch. And, indeed, from the moment the U.S. Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison it had the power of judicial review it became the quite a powerful branch of government.
This is so because the power of judicial review means that the courts can say to the Congress and to the whole nation that conduct or enactments don’t measure up to the promise of the Constitution and those cannot be allowed to stand. That is an awesome power. It is a power that can change the course of the nation as is shown by the cases dealing with racial equality in America where, in the Dred Scott decision one Supreme Court upheld the principle of racial inequality by declaring that “a black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect” and another Supreme Court many years later in Brown v. Board held that racial inequality violated the Constitution. And so we now have an America that looks like you here in this room: black and white, men and women, younger and older, from all parts of the nation. That came from the power of judicial review.
I repeat, that the fact the government has come to work in a manner not precisely envisioned by the Founders is not a mark against them. Rather I think it is fair proof that the Founders may have done better than even they had hoped in creating this government; for they created something that is self-correcting and still evolving. They created a government that tries to do what the Preamble says; a government that seeks a more perfect union. That’s the touchstone. Our government continually tries to come closer and closer to the ideal of the “more perfect union.”
We turn now to the specifics of the Constitution. Because we are at war in Iraq I will begin with a discussion of the war powers of the United States. Interestingly enough, war is mentioned all three of the Articles that establish the branches of government. It probably comes as no surprise that war would be mentioned with respect to the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. But why would war be mentioned with respect to the Judicial Branch. In due course, I will explain.
Article I, Section 8, sets forth the Congressional War power. It gives Congress the power “to declare war, grant letters of mark and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and sea, to raise and support armies” and it also provides that no appropriation of money for that use shall be for a longer term than two years. It also empowers Congress, to a Navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and more.
Article II, Section 2, contains the “Commander-in-Chief” clause which is the source of the Presidential War power. That clause simply says that, “The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States.”
To Top
The point I made earlier about the attention to detail that the Founders gave to matters concerning the Legislative Branch as opposed to the other Branches of government can be seen again regarding the Congressional War Power and the Presidential War Power. The Congressional War Power is in described in 240 words, while the Presidential War Power is described in only 38 words. Thus, on the face of it, the Founders intended the Congressional War Power to be, to choose a word, “larger.” Nevertheless, the Founders did split the war power between these two branches of government and that was on purpose. They were trying to find a way to bring the whole nation together in times of war. Congress has a portion of the war power because the members of Congress come from the several states and have close ties to all the people. The President has a portion of the war power because he has a national constituency. The idea was that by splitting up the war power, the country would not go to war unless both constituencies – meaning the whole country – supported war.
One of the points of scholarly debate concerning the War Power is who gets to declare war. To understand this debate you need to know that when the Constitution was written, a declaration of war was a meaningful event. The way nations dealt with each other changed based on whether troops were in a declared war or not. Over time, the importance of a declaration of war has diminished. But the debate about declaring war still goes on.
But there is no debate about what the Founders had in mind once the nation was at war. Once the nation was at war, the Founders wanted the President to have the power to move quickly. They wanted him as Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers, to have “unity in dispatch.” That phrase sounds dated as we sit here today. But the events following the September 11 attack show what that phrase means. In the aftermath of the attack the nation responded on many fronts, at many levels. The Founders understood that in times of peril, the Commander in Chief had to be able to call on the full resources of the nation: the military, the National Guard, the National Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control, the FAA, local authorities. And so it was that after the attack the President was able to call on the whole country in order to pull us all together at once.
With regard to the War Power, we see again that the Founders appear to have intended that the Legislative Branch would have the great power and that the Executive Branch would have a lesser power. But again, things have evolved differently. The 38 words of the Presidential War Power have come to cover a whole host of situations and to give the President vast powers.
We will now turn our attention to the discussion of war in Article III on the Judicial Branch. There we find the definition of treason which reads as follows: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, but the placement of this definition suggests to me that the Founders had in mind freedom of speech and freedom of expression when they defined Treason.
Here is why I say that. Before the Revolution, it was treason to talk about freedom from England; it was treason to criticize the King; it was treason to write pamphlets about better forms of government; it was treason to complain of taxation without representation. Almost any word or any thought at odds with what the King was doing was treason. And so it seems to me that in Article III the Founders were basically saying, “Wait just a minute, we are not going to live like that anymore. We are going to say now, at the beginning of the new government, what treason is.” And so the point of the Founders in defining treason as they did was that, in America, you are free to think what you want; to write what you want; to publish what you want; to preach what you want; to read what you want; to criticize the government when you want. And none of that is treason like it was under the King; but you better not take up arms against the United States and give aid and comfort to people who would bring our nation down because that and that alone is treason. Thus, I contend, that even the definition of treason in Article III is meant to highlight the great freedoms we have in this land.
To Top
You may be interested in learning where the United States Civil Service is found in the Constitution. It is in Article II, Section 2 where it says that the President shall appoint all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law, but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone . . . . Of course, none of you is inferior. It is just that the Founders liked that word. But never fear for you are in good company. The Founders wrote about the Supreme Court and the inferior courts of the United States. Perhaps in the 19th Century, “inferior” did not mean what it means today. Nevertheless, it must be reassuring to find that the great U. S. Civil Service is tucked away in the Constitution.
By the way, as you go about your duties as in the Civil Service you may want to know that scholars tell me that if they were writing the Constitution today they might pay a great deal more to the Civil Service than did the Founders. They say this because the Civil Service has evolved into what some see as a fourth branch of government, a secret power in government. Given what you have become, scholars say that they would not make just a mere reference to the Civil Service, they would flesh out the requirements and the limitations.
We turn now from the first three Articles of the Constitution which established the branches of the government to those Articles that say more about how the government works.
Article IV contains the “full faith and credit” clause. This Article helps to make one nation of the several states by providing that all states must honor the rulings of sister states. Without this Article, you might win a victory in court in North Carolina only to have that victory ignored by another state. If we had to live that way, it would be very likely that our citizens would wonder whether we really had a nation.
Article IV also contains the “privileges and immunities” clause. The point of this clause is that citizens of one state must not be treated as foreigners in the other states. Thus when you travel from Virginia to Maryland, you are not asked for a passport, or detained because you don’t come from Maryland. Because of this clause you can travel and live freely in any state. Wherever you are from you can move to another state and be treated like a citizen of that state. You will have the protection of the laws. Were it not for this clause, the United States might have been like Europe once was with borders and laws insuring that the movement of people and commerce was constrained.
Article IV has a great deal to do with the creation of the American marketplace. It actually promotes the movement of people and of ideas. It makes of America one nation instead of several states.
Article V, requires only a brief mention. It concerns how to amend the Constitution.
Article VI works in two ways to create one nation from the several states. First, it made the United States responsible for the wartime debts of the states. Surely, that led the states to believe that they were part of something big. Second -- and probably most important over the years since the nation was created – is the fact that Article VI makes the Federal Government supreme. As a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, I have seen the Supremacy Clause in action. Here is what it says:
“This Constitution and the laws of the United States which made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This means that the United States is one nation and that no state can disregard the authority of the United States. We fought the Civil War to give meaning to this provision. This provision puts an end to any debate about who has the last word in our system of Federalism. To a state like my own, Virginia, this provision marked an enormous shift of power because my state was quite a big deal before the nation was created. In the beginning Virginia stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi. Kentucky and West Virginia were originally part of Virginia. Virginia had more money than any other state. And so, for Virginia to agree to the Supremacy clause meant a lot. With that we have he Articles of the Constitution.
To Top
But once the Founders finished the Constitution they did what seems to me a rather odd thing. They amended the Constitution that they had just written. This does not seem to make much sense. How often does someone build a new house and as soon as they finish building come back and put an addition on the house. People don’t normally act that way. But the Founders did. The question is why?
Here is what was going on. The main body of the Constitution concerns how government acts towards itself, how the federal government treats with the branches of the federal government and how the federal government treats with the states. If we were in law school, the professor would say that the main part of the Constitution deals how government acts inter se. But there was no mention of how the new government was to act in relation to its citizens, the people. That was the problem.
To be sure, the Constitution does talk of “a more perfect union” and of “domestic tranquility” and the like but it gives no details about the government vis a vis the people. This situation made some of the Founders nervous; they feared that if the Constitution did not describe the powers of the government vis-à-vis the people, than the government might crush the people, deprive them of freedom, crush them, roll all over them, and take their money.
The remedy was to proceed immediately to amend the Constitution which takes us to the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The theme of these amendments – put in a colloquial manner -- is something like this: “Hey, government, we are the people of this new nation and you best not forget us. We have just been through a war with England where our houses were taken, our crops were taken, our animals were taken. We have just come out of time when we could not meet, we could not talk, we could not publish news. We are not going to take this from anybody anymore. So listen up government, we are going to tell you right now what we will not accept from you.”
The First Amendment said that there will be no state religion, that the people were free to exercise the religion of there choice, that they had freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly, and the right to petition government for the redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment recognized the need for a militia to provide for the security of free states and the right to bear arms.
The Third Amendment provided that there be no quartering of troops in times of peace without permission or in times of war except by law.
The Fourth Amendment provided for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; and that no warrants could issue without probable cause.
The Fifth Amendment protected citizens against double jeopardy and self-incrimination.
The Sixth Amendment set forth the right to a speedy trial.
The Seventh Amendment established the right to trial by jury.
The Eight Amendment protected against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
The Ninth Amendment provides that rights not stated does not mean those rights don’t exist.
The Tenth Amendment states that powers not given to the United States belong to the people.
It seems to me that the Bill of Rights was a statement of recently remembered wrongs. The right protected in the Bill of Rights had not long before been trampled upon by the British.
The Bill of Rights does at least one other thing. Most of you are familiar with the great words of the Declaration of Independence which says “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But the Declaration of Independence is not part of the law of the United States. The Declaration of Independence states the aspirations of the United States. As it turns out, the Bill of Rights goes a long way towards turning the aspirations of the Declaration into law. This is so because if one has freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government in redress of grievances and so forth, one is well on the way to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thus the hope for what the nation can become is woven into the very fabric of government throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To Top
And so in closing I want to say that we have done many things right in America. I believe our government has a structure that serves the ends of justice. I believe our government relies on principles of fair play, that’s what you do every day. That’s what merit is about. That’s what being non-political is about.
I believe our nation clings to moral restraint in the exercise of our military might, and I believe we have done so since the beginning of our nation. But now we must confront the future and ask whether a Constitution and Declaration drafted in the 18th century can sustain us in the 21st century? Did the founders achieve their hope of building something that will endure? We must the question Lincoln asked: “Can any nation so conceived and so dedicated long endure?” Can this diverse land built on the principles of freedom endure in the face of those who would fly airplanes into buildings, send anthrax through the mail and then run and hide in caves?
I believe the great history of our nation says that it can. Just remember that when George Washington was sworn in as President on April 30, 1789, there was an emperor ruling China. There was a Czarina ruling Russia. There was a Kaiser ruling Germany, a Shah in Iran, a Shogun in Japan and a Sultan in Egypt, and there were Kings in France and Spain, but today of all those regimes, only the presidency of the United States is still standing.
There is good reason that our nation has endured. It begins with the fact that we are based on principles of individual freedom, principles that accommodate the sounds of many voices at the table, principles that include even the pursuit of happiness. No other government in the world has as part of its founding creed, the pursuit of happiness.
I think we have endured because we have a system that allows us to grow and evolve and move closer step by step to a more perfect union; because our people know freedom and they will never give it up; because we have a special relationship with our armed forces, indeed, our armed forces are us; and because even though we have been attacked by those who think they can exploit the freedoms and openness of the United States, we as a people will resist such attacks.
And so to you, who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, I say you hold something precious in your hands. Never forget that to many Americans, when they are in touch with you, they are in touch with the United States of America; when they hear your voice, they hear the voice of the United States of America.
As part of the leadership at OPM, you are part of bringing in others who would serve our nation, so you must be particularly vigilant so that those you bring to government will uphold the virtues of our nation.
As I close, I want you to know that I think America is worth preserving, that it’s worth keeping, that it’s worth defending, that it’s worth our best efforts and to drive this point home so you’ll never forget, I want you to understand you are listening to a black man born in the segregated South in 1950 who has seen the white only signs, who has know discrimination in my life and yet stands here and tells you I love America and I believe you do too. Our Constitution is a magnificent thing. The servants of government bring it to life. You are part of that. Keep it on.

* Mr. Thomas is a partner at Hunton and Williams, LLP where he is Chief of the Appellate Practice Group. He is a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; a former member of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and a current member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

--




Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17369 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:42 pm
Subject: "Greater Israel"? CIA asset Susan Lindauer confirms "secret" agreement promising a military base to Israel in Libya's “Green Mountain” area 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:39 AM
Subject:
"Greater Israel"? CIA asset Susan Lindauer confirms "secret" agreement
promising a military base to Israel in Libya's “Green Mountain” area
... from the Nile to the Euphrates?


http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/12/cia-asset-susan-lindauer-can-now-speaks-10-years-after-2001-9-11/

 at 1:14:30 on the counter


http://yallafinance.com/2011/10/04/libyan-transitional-assembly-denies-pledging-military-base-to-israel/

Libyan Transitional Assembly Denies Pledging Military Base to Israel

A “Top Secret” document, written in Hebrew, exposes an agreement between the Libyan Transitional Assembly and Israel, signed in Benghazi, which promises a military base to Israel in the “Green Mountain” area in the next thirty years in case the Libyan opposition forces make it to power.

The document which holds the “Israeli defense department” signature, and which was obtained by an Ukrainian intelligence officer, agrees to provide Israel with a military base in the Libyan borders in exchange for logistic support, supplying arms, putting pressure on the European and Arab countries to recognize the assembly, intensifying NATO attacks on the Gaddafi regime as well as training Libyan military forces.

This document was published by the Russian website Gazeta.ru and the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth before it was announced by the Libyan public television. The document was distributed among participants in the Arab tribal conference.

[end excerpt]


This is My Home -- The Tale of The Green Mountain - Libya in HD

(many priceless archaeological sites here!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KJxCIIdzmQ


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17370 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:13 am
Subject: Re: [Intifada Palestine] New Comment On: CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 9/11 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Intifada Palestine] New Comment On: CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 9/11
Posted below and awaiting moderation:

FYI:  We have now asked the Consulate General for Russia here in the USA to translate and convey to Mr. Vladimir Putin our request for a true and correct copy of any digital photograph(s) taken by Russian satellite(s) of the launch of an A-3 Skywarrior from the flight deck of the USS George Washington, while it was anchored off the coast of Long Island on the morning of 9/11/2001.

It is quite apparent now that the Pentagon murder weapon was modified with a “friendly” transponder beacon, in order to fool the Pentagon’s automatic fire control system into standing down, rather than to activate and fire a wall of lead, which should have destroyed any incoming before hitting the Pentagon.

My office has also received reports that Captain Gerald DeConto, highest ranking officer at the Naval Command Center that morning, was on the telephone requesting authorization from Secretary of the Navy Gordon England to engage the incoming.

We infer from these reports that DeConto and his staff were also tracking the incoming on their own radar monitors, and realized that the Pentagon’s automatic fire control system had been fooled.

But England kept Captain DeConto on the telephone long enough for DeConto and ~120 other Pentagon personnel to be instantly incinerated by the AGM that blasted an entrance hole for the A-3 to penetrate the Pentagon’s hardened exterior walls.

The blast wave was not synchronized “perfectly” with the arrival of the A-3, however, and it severed the A-3â€Čs fuselage amidship, blowing the aft half back and away from the Pentagon’s exterior facade.

This blast debris can be seen more easily in the high resolution digital originals, which were re-sampled to a much lower resolution before publication by the MSM, like the BBC and CNN.

We have also requested local law enforcement to designate Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport as a crime scene, because our analysis of aerial photographs has pinpointed a private aircraft maintenance hangar where the A-3â€Čs modifications were most likely performed: it is adjacent to the tarmac and at the end of a long country road where multiple look-outs could be easily positioned for advance warning of any attempts at hostile surveillance while those modifications were being performed.

Lastly, Wayne Madsen has now reported that a FULL El Al Boeing 747 departed JFK at 4:11 PM on 9/11/2001 for David Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv.   In updates Madsen also claimed that the passenger manifest for that flight is now in the custody of British Intelligence.

Prior to publication of Madsen’s report, we had previously requested the U.S. Military at Coronado Island in San Diego to issue an APB [All Points Bulletin] for the immediate apprehension of two (2) Mossad operatives on suspicion of aircraft piracy on the morning of 9/11/2001.

In this context, please see “Operation Pearl” by A.K. Dewdney: 


We inferred from Madsen’s report that this Boeing 747 was the “getaway vehicle,” and all of its passengers are now prime suspects in an ongoing multiple homicide investigation.

The U.S. Military personnel who aided and abetted that getaway vehicle, in direct violation of DOT Secretary Mineta’s order grounding all commercial aircraft, are likewise implicated now as accessories after the fact in premeditated murder and murder-for-hire, at a minimum.

Under U.S. law, there is no statute of limitations for murder.


I hope this helps.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Intifada Palestine <intifadapalestine@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 5:30 PM
Subject: [Intifada Palestine] New Comment On: CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 9/11
To: supremelawfirm@...


There is a new comment on the post "CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 9/11".
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/12/cia-asset-susan-lindauer-can-now-speaks-10-years-after-2001-9-11/

Author: Zuuduu
Comment:
Spot on show me. She is creating a distraction away from Israel, the main perpetrator of 9/11. I can hear the freakin LIE in the way she is speaking...nervous giggles...if she was really telling the truth and blowing the whistle on Israel and MOSSAD, she would be sh*tting bricks of fear.

See all comments on this post here:
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/12/cia-asset-susan-lindauer-can-now-speaks-10-years-after-2001-9-11/#comments



--




Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17371 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:58 am
Subject: OK, Atzmon! NO MIC REQUIRED!! With a 1-way telephoto videocam in your LCD, IT'S READING YOUR LIPS!! 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/alexander-baron-gilad-atzmon-wipes-israel-off-the-map.html

The problem with Atzmon is, well, there are several problems actually. He is not only a Jew and an Israeli but has a Masters Degree in Philosophy. He has also done his homework, although he appears to have a rather starry-eyed view of Britain as a nation that embraces freedom of expression. This is after all the country in which a woman was convicted of calling another woman a coconut, and where at the moment the morons and petty tyrants who control the Clown Prosecution Service have charged a woman with putting a golliwog in her own window, and a foul mouthed overpaid football player with using a racial expletive to another overpaid football player, an offence that required a telephoto lens and the services of a professional lip reader to frame.
 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17372 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: Jeff gates on Sayanim (Israeli operatives in the U.S.) Very Important Article! 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
See:

Paul Mitchell Calls for Grand Jury to Investigate Israeli Spy Ring inside USA (Aug. 13, 2003):

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/israeli.spyring.htm

See also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/inside.job.htm


Two versions of "The Israel Lobby" were a incorporated as 2 Exhibits here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/vcc.htm

(F)         “The Israel Lobby,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt,
London Review of Books, Vol. 28, No. 6 (March 23, 2006)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/walt/The Israel Lobby.doc
(G)  “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” March 2006, by
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, Working Paper RWP06-011
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/walt/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

See also:

(H)         “Mossad and the Russian Mafia Plutonium Connection,”
by Gordon Thomas, Globe Intel (November 21, 2003)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/thomas/pluto.txt
(I)           “The Third Temple’s Holy of Holies: Israel’s Nuclear Weapons,”
by Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army (September 1999)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/farr/farr.doc
           (search for "yellow cake" and "uranium oxide")

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
From: Phil Holtz <philholtz54@...>
To: PAUL MITCHELL <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 1:36 AM
Subject: Fw: Jeff gates on Sayanim (Israeli operatives in the U.S.) Very Important Article!
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 5:02 AM
Subject: Jeff gates on Sayanim (Israeli operatives in the U.S.) Very Important Article!
 
 
WOW!  Bombshell article on Veterans Today, Military and Foreign Affairs Journal. 
 
Very important.  Please read and circulate...
 
    "We can embrace the painful truth, and prepare ourselves for what lies ahead, or we can continue to be played as FOOLS, with all the attendant consequences."   
 
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/26/sayanim-israeli-operatives-in-the-u-s-2/













Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17373 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:55 pm
Subject: Obama's Birth Certificate: Flim Flam in the US District Court, Central District of California, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <123456xyz@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:46 AM
Subject: Obama's Birth Certificate: Flim Flam in the US District Court, Central District of California, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
To: 123456xyz@...


Obama's Birth Certificate: Flim Flam in the US District Court, Central District of California, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

US judges and clerks with no credentials issue unsigned, unauthenticated judicial records, which the US courts refuse to certify, but the public is deceived to believe are valid and effectual court records. 

The United States has developed a fully blown simulated justice system.

Like the Great Depression before it, the current crisis in its core is an integrity crisis of the United States government, and like the Great Depression before it, the current crisis is not likely to be resolved, unless corruption of the US courts is addressed.

 Emacs! a) Emacs! , or b) Emacs!

Birth Certificates from Hawaii, 1961:
a)      Obama's digitally-generated birth certificate, as released by the White House, and
b)      Authentic microfilm copies of contemporary birth certificates.

Following is correspondence among Ron Branson, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Gary Zerman, and Joseph Zernik regarding the recent “dismissal” of Birther Orly Taitz case at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, challenging Obama’s credentials as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, on behalf of numerous US citizens and uniformed personnel.
__________________________
i. Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:

At 09:45 AM 12/28/2011, you wrote:
> 
>  There is no way that I know of to explain the refusal of a court
>  to provide certified copies of its own orders,
>  unless the Court itself does not consider them valid court orders.

28 U.S.C. 1691 requires that ALL such Court "process" must exhibit the Court's official seal
and the Clerk's authorized signature:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1691.html

See all of the pertinent cases we assembled here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.2.htm

And, now that the "clerks" and "deputy clerks" have either failed
or refused to produce credentials, THERE ARE NO CLERKS
authorized to sign any such "process".

That also has the necessary result that such a "court" --
where no duly authorized "clerks" can be found with proper credentials --
is rendered totally impotent because it cannot issue any "process"!!!

This conclusion is supported by the law which expressly
designates the "court" as the legal custodian of the
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 U.S.C. 3331.
See 5 U.S.C. 2906:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2906.html

When such "clerks" refuse to produce credentials of which they
are the legal custodians designated as such by 2906 supra,
they render the entire court impotent, and also implicate themselves
in FELONY violation of 18 U.S.c. 1001 (for starters):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
__________________________
ii. Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:59:28 +0200
To: Ron Branson, Gary Zerman , Paul Andrew Mitchell,
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@...>
Subject: Re: Ninth Cir. Dismisses Suit Challenging Obama's Qualifications

1) The  "Dismissal" by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
"Confidence Trick", "Flim Flam", "Shell Game" -  in the terminology of tricks and frauds, it is usually considered a short-term trick. You do it on the street corner, pack and leave. And here we have a person like you fooled for years by simulated orders of the courts ... [1]  In fact, a whole nation fooled by a "simulated justice system" for a decade or two.

2) Obama's Birth Certificate
One of the aspects that I find most fascinating in this story, (and there are numerous fascinations here :) (:), is the fact that in my studies of Public Records, and I consider the deprivation of First Amendment right to access electronic records the mother/father (not to be sexist in such nasty context) of all evils, Birth, Marriage, Divorce, and Burial Records were among the first that emerged as Public Records in the late middle ages.  Public access to Court Records has been also guaranteed in the Common Law for hundreds of years.  Prisoners' Indices followed.

3) The Medieval Digital Era
The pattern we see today, of denial of public access to valid Court Records,  Birth Records, and Booking Records, and the publication instead of patently fraudulent electronic records, is one of the hallmarks of what I call the Medieval-Digital Era. 

In the Middle Ages the frauds in the courts and in lineages and family records were infamous, not to speak of anonymous, metal masked, castle-basement prisoners. It led to the provision in the Magna Carta (1215) of trial by peers...  The "cornerstone of the Constitution of the United States".

It's 2012, and we must fight for the same rights again, to ensure public access to public records!

Joseph Zernik
____

LINKS:
[1] "Simulated litigation", "simulated decisions", "simulated service" here refer to conduct defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. 
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
        (1)  induce payment of a claim from another person;  or                      
        (2)  cause another to:                                                       
            (A)  submit to the putative authority of the document;  or                
            (B)  take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b)  Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.

The practice is widespread in both the state and US courts at all levels.
____

__________________________
iii. Ron Branson wrote:

Joseph, I just looked at my Order of Dismissal filed 12/8/2011, and not only does it not have a signature, it does not even have a printed name of a person or a position. The Oder only "signs off" with the printed word "AFFIRMED" with nothing after it. We are therefore called upon to "pretend" it is verified even though it does not state.

But is not "Affirmed" supposed to be equal to "Oath or Affirmation" according to the 4th Amendment, i.e., "no warrants shall issue but ... supported by oath or affirmation." No one can imagine an oath or affirmation signed by no one. We are asked in court, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?" Accordingly, maybe these words should be eliminated prior to taking the witness stand and testifying.

Ron Branson

__________________________
iv. Joseph Zernik wrote:

Hi Mr Branson:

I assume that as usual, you received an unsigned order, just like the order dismissing the challenge to Obama's qualifications..

Have you ever tried to ask the 9th Circuit for a certified copy of any of the orders in your cases before the Court?

I have tried, but never got any.

There is no way that I know of to explain the refusal of a court to provide certified copies of its own orders, unless the Court itself does not consider them valid court orders.

In that context, one should consider the data below, which I am asking those familiar with such papers to review and comment on.

In case you decide to ask the 9th Circuit for a certified copies of any decisions in your cases, I would be grateful if you email me PDFs of the requests, and the responses, if any.

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

__________________________
v. Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:

From: freedomfightersforamerica@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:freedomfightersforamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Supreme Law Firm
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 12:24 AM
To: 123456xyz@...
Subject: [freedomfightersforamerica] 9th Circuit of known IMPOSTORS -- Pregerson / Fisher / Berzon -- "tosses" Obama birthplace challenge
 
Re:  http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf
 
Almost forgot to mention:
 
David O. Carter:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/nad.certificate.htm
(no license to practice law in California)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/state.bar.record.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/state.bar.record.2.htm
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/affidavit.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/oath.gif
(Carter's Forms administered by Terry J. Hatter, another known impostor):

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/nad.missing.credentials.htm
(no OATH OF OFFICE and no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/nad.certificate.htm
(no license to practice law in California)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/state.bar.record.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hatter.terry/state.bar.record.2.htm
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

__________________________
vi. Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:12 PM
Subject: 9th Circuit of known IMPOSTORS -- Pregerson / Fisher / Berzon -- "tosses" Obama birthplace challenge
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf

Summary: known impostor/"robes" get routinely assigned to any case
that challenges any aspect of "public policy".

Harry Pregerson:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/nad.certificate.htm
(no license to practice law in California)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/state.bar.record.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/state.bar.record.2.htm

Raymond C. Fisher:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/affidavit.refused.JPG
(defective OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/nad.certificate.htm
(no license to practice law in California)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/state.bar.record.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/fisher/state.bar.record.2.htm

Marsha S. Berzon:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/affidavit.refused.JPG
(defective OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/nad.certificate.htm
(no license to practice law in California)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/state.bar.record.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/berzon/state.bar.record.2.htm

Very interesting revelations here about Harry Pregerson and Dean D. Pregerson
by the late Gary Wean, former LAPD Detective:

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/pregerson/gary.wean.article.htm
(search for "Pregerson" -- all occurrences)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#CDCA
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/pregerson.dean/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/pregerson.dean/nad.missing.credentials.htm
(missing all 4 credentials!)

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

__________________________
vii. Ron Branson wrote:

At 01:45 AM 12/24/2011, Ron Branson wrote:
 
Pastor Wiley, I just received the announcement of the dismissing of your Ninth Circuit appeals case challenging the qualifications of Barack Obama to be president. I though I would apprise you that the I just received the dismissal of my Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. I instantly appealed the dismissal of my suit in fraud, and paid the $455 filing fee. Five days later the Court issued a noticed of intent to dismiss the Notice of Appeal. They said the issue presented on appeal was insubstantial. There was as yet any issue presented on appeal. I opposed the Order of intent to dismiss my appeal, and I received a Dec, 6, 2011 Order dismissing my Appeal, stating "The questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument." They cite to U.S. v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857. But that case is inapplicable as it refers to a case wherein the Appellant filed an opening brief, citing his argument on appeal. Here, there is no opening brief, nor are there any questions presented on appeal.
 
Rule 3(c)(4) states, "An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice." My Notice of Appeal follows precisely as shown in Form 1in the Appendix. This shows a preconceived plan by the Ninth Circuit to cut off the right of appeal at the Notice stage before any appeal issues can be presented. Attached is my opposition to dismissing my Notice of Appeal.
 
Ron Branson

 

__________________________
viii. Gary Zerman wrote:

From:
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: And Another One Bites The Dust
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:17:10 -0800

To All:

If there is one case that illustrates why we have birth certificates/records and have courts of law, it is that of Barack Obama (BO).

Yet another one bites the dust.  GLZ.
 ____________________________________




Appeals court tosses Obama birthplace challenge

 By PAUL ELIAS | AP – 4 hrs ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ­ The so-called birther movement was dealt another legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. The three-judge panel cited various reasons for disqualifying six sets of plaintiffs, who included Obama's political rivals, taxpayers and military personnel.

The birther movement has filed multiple lawsuits over the issue, so far with no success. Its leaders have lost similar challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers allege that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in that African country, rather than the U.S. state of Hawaii. They claim his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.

The appeals court didn't address the authenticity of the birth certificate, instead ruling that the challengers couldn't show "concrete injury" from the allegations.

The taxpayers listed in the lawsuit, for instance, failed to show how the citizenship question affected any federal taxing and spending provisions.

The lawsuit was filed in 2009 by 40 plaintiffs, including conservative activists Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, who ran for president and vice president respectively as members of the American Independent Party against Obama in 2008.

They alleged they had standing to file a lawsuit because of their interest in competing in a fair election. Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot was also a plaintiff.

Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the three-judge panel, said Keyes and Drake waited too long to file their lawsuit. The election was over and Obama was already sworn in when the lawsuit was filed.

"Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election," Pregerson wrote. "Plaintiffs' competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed."

Orly Taitz, one of the challengers' lawyers, said she would ask the appeals court to convene a special 11-judge panel to reconsider the case. If she's turned down there, she said she would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Taitz said she has filed similar lawsuits in five states and has two other federal appeals pending in Washington, D.C.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-tosses-obama-birthplace-challenge-191256867.html

____________________________________
[]  
Boycott the vote! It only legitimizes the illegitimate...
11-12-10 Where Should #Occupy Go Next? Civil Disobedience in the Footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75348301/

____
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
 []  
The 2010 submission of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was reviewed by the HRC professional staff and incorporated in the official HRC Professional Staff Report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
_______ 
[]  
Flag Counter: 128
 http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ 
http://inproperinla.wordpress.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Total Reads: 686,060
Followers: 1,229
 http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
 http://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Total Item Views: 585,338
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?
* Foreclosure fraud: The homeowner nightmares continue
CNN (April 7, 2011)
* About 3 million homes have been repossessed since the housing boom ended in 2006
 That number could balloon to about 6 million by 2013
Bloomberg (January 2011)
* "...a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50753639/
Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."    
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306 /
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
* "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
* "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations."
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010)
http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN THE PRISON IN MONROE COUNTY, TENESSEE?
* "What goes on there is more like gulags of centuries ago."
ACLU
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/72546279/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?
* "More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning "mandatory and enforceable" ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by "recent media reports," the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others."
More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49586436/
_____________________________
WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* "The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition..."
Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50137887/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" on the US Department of Justice.
Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/
____________________________
 
As part of efforts for the preservation of our civilization for future generations:

A call for proposals, ending January 10, 2012.

#Occupy Jerusalem-AlQuds - the Party!

Late August 2012

Love, Peace, Justice
 []
Empowering the People through
a dance/music/art/study/pray
celebration

READ MORE:
 http://josephsdream2012.wordpress.com/
VIEW VIDEO:
11-12-12 Oh My God, it's Occupy Jerusalem-AlQuds!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWTKQkodf7U

___________



--




Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17374 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:11 pm
Subject: Gingrich insults America’s military veterans 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:10 AM
Subject: Gingrich insults America’s military veterans
http://cvrp2012.com/2011/12/27/ron-paul-supporters-including-veterans-are-indecent-according-to-newt-gingrich/

Ron Paul Supporters, Including Veterans, are “Indecent” according to Newt Gingrich

Posted on December 27, 2011
by Nick Allison, U.S. Army Veteran



As the corporate media ramps up its frenzied, panicked campaign against Ron Paul and his supporters,
long-shot Presidential candidate and life-long blowhard Newt Gingrich has decided to open his mouth and
firmly insert his foot by insulting many of America’s military veterans. 

Probably a bad move. Just ask Dick Morris. 

The veterans and active-duty military personnel who support Ron Paul are not the people you want to insult.

[end quote]

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17375 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:24 pm
Subject: "There Will Be Violence, Mark My Words," by Michael Thomas, Poor Richard's blog (December 29, 2011) 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 1:23 PM
Subject: "There Will Be Violence, Mark My Words," by Michael Thomas, Poor Richard's blog (December 29, 2011)
"Sixty years ago, if you had asked me, on the basis of all that I had been taught,
whether I thought this condition of general rot was possible in this country,
I would have told you that you were nuts.

"And I would have been very wrong."


http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/there-will-be-violence-mark-my-words.html

My News Diary

Thursday, December 29, 2011

"There Will Be Violence, Mark My Words"



By Michael Thomas, Newsweek via readersupportednews.org


When the great day comes, Wall Street will pray for another Pecora, because compared with the rough beast now beginning to strain at the leash, Pecora will look like Phil Gramm.

Humiliation and ridicule, even financial penalties, will be the least of the Street's tribulations.

There will be prosecutions and show trials.

There will be violence, mark my words. Houses burnt, property defaced.

I just hope that this time the mob targets the right people in Wall Street and in Washington.

(How does a right-thinking Christian go about asking Santa for Mitch McConnell's head under the Christmas tree?)

There will be kleptocrats who threaten to take themselves elsewhere if their demands on jurisdictions and tax breaks aren't met, and I say let 'em go!

At the end of the day, the convulsion to come won't really be about Wall Street's derivatives malefactions, or its subprime fun and games, or rogue trading, or the folly of banks.

It will be about this society's final opportunity to rip away the paralyzing shackles of corruption or else dwell forever in a neofeudal social order.

You might say that 1384 has replaced 1984 as our worst-case scenario.

I have lived what now, at 75, is starting to feel like a long life.

If anyone asks me what has been the great American story of my lifetime, I have a ready answer.

It is the corruption, money-based, that has settled like some all-enveloping excremental mist on the landscape of our hopes, that has permeated every nook of any institution or being that has real influence on the way we live now.

Sixty years ago, if you had asked me, on the basis of all that I had been taught, whether I thought this condition of general rot was possible in this country, I would have told you that you were nuts.

And I would have been very wrong.

What has happened in this country has made a lie of my boyhood.

[end excerpt]

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17376 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:20 pm
Subject: Private Attorney General summarizes short responses Re: A general question about USA v. Gilbertson 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General summarizes short responses Re: A general question about USA v. Gilbertson


http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/131/131.F3d.144.97-2099.html

The proven existence of two (2) classes of American citizens
is a MAJOR COMPONENT of "The Conspiracy" to which
JFK referred in his speech to an assembled group of journalists:

"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy ...."

First of all, you MUST pay very close attention to this evidence that
the "Eighth Circuit" issued an UNPUBLISHED "opinion":  

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions ....


Now, this next Circuit Judge, on the very same Eighth Circuit, subsequently ruled
that such a Local Rule permitting "unpublished opinions" is UNconstitutional:

(excellent treatise on the true meaning of "judicial precedent", BTW)


Now hear this:  after so much documentary PROOF that the IRC is deliberately vague e.g.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif  ("State" does NOT include the 50 States!!!)
this "opinion" stated:

"we find no merit to his generalized argument regarding the vagueness of the Internal Revenue Code"


Next, note the names of the "robes" on the 3-robe panel:

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/loken.james/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/loken.james/foia.request.8thcir.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/loken.james/foia.appeal.8thcir.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/loken.james/nad.missing.credentials.htm
(missing both PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION and SENATE CONFIRMATION)


Are the other two liable for permitting such a criminal impostor
to sit on the same 3-robe panel?  I say YES!!  At the very least,
they are liable to Gilbertson, and to me as his chosen Counsel,
under 42 U.S.C. 1986 (aka Brother's Keeper Statute):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1986.html  (neglect to prevent / failure to remedy!)

Their OATHS OF OFFICE and APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
require that they honor Article VI, Section 3.  Here's support
for that obligation, because it is imposed upon them by virtue of a
Fundamental Right that arises from that Clause in the Constitution:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm (scroll down to latest additions)


>  I’m wondering if there are ANY cases in which the courts have acknowledged
>  the absolute legitimacy (historical or contemporary) of these arguments...
>  Does anyone know of such a case?

Go to the very end of this pleading,
to which 48 UNlicensed attorneys fell silent:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama

... and find these:

(m)  And, the Ninth Circuit’s actions in this case also violated numerous standing decisions of this Supreme Court, e.g. Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938) (term “district courts of the United States” in its historic and proper sense) and Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (the USDC is not a true United States court established under Article III).  See also Mitchell’s INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF, and all reply BRIEF’s, for a full set of citations in proper context.
More to the merits, legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts.  See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling);  Benner v. Porter, 50 U.S. 235, 242‑243 (1850);  Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. 434, 447 (1871);  Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 655 (1873);  Good v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90, 98 (1877);  Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 154 (1878);  The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879);  Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923);  Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927);  Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928);  Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929);  Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930);  Claiborne‑Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);  O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933);  Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962);  and Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).  The U.S. Courts of Appeal are Article III federal courts [cites omitted here].

NOW, in particular see what Brennan fabricated to justify courts WITHOUT ARTICLE III PROTECTIONS:
In Marathon supra, Justice Brennan for the plurality reasoned that Congress could create legislative courts without Article III protections in only three limited settings:  (1) territorial courts, (2) courts martial, and (3) courts deciding disputes involving public rights that Congress created in the first instance.  Thus, by treating the 50 States as federal Territories and by creating federal citizenship as a municipal franchise, Congress could effectively “broadcast” into those States a legislative court that routinely proceeds without Article III protections!  See the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27‑30, April 9, 1866 A.D.  In the legislative USDC, those protections are options, not mandates, particularly when the extension statutes supra are also routinely ignored.  [end quote]

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Greg Melick <greg@...> wrote:
Today I studied some of the material at supremelaw.org regarding U.S.A. v. Everett C. Gilbertson ( http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/usdc/index.htm) and then sourced an item on the case from the appeals court at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/131/131.F3d.144.97-2099.html which states, in part:

“After a jury trial, Everett C. Gilbertson was convicted of filing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 18 months in prison. Gilbertson appeals, and we affirm.

We reject as completely meritless Gilbertson's argument that the United States District Court lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution for tax crimes. See United States v. Watson, 1 F.3d 733, 734 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (in prosecution for fraudulent tax returns, district court had jurisdiction, because 18 U.S.C. § 3231 "provides district courts with original jurisdiction of all violations of federal law"; rejecting claim that "free citizen" of Oklahoma was not United States citizen); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (federal income tax is not voluntary; rejecting appellants' argument that "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota" were not United States citizens subject to taxes), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193 (1994). Similarly meritless is Gilbertson's claim that the federal jury statute discriminates against Minnesota citizens like him who are not "federal citizens."

It appears that (unsurprisingly) that the Eight Circuit wholly ejected Mr. Gilbertson’s well-articulated arguments, which were framed around Paul’s research findings regarding 1) the original jurisdiction of the DCUS and not the USDC courts (Title 26 specifically cites original jurisdiction to the DCUS in several sections); 2) the distinction between United States (federal) citizens and Citizens of the United States of America.

I’m wondering if there are ANY cases in which the courts have acknowledged the absolute legitimacy (historical or contemporary) of these arguments... Does anyone know of such a case?

All the best
--








Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17377 From: JtwB <blazingstar1776@...>
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:50 pm
Subject: Fw: Eric Peters, "America's Next Step" 		blazingstar1776
Send Email Send Email
 


The Next Step

December 27, 2011

By Eric Peters

 

Are we there yet?

 

No, but we are getting very close.

 

We are now at the point, I suspect, that our colonial ancestors were in the early 1770s. They were still British subjects, but had begun to question the relationship – the supposed right of the British sovereign to rule them. Within a very short time, they would reject the relationship in toto â€“ on principle â€“ and would become Americans.

 

I believe we are in roughly the same spot as those soon-to-be-Americans of the early 1770s.

 

An awakening is taking place. Millions of people are wising up to the fraud that is contained in the sentence, “consent of the governed.” Are learning to reflexively cringe for their soon-to-shorn freedoms whenever a politician utters the word.  Have come to understand that the sprawling beast in Washington no more represents them – let alone has the slightest interest in protecting them (let alone respecting their rights) than the ossified oligarchs of parliament represented the colonists or had any interest in protecting anything other than their power and the sacks of loot that always accompany its exercise.

 

We – millions of Americans – now understand the nature of the relationship: Master – and slave. That due process itself has been taken away from us. That we are now to be denied even the elemental decency of being informed of the charges against us before we are taken away into the night, to be “indefinitely detained,” on the mere say-so of men with guns and badges. That when we are “asked” to “contribute” it means guns will be shoved under our chins. That we no longer have a single right that’s not conditional at best – if not entirely defunct.

 

Submit. Obey.

 

We have become aware that almost no aspect of our lives is left unmolested. We cannot eat, work or even sleep in our own beds without government supervision – and that very soon, even our recreations and private habits will likely fall under the “commerce clause” since these may be said to affect “health care” and thus, are of “interest” to the government.

 

We – that is, almost half the population – also knows the futility of voting.

 

Tweedledee replaces Tweedledum – and the machine rolls on.

 

We see, in the immortal language of Thomas Jefferson, “
 a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object.” One that “
 evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” The parallels are clear – and ominous.

 

It begs the question: What shall we do?

 

Some advocate violent resistance – and that day may yet come. It is as natural – and as right â€“ to fight back against an evil government as it is to fight back against evil individuals. But it is the response of last resort, when every other effort at a peaceful resolution has failed – and when the only alternative is abject submission and the formal acceptance of the master-slave relationship.

 

We are not there yet.

 

We may still speak, and write – and within certain bounds, are still free to act. In particular, we are free to not act.

We can decline to participate in (and thereby, help to legitimize) things we know in our hearts – and minds – to be dangerous and wrong.

 

We can decline to vote, if voting means voting for “the lesser of two evils.” Rather than sanction evil, we can withhold our consent and force evil to operate without it. Consider what the result would be if, next year, we are presented with the false choice of Obama or Gingrich (or Romney) and, rather than hold our noses and vote for one or the other in the desperate hope that it makes a difference, millions upon millions of us just stayed home instead. Enough of us such that the “winner” could claim no mandate – no consent of the governed.  He would be forced to be what the current Dear Leader is – but openly.  No more gauzy talk of “democracy.”

 

Just: Submit and Obey.

 

It could not go on for long.  Open tyranny never does. But give the masses the illusion of consent; let them believe they have “democracy” – and tyranny can be open-ended. Endless.

 

It is within our power to end this sham. If only we will refuse to act, when acting amounts to endorsing the sham.

 

If Ron Paul is not on the ticket, stay home. Withhold your consent. Force the system to bare its fangs and reveal itself for what is.

 

And:

 

Decline to fly.

 

Or rather, decline to submit to outrageous violations of your dignity as a human being, to loathsome assaults on your rights as a human being. For the moment – perhaps a brief one – we have the opportunity to stop Gate Rape and much worse to come besides. If only a few million of us simply announced that we will not enter an airport terminal (or attend a sports event) until we can do so without being subjected to warrantless, probable cause-free searches, it is a sure bet that warrantless, probable cause-free searches would end. The TSA does not care about your rights but the airlines most emphatically care about your money. If even 20 percent of current flyers openly declared that they will not fly again until the TSA is abolished – or at least, that only individuals who have given some specific cause for suspicion be subjected to searches – then group gropes of children, women, the elderly – and most important of all, the innocent traveler â€“ would end.

 

The system depends on your voluntary cooperation. Withhold it now, while you still can.

 

And so on.

 

Force authoritarian thugs to state openly what they advocate – what they are â€“ by calling them on their euphemisms. Ask your local board of supervisors official precisely what he means when he “asks” that county residents “contribute” for the betterment of the local school system – or some such. Ask him how he feels about sending men with guns to the homes of peaceable people who might say “no, thank you” and decline to “contribute.” Make him – make them â€“ say it:

 

We are going to force you to hand over money by threatening you with violence. If you resist in any way, we will do you violence.

 

Not “public” schools. Government schools.

 

Maybe opt-out of government mandates that have made new cars absurdly complicated and expensive – by buying (or keeping) an older car.  And tell the automakers why you’re boycotting their current products.

 

If stopped at a “checkpoint” by a cop, ask him – politely – how he feels about subjecting his fellow citizens to random, probable cause-free searches.

 

Etc.

 

Let’s get it all out in the open.

 

Perhaps enough people will recoil from the edge of the abyss before it is too late to step back from it. Reason and appeals to the human conscience are always preferable to the alternative.

 

I hope there’s still time.

 

Throw it in the Woods?

 

http://epautos.com/2011/12/27/the-next-step/

 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17378 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:10 am
Subject: GRAB YOUR KLEENEX!! Ron Paul's Emotional Reaction to New "Compassion" Ad 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:08 PM
Subject: GRAB YOUR KLEENEX!! Ron Paul's Emotional Reaction to New "Compassion" Ad
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17106&title=ron-paul-emotional-reaction-to-new-compassion-ad


Here's that video of the father, speaking about the practice of medicine by Ron Paul, M.D.:

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17107

 Summary:

James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story.

Living in a still prejudice Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy.

No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child.

In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.

Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby.

Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams' never received a hospital bill for the delivery.

Ron Paul views every human being as a unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights.



--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SupremeLaw" group.
To post to this group, send email to supremelaw@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to supremelaw+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/supremelaw?hl=en.



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17379 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:34 am
Subject: thedailybell.com : "Ron Paul Has Already Won," by Staff Report (12/30/2011) 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: thedailybell.com : "Ron Paul Has Already Won," by Staff Report (12/30/2011)
http://www.thedailybell.com/3417/Ron-Paul-Has-Already-Won

Ron Paul Has Already Won

Friday, December 30, 2011 – by Staff Report

What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa? ... Paul seems to have a natural ceiling among GOP voters: A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul's foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him. Indeed, the primary reason Paul has an opening to win in Iowa is that no consensus candidate has emerged among social conservatives, which dominate the GOP electorate here â€“ a situation that allows Paul to potentially win with less than 30 percent of the vote. Still, a Paul win in Iowa would have significant ramifications. It would go a long way toward pushing his Libertarian views, long dismissed as outside of Republican mainstream, to the center of the conversation. The resultant media coverage would allow Paul to further spread his message â€“ and potentially win a host of new supporters. And if Paul can do well in New Hampshire on January 10, where he is currently tied for second place with Gingrich, Paul could even move to shared front-runner status with Romney, who is now ahead by more than 20 points in New Hampshire. – CBSNews

Dominant Social Theme: Paul is a crank and will never light up the sky.
Free-Market Analysis: The Internet Reformation is a process not an episode. US GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul shows us the accuracy of this statement. Ron Paul and his libertarian allies are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans by the millions. In fact, they have already won. More on this below.
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that a substantial minority, if not a majority, of Republicans and Democrats are really libertarians of some sort. This gives Ron Paul a natural constituency that is far larger than the mainstream media admits.
There is apparently only one struggle in the world – and in the US. That is the seeming struggle between a handful of ancient, elite families who control hundreds of trillions via central banks around the world and want to move to world government (dominated by them) and the rest of us.
This Anglosphere power elite has used its unimaginable money base to seemingly pervert the workings of the entire world. It apparently uses dominant social themes – fear-based promotions disseminated by its bought-and-paid-for media, think tanks, universities and governments – to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to cleverly crafted globalist institutions. This is the internationalist government-in-waiting.
But a funny thing happened on the way to world government. The Internet. About a decade ago, we began to focus on the idea that the Internet was a modern-day Gutenberg Press and would have a similar impact.
The Gutenberg Press basically spawned the Renaissance, Reformation and contributed to counter-Reformation trends such as the Age of Enlightenment that was spawned by the elites themselves in an effort to counteract the power of the Gutenberg Press. The Age of Enlightenment postulated that man was perfectible and the agency of perfection was government.
Government is an absolute necessity for power elites. With the advent of the Gutenberg Press, however, something changed. The great families of Europe found it advisable to promote the fallacious idea of "democracy." This idea, that people would "have a say" in their governments, allowed the power elite then and now to withdraw from the public scene and dominate from behind the scenes. This domination is called "mercantilism."
Just as it is imperative these days for the power elite not to reveal itself, so it is imperative that the elites continue to have access to all levels of government in order to pass the laws necessary to its survival. Without the faux-system of civil society that the elites have erected in the past 150 years, there would be no prospect of a one-world order.
No one wakes up in the morning and decides to spend one's life building global government. It is an entirely false paradigm that this happens. People are coerced into believing that global government is inevitable and that their self-interest is better fulfilled by working with the powers-that-be than against them. This sense of INEVITABILITY is part of what drives the push toward the New World Order.
But it has long been our contention that those who predict the inevitability of the coming one-world order may not be entirely correct. It continues to be our contention – as we follow modern events – that the elites seeking global governance have been considerably set back by the Internet, as we have long predicted.
We know this to be true by the amount of violence the elite central banking families are turning to. Violence, insane legislative initiatives like SOPA, the erection of prison camps and the fomentation of wars around the world are all signs of the fear that has overtaken these elites. They do not want to be found out.
One needs only to study a little history to begin to understand the relevance of the paradigm we are suggesting. After the Gutenberg Press began to expose the power elite of the day and its manipulations, the first copyright laws were passed, the "isms" were suddenly developed, the Hegelian Dialectic was brought into play significantly and wars broke out throughout the West and lasted for decades.
There IS likely a playbook. There are surely manipulations that the elites pursue over and over in their loony quest for world government. One sees them put into play after the advent of the Gutenberg Press just as they are being put into play today. This is not an easy idea to accept, however, even for the alternative Internet Press. It is much easier and more psychologically satisfying to speak of ancient cabals, such as Jewish/Zionist penetration via vast Illuminati-Masonic plots.
But the truth TODAY is simpler than that, in our view. The world is being run by an intergenerational mafia of familial elites that USE religion and symbolism to affright people and impress on everyone the inevitability of what it is to come.
This is the reason, for instance, that Muammar Gaddafi's execution was shown over and over for weeks. This was the reason his purported buggery was made available throughout the world though ordinarily the Western mainstream media is averse even to showing so much as a kiss to a general audience that includes children.
Gaddafi's death was a warning. Just as the wars in Africa and the Middle East are cautionary ones. They have little or nothing to do with oil or the "great game" or other resources. When the Pentagon wanted to make a case for staying in Afghanistan it suddenly discovered a trillion-dollars'-worth of rare-earth minerals and other commodities. It is all so transparent.
The powers-that-be seek control. The stiff-necked Pashtuns and tricky Punjabis that are now 300 million strong and have dominated the navel of the earth for millennia must be conquered and pacified. This is the struggle taking place today.
And yet, we have predicted the Anglosphere may already have lost this war for global domination. The hidden influence of Money Power in our view peaked in the 20th century. The 21st century has offered them one disaster after another.
9/11 itself is still a questionable event. Attempts to impose the phony meme of global warming are also not going well. The war on terror is increasingly met by disbelief. Scarcity memes of all types have less power to upset, and are increasingly exposed on the Internet.
And then there is Ron Paul. Four years ago, libertarian politician Ron Paul was regarded by the mainstream media as a harmless, crazy crank. Today, according to a CBS article (see excerpt above), the only thing standing between Ron Paul and a sociopolitical consensus around his libertarian points of view is the view by many that he will "undermine" national security. Or so we are told.
But this meme, too, shall have its day – and be gone. That's because the Internet is a process not an episode. The damage control that the elites practices in the 20th century doesn't work anymore. They have turned to a more ancient playbook, in our view, but history shows THAT is not so effective, either.
People naturally lose perspective. But back in the 1990s a trio helped change the world. Dr. Ron Paul and economist Murray Rothbard were close friends. Lew Rockwell was the organizer and raised the money. Rothbard wrote prodigiously and Ron Paul kept delivering babies and running for office. Ron Paul is the most famous and successful libertarian politician of the past 100 years.
This trio built on what is good in what we today call civil society and eventually, as the Internet era began, were joined by popularizers like Matt Drudge, Alex Jones ... and then more. And so once again the ideas of freedom and individual HUMAN action (versus Adam Smith's Wealth of NATIONS) were propagated as they had been before. No one is perfect, but this aspiration is larger than personal agendas, and grounded in the logic of civil society built up over centuries by the greatest and most courageous of minds.
This is the story of civilization, in fact. It is a language and a conversation. It reoccurs. It cannot be extinguished because it may blaze anew in the hearts of the next generation. Sure, it may take a village, but it is one made up of INDIVIDUALS. And everyone is welcome. All who subscribe to the individual greatness of the human species are conveyances for what is worth carrying forward in human society. God damn those who do not. 
History seems to us a series of cycles, struggles between historical elites and the rest. Such a struggle has been joined today. This is REAL history. We are lucky enough to live at a time when the old order is passing. Maybe what we are seeing is its death struggles.
The Internet is making it impossible for it to thrive in its current form. Central banks printing monopoly money-from-nothing, wars of aggression, the incarceration of millions ... these are indefensible paradigms when one does not fully control the media anymore. 
The Internet Reformation is like a wildfire, perhaps. It seems to be burning away the manifestations of the American Empire by incinerating the disingenuous moral buttresses that hold together this phony construct of the modern power elite. By the time the Internet Reformation has run its course, today's authoritarian verities may have perished entirely. (They will of course emerge in another form.)
Right now, according to this CBS article, only the lie that the military-industrial complex "keeps America safe" stands between the fullness of Leviathan and its subsidence. But what happens, as will be inevitable, when Americans in larger numbers find out that this "safety" is non-existent?
What happens when Americans finally realize that the string of wars that have "defended" them were perhaps phony? What happens when the seeming manipulations that caused the phony Cold War fully penetrate popular consciousness? What happens when the truth about 9/11 – whatever it is – is finally revealed?
The last memes of the power elite that will tumble (as we have long predicted) are the fundaments of the state itself: the insanity of the current model of state justice (where the state itself and its controllers make the laws and then pay for the legislatures, courts and military and civilian police and penitentiary guards that enforce this phony "justice.")
The corollary is the military-industrial complex itself and its myriad millions of intel operatives in London, Washington, DC and Tel Aviv. These individuals are already worried; their privacy invasions, incarcerations and tortures weigh heavily on them. It is occurring to them that they may be on the wrong side of history – real history.
George W. Bush is afraid to travel outside of the United States. David Rockefeller is approaching the century mark and is not his old persuasive self. The Rothschilds are regularly making appearances on business television to show they are merely struggling businessmen and bankers. The US Congress attempts to pass evermore Draconian laws to stop the Internet Reformation. Wars are fomented to take over the world. And yet the navel of the world remains unconquered.
Conclusion: The Internet, which was never supposed to happen, continues to inform people every day about the despicable nature of the elite's 20th century directed history. The old paradigms are crumbling. A thousand, ten thousand, a million prison camps may not capture the truths echoing around the world. The Internet is a process not an episode.


--




Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#17380 From: "William" <wmtopel@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:09 am
Subject: The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul 		wmtopel
Send Email Send Email
 
Old Right members (from Bill Topel in Alaska):

Please check out this article & video:


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17381 From: Stuart Jones <stujones2001@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: Old Right thedailybell.com : "Ron Paul Has Already Won," by Staff Report (12/30/2011) 		stujones2001@...
Send Email Send Email
 
THEY'RE GONNA STEAL THE ELECTIONS FROM RON PAUL!!! GOD HELP US IN JESUS!!!

From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
To: "paulandrewmitchell2004@..." <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 1:34 AM
Subject: Old Right thedailybell.com : "Ron Paul Has Already Won," by Staff Report (12/30/2011)
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: thedailybell.com : "Ron Paul Has Already Won," by Staff Report (12/30/2011)
http://www.thedailybell.com/3417/Ron-Paul-Has-Already-Won

Ron Paul Has Already Won

Friday, December 30, 2011 – by Staff Report

What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa? ... Paul seems to have a natural ceiling among GOP voters: A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul's foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him. Indeed, the primary reason Paul has an opening to win in Iowa is that no consensus candidate has emerged among social conservatives, which dominate the GOP electorate here â€“ a situation that allows Paul to potentially win with less than 30 percent of the vote. Still, a Paul win in Iowa would have significant ramifications. It would go a long way toward pushing his Libertarian views, long dismissed as outside of Republican mainstream, to the center of the conversation. The resultant media coverage would allow Paul to further spread his message â€“ and potentially win a host of new supporters. And if Paul can do well in New Hampshire on January 10, where he is currently tied for second place with Gingrich, Paul could even move to shared front-runner status with Romney, who is now ahead by more than 20 points in New Hampshire. – CBSNews

Dominant Social Theme: Paul is a crank and will never light up the sky.
Free-Market Analysis: The Internet Reformation is a process not an episode. US GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul shows us the accuracy of this statement. Ron Paul and his libertarian allies are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans by the millions. In fact, they have already won. More on this below.
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that a substantial minority, if not a majority, of Republicans and Democrats are really libertarians of some sort. This gives Ron Paul a natural constituency that is far larger than the mainstream media admits.
There is apparently only one struggle in the world – and in the US. That is the seeming struggle between a handful of ancient, elite families who control hundreds of trillions via central banks around the world and want to move to world government (dominated by them) and the rest of us.
This Anglosphere power elite has used its unimaginable money base to seemingly pervert the workings of the entire world. It apparently uses dominant social themes – fear-based promotions disseminated by its bought-and-paid-for media, think tanks, universities and governments – to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to cleverly crafted globalist institutions. This is the internationalist government-in-waiting.
But a funny thing happened on the way to world government. The Internet. About a decade ago, we began to focus on the idea that the Internet was a modern-day Gutenberg Press and would have a similar impact.
The Gutenberg Press basically spawned the Renaissance, Reformation and contributed to counter-Reformation trends such as the Age of Enlightenment that was spawned by the elites themselves in an effort to counteract the power of the Gutenberg Press. The Age of Enlightenment postulated that man was perfectible and the agency of perfection was government.
Government is an absolute necessity for power elites. With the advent of the Gutenberg Press, however, something changed. The great families of Europe found it advisable to promote the fallacious idea of "democracy." This idea, that people would "have a say" in their governments, allowed the power elite then and now to withdraw from the public scene and dominate from behind the scenes. This domination is called "mercantilism."
Just as it is imperative these days for the power elite not to reveal itself, so it is imperative that the elites continue to have access to all levels of government in order to pass the laws necessary to its survival. Without the faux-system of civil society that the elites have erected in the past 150 years, there would be no prospect of a one-world order.
No one wakes up in the morning and decides to spend one's life building global government. It is an entirely false paradigm that this happens. People are coerced into believing that global government is inevitable and that their self-interest is better fulfilled by working with the powers-that-be than against them. This sense of INEVITABILITY is part of what drives the push toward the New World Order.
But it has long been our contention that those who predict the inevitability of the coming one-world order may not be entirely correct. It continues to be our contention – as we follow modern events – that the elites seeking global governance have been considerably set back by the Internet, as we have long predicted.
We know this to be true by the amount of violence the elite central banking families are turning to. Violence, insane legislative initiatives like SOPA, the erection of prison camps and the fomentation of wars around the world are all signs of the fear that has overtaken these elites. They do not want to be found out.
One needs only to study a little history to begin to understand the relevance of the paradigm we are suggesting. After the Gutenberg Press began to expose the power elite of the day and its manipulations, the first copyright laws were passed, the "isms" were suddenly developed, the Hegelian Dialectic was brought into play significantly and wars broke out throughout the West and lasted for decades.
There IS likely a playbook. There are surely manipulations that the elites pursue over and over in their loony quest for world government. One sees them put into play after the advent of the Gutenberg Press just as they are being put into play today. This is not an easy idea to accept, however, even for the alternative Internet Press. It is much easier and more psychologically satisfying to speak of ancient cabals, such as Jewish/Zionist penetration via vast Illuminati-Masonic plots.
But the truth TODAY is simpler than that, in our view. The world is being run by an intergenerational mafia of familial elites that USE religion and symbolism to affright people and impress on everyone the inevitability of what it is to come.
This is the reason, for instance, that Muammar Gaddafi's execution was shown over and over for weeks. This was the reason his purported buggery was made available throughout the world though ordinarily the Western mainstream media is averse even to showing so much as a kiss to a general audience that includes children.
Gaddafi's death was a warning. Just as the wars in Africa and the Middle East are cautionary ones. They have little or nothing to do with oil or the "great game" or other resources. When the Pentagon wanted to make a case for staying in Afghanistan it suddenly discovered a trillion-dollars'-worth of rare-earth minerals and other commodities. It is all so transparent.
The powers-that-be seek control. The stiff-necked Pashtuns and tricky Punjabis that are now 300 million strong and have dominated the navel of the earth for millennia must be conquered and pacified. This is the struggle taking place today.
And yet, we have predicted the Anglosphere may already have lost this war for global domination. The hidden influence of Money Power in our view peaked in the 20th century. The 21st century has offered them one disaster after another.
9/11 itself is still a questionable event. Attempts to impose the phony meme of global warming are also not going well. The war on terror is increasingly met by disbelief. Scarcity memes of all types have less power to upset, and are increasingly exposed on the Internet.
And then there is Ron Paul. Four years ago, libertarian politician Ron Paul was regarded by the mainstream media as a harmless, crazy crank. Today, according to a CBS article (see excerpt above), the only thing standing between Ron Paul and a sociopolitical consensus around his libertarian points of view is the view by many that he will "undermine" national security. Or so we are told.
But this meme, too, shall have its day – and be gone. That's because the Internet is a process not an episode. The damage control that the elites practices in the 20th century doesn't work anymore. They have turned to a more ancient playbook, in our view, but history shows THAT is not so effective, either.
People naturally lose perspective. But back in the 1990s a trio helped change the world. Dr. Ron Paul and economist Murray Rothbard were close friends. Lew Rockwell was the organizer and raised the money. Rothbard wrote prodigiously and Ron Paul kept delivering babies and running for office. Ron Paul is the most famous and successful libertarian politician of the past 100 years.
This trio built on what is good in what we today call civil society and eventually, as the Internet era began, were joined by popularizers like Matt Drudge, Alex Jones ... and then more. And so once again the ideas of freedom and individual HUMAN action (versus Adam Smith's Wealth of NATIONS) were propagated as they had been before. No one is perfect, but this aspiration is larger than personal agendas, and grounded in the logic of civil society built up over centuries by the greatest and most courageous of minds.
This is the story of civilization, in fact. It is a language and a conversation. It reoccurs. It cannot be extinguished because it may blaze anew in the hearts of the next generation. Sure, it may take a village, but it is one made up of INDIVIDUALS. And everyone is welcome. All who subscribe to the individual greatness of the human species are conveyances for what is worth carrying forward in human society. God damn those who do not. 
History seems to us a series of cycles, struggles between historical elites and the rest. Such a struggle has been joined today. This is REAL history. We are lucky enough to live at a time when the old order is passing. Maybe what we are seeing is its death struggles.
The Internet is making it impossible for it to thrive in its current form. Central banks printing monopoly money-from-nothing, wars of aggression, the incarceration of millions ... these are indefensible paradigms when one does not fully control the media anymore. 
The Internet Reformation is like a wildfire, perhaps. It seems to be burning away the manifestations of the American Empire by incinerating the disingenuous moral buttresses that hold together this phony construct of the modern power elite. By the time the Internet Reformation has run its course, today's authoritarian verities may have perished entirely. (They will of course emerge in another form.)
Right now, according to this CBS article, only the lie that the military-industrial complex "keeps America safe" stands between the fullness of Leviathan and its subsidence. But what happens, as will be inevitable, when Americans in larger numbers find out that this "safety" is non-existent?
What happens when Americans finally realize that the string of wars that have "defended" them were perhaps phony? What happens when the seeming manipulations that caused the phony Cold War fully penetrate popular consciousness? What happens when the truth about 9/11 – whatever it is – is finally revealed?
The last memes of the power elite that will tumble (as we have long predicted) are the fundaments of the state itself: the insanity of the current model of state justice (where the state itself and its controllers make the laws and then pay for the legislatures, courts and military and civilian police and penitentiary guards that enforce this phony "justice.")
The corollary is the military-industrial complex itself and its myriad millions of intel operatives in London, Washington, DC and Tel Aviv. These individuals are already worried; their privacy invasions, incarcerations and tortures weigh heavily on them. It is occurring to them that they may be on the wrong side of history – real history.
George W. Bush is afraid to travel outside of the United States. David Rockefeller is approaching the century mark and is not his old persuasive self. The Rothschilds are regularly making appearances on business television to show they are merely struggling businessmen and bankers. The US Congress attempts to pass evermore Draconian laws to stop the Internet Reformation. Wars are fomented to take over the world. And yet the navel of the world remains unconquered.
Conclusion: The Internet, which was never supposed to happen, continues to inform people every day about the despicable nature of the elite's 20th century directed history. The old paradigms are crumbling. A thousand, ten thousand, a million prison camps may not capture the truths echoing around the world. The Internet is a process not an episode.


--






Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#17382 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:27 pm
Subject: Private Attorney General writes to Cliff Kincaid re: Bradley Manning and Julian Assange 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
To: cliff.kincaid@...
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 8:16 AM
Subject: Private Attorney General writes to Cliff Kincaid re: Bradley Manning and Julian Assange
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff580.htm


Greetings Cliff:

I invite you to view a few recent films, in order to put this controversy
into what I believe is its proper historical and factual context:

(1)  "The Green Zone" starring Matt Damon:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947810/


(2)  "The New American Century" in 10 Parts at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U14cONsdsYQ


 "The Green Zone" was particularly helpful to me, for several reasons --
arguably the most important of which is that it appears to be historically
accurate on the paramount question it addressed:  Did Iraq have WMD?

An official report by the USAF Counterproliferation Center at Maxwell AFB
two YEARS to the month before 9/11/2001, confirmed that Niger's "yellow cake"
(uranium oxide) had been conveyed to Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona,
NOT to Iraq:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/farr/farr.2.htm

[begin quote]

After the 1967 war, France stopped supplies of uranium to Israel.  These supplies were from former French colonies of Gabon, Niger, and the Central Africa Republic.34  Israel had small amounts of uranium from Negev phosphate mines and had bought some from Argentina and South Africa, but not in the large quantities supplied by the French.  Through a complicated undercover operation, the Israelis obtained uranium oxide, known as yellow cake, held in a stockpile in Antwerp.  Using a West German front company and a high seas transfer from one ship to another in the Mediterranean, they obtained 200 tons of yellow cake.  The smugglers labeled the 560 sealed oil drums “Plumbat,” which means lead, hence “Operation Plumbat.”35  The West German government may have been involved directly but remained undercover to avoid antagonizing the Soviets or Arabs.36  Israeli intelligence information on the Nazi past of some West German officials may have provided the motivation.37

[end quote]


Moreover, the humanitarian crisis that already existed in Iraq, prior to the second
U.S. invasion of that country, had already been very well documented for
the whole world to see. 

Just read the Exhibits in this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
and please take careful note of the publication dates of each such Exhibit:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/vcc.htm

          (M)     “Beyond Torture:  U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq,”
A report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/beyondtorture.pdf

(N)     “Sanctions Against Iraq:  Costs of Failure,”
by Peter Boone, Haris Gazdar and Athar Hussain (November 1997)
A report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/iraqecon.pdf

(O)     “The Human Costs of War in Iraq,”
A report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/humancosts.pdf

I am not one to relish body counts;  nevertheless, the human costs of Iraq's
multi-decade bloodbath have now easily exceeded 1.25 Million violent and
premature deaths of its People, NOT COUNTING the long-term health effects
predictable from depleted uranium ordnance widely used in both U.S. wars
of aggression against Iraq.

"Shock and Awe?"  Whose "shock" and whose "awe" please?


Now, please expand the scope above to include also every conflict
-- mentioned even slightly in "The New American Century" --
which involved any kind of "intervention" by the U.S. Military
in any other foreign country.

Who was it who first said that "Governments Kill People"?

Who is responsible for the greater moral and ethical outrages here?
Our answer:  The Government of the United States!


I have my own questions for Mr. Assange, which primarily concern
his biases in favor of the apartheid, racist and fascist government
now in control of the rogue State of Israel.

Regardless of the relevance or lack of relevance of his well documented biases,
I will never regard it as proper for Federal Prosecutors to commence criminal proceedings
when those very same Federal Prosecutors have unclean hands themselves.

If you have any doubts about my reasons for writing the preceding paragraph,
perhaps you might benefit from reading the reasons why my office has now
concluded that the U.S. District Courts have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm


How many times have these very same Federal "Prosecutors" said that
ignorance of the Law is no excuse for violating the Law?


The People of this planet who presently hate the United States
do not feel that way because "they hate our freedoms" [sic];
they do so because they hate our manifold hypocrisies.


What I believe America has most to fear is a complete loss of all respect
for due process of Law and for the fundamental principles embodied
in the Fifth Amendment, namely:  that there shall be no deprivations of
life, liberty or property without that due process of Law, and that
a man is innocent until proven guilty as determined by a competent and qualified
jury of his peers.


Against these long-standing principles of American jurisprudence,
the Peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan have now suffered and continue to
suffer SUMMARY EXECUTION at the hands of the U.S. Military.


We invite you to justify, and publish, your own answers to the key moral and ethical questions
discussed above.


Thank you.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17383 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:58 pm
Subject: "Imperial Overdrive: Red alert over Iran," by Adrian Salbuchi (12/30/2011) 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 8:56 AM
Subject: "Imperial Overdrive: Red alert over Iran," by Adrian Salbuchi (12/30/2011)
http://rt.com/news/iran-us-war-military-005/


A handout picture from US Navy dated February 21, 2007, shows the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis as it conducts operations in the Gulf (AFP Photo / US Navy / Ronald Reeves)
A handout picture from US Navy dated February 21, 2007, shows the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis as it conducts operations in the Gulf (AFP Photo / US Navy / Ronald Reeves)

2011 will be remembered as the year the US, Britain, France and Israel went into Imperial Overdrive in North Africa and the Middle East. Will 2012 be remembered as the year those same Western Allies unleashed World War III?
­It is not news anymore to say that the West will soon attack Iran, maybe Syria. They have been threatening to do that for years now, certainly ever since the failed Israeli invasion into Southern Lebanon in mid-2006, when they were routed by Hezbollah.
So what is different today? For starters, general circumstances have changed dramatically in the Region. Genuine popular dissent inside key Muslim countries has been used by the Western Allies to train, fund and arm local criminal and terrorist organizations, dubbed “freedom fighters”, as their proxies.
Country after country has fallen victim to the CIA’s, MI6’s and Mossad’s “dirty tricks departments”, and other Western-style terrorist organizations. Results range from moderate “regime change” in Tunisia and Algeria; via horrendous “violence by our boys” in Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain; all the way to outright military attack, civil war and political assassination. Such as the one in Libya, where Hillary Clinton boisterously laughed when she learned Muammar Gaddafi had been murdered live on TV by “her thugs”.
The whole region has been set on fire. Not that other regions of the world are not on fire too; however the pyrotechnics used by the Global Power Elite vary in nature in each geography. For example, Europe, the US and Britain are being set alight using financial terrorism resembling a neutron bomb, which kills people off while leaving assets and banks standing.  
Now in Iran the stage seems set for a final show-down. It has taken so long only because Israeli, British and US planners are not stupid; they know that messing with Iran is not like messing with Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Libya. Messing with Iran will bring Western Allies very dangerously close to messing with Russia and China. If I were in their shoes, I would not do that. Unless

Unless World War III is what they are looking for. Now, why would they do that?  Perhaps, because they have realized that there is just no peaceful way of achieving their dream of World Government. Perhaps because they have understood that the financial quicksand they have backed themselves into is so devastating that it cannot be cleaned up with purely financial, monetary and “legal” measures, in which case

Nothing beats a good war! Perhaps, because wildcard Israel is so very much in control (or should I say, out of control) that they are imposing the “Sampson Option” not only on themselves, but also on their controlled Western Allies and the whole planet if need be. “After me, the Flood!”
Things in the Strait of Hormuz are extremely dangerous and volatile. After being systematically threatened with unilateral military attack, invasion, and even nuclear strikes, now the Iranians are showing their muscle too. On 24th December, Iran began a 10-day spate of military maneuvers in the strait that has all but put the US, UK and Israel on red alert. A US aircraft carrier force is now in the area and their helicopters have flown dangerously close to Iranian forces. Any spark could set off a conflagration.
Meanwhile, Syria is falling into meltdown. Meanwhile, Israel is preparing “Cast Lead II” over and inside Gaza. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is ready to strike Israel with tens of thousands of very deadly short-range “Katyushka” rockets.
A key sign of impending war is an article just published in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It carried the ominous title of Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option, by Matthew Kroenig. This man was, until last July, special advisor to the Pentagon for “Defense Strategy on Iran” â€“ Newspeak for “let’s beat the hell out of Iran”.
The CFR is the key Global Power Elite think-tank, founded in 1919 together with its London sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House). Its more than 4500 members are deeply embedded into the uppermost echelons of public and private power in the US, controlling banking, industry, media, academia, the military and government.
Key government posts are always controlled by one of their lot, irrespective of whether the Democrats or Republicans are in power. The CFR is integrated into an intricate network of similar organizations that includes the Trilateral Commission, Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Group, Project for a New American Century, Bilderberg and others. They all operate in streamlined coordination, consistency, synchronization and – most important – with a common purpose.
In his article, Mr Kroenig, assesses how “American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities,” concluding that, “The only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.”
He warns against “skeptics of military action (who) fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to US interests in the Middle East and beyond.”  
This reflects Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent remarks when addressing the Brookings Institution’s pro-Israel “Saban Forum” bringing together US and Israeli military strategists that repeated the usual Baby Bush “all options are on the table” threats.
Mr. Kroenig talks of the “dangers of deterrence” and gives the Obama Administration unequivocal advice: “The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.”
As these pyromaniacs get ready to ignite the regional and global powder keg, one key question looms ever larger: what will Russia do?

­-- Adrian Salbuchi for RT

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and international radio/TV commentator from Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com

Disclaimer: ­The views and opinions expressed in the story are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


--




Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17384 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:11 pm
Subject: Private Attorney General Confronts Racists in CONgress -- "Bring 'em on!" he openly criticizes their institutional bias. 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:05 PM
Subject:
Private Attorney General Confronts Racists in CONgress
-- "Bring 'em on!" he openly criticizes their institutional bias.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was correct,
not because it upheld apartheid, when the writing was already on the wall
and Abraham Lincoln refused to read that writing!

That was not Lincoln's finest hour -- hardly!

It was correct because that decision identified the organic Constitution
as the real culprit, and because it also explained sufficiently and thoroughly that
THE PROBLEM thus identified was in the organic Constitution and
the Supreme Court had no authority to amend that Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court still has no such authority.  See Article V:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#5
(that Article has never been amended either!)


Nevertheless, rather than heed the Supreme Court's sage advice
at that time -- to amend the Constitution properly -- CONgress instead
created a second INFERIOR class of "federal citizens" specifically
to give blacks a terrible choice:  either become SUBJECTS of D.C.
or go back to Africa, even though many blacks at that time had been
born in America:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/excerpt1.htm

Not only was the 1866 Civil Rights Act a terrible insult to all black Americans;
it fails the Void for Vagueness test because "United States" has three (3) --
COUNT THEM -- three different legal meanings.  Which of those 3 meanings
the CONgress intended when it designated them "citizens of the United States"
was allowed to remain entirely vague, until recent research blew the
cover off this multi-generational fraud:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm

To make matters much worse, federal citizens are now the
ONLY CLASS of Americans who can vote or serve on juries of any kind,
be they Federal or State juries, be they grand juries or trial juries,
be they civil juries or criminal juries.

If you are a State Citizen -- read Citizen of ONE OF the States united --
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra
you are eligible to serve in the House, Senate and White House, BUT
you are expressly and totally EXCLUDED from participating otherwise
in the American democratic experiment.

So much for "Democracy in America" -- one of THE BIGGEST LIES if there ever was one.


Here's an IQ test which our office has devised for all Federal lawmakers:
ask them this:  What are the first three letters of "CONgress"?

Con  verb  to swindle (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, paperback edition)

As Mark Twain once wrote:  "The only time the children are safe
is when CONgress is not in session."  (Not his "real" name, by the way :)


Bring 'em on, I say:  their knowledge of American history and
American laws never repealed is so empty, so vacuous,
my little finger can push over their entire "white collar" crime syndicate
in one brief wink.


p.s.  Guess what "U.S. Individual" means on IRS Form 1040?
Answer:  that term includes ONLY federal citizens and resident aliens:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hicks/memo04.htm  (Meaning of “United States person”)
HOW ABOUT THEM APPLES?



--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17385 From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:40 pm
Subject: "The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion," by Hank Mills with Sterling D. Allan (Pure Energy Systems News) 		paulandrewmi...
Send Email Send Email
 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 3:36 PM
Subject: "The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion," by Hank Mills with Sterling D. Allan (Pure Energy Systems News)
http://pesn.com/2011/12/27/9601994_History_of_MITs_Blatant_Suppression_of_Cold_Fusion/

A stunning report written by the late Eugene Mallove details
the efforts of professors, researchers, and even the former President of MIT
to squash cold fusion at all costs.

If you have any doubt that Pons and Fleischmann had enemies
desperately trying to discredit them, this article will erase it!


http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/history-of-mits-blatant-suppression-of.html


The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

By Hank Mills with Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News


Due to the fact that commercially-ready cold fusion technologies like Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) exist and can produce kilowatts of power, I’m not too interested in previous systems from years ago that could only produce a couple watts of power (or less). However, I am very interested in the events that took place immediately after the birth of Cold Fusion in 1989, when Pons and Fleischmann announced the existence of their technology to the world. Although cold fusion systems at the time were not ready for the market place, they proved the effect was real — a fact the establishment could not allow the public to accept.

Immediately after the announcement was made, the “mainstream” scientific community went on the attack. The late Eugene Mallove was in the middle of it, being employed at MIT in the news office — before resigning in protest of the institution’s misconduct. In a featured article for Infinite Energy Magazine, Mallove detailed exactly what took place that led to his resignation, and the depth of hatred that many professors at MIT had for Pons and Fleischmann’s work. The article titled, “MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report” also looks at how the replication performed by the institution’s Plasma Fusion Center actually did produce positive results, how data from the experiment was altered by unknown individuals at least twice, and how the hot fusion scientists in charge of such tests were far too biased to conduct proper research.


The article is the most detailed piece of documentation I have ever seen in regards to the early years of the war against cold fusion. If you think the suppression Pons and Fleischmann faced was bad, you don’t have a clue until you have read this article.


The Replication Attempt

To start with, those in charge of the replication attempt were members of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. Their work with hot fusion Tokamak brought the university many millions of dollars in funding from the government, and maintained their job security. If cold fusion were to be accepted as a real phenomenon, it could have made hot fusion research appear to be near worthless.



The question in the minds of representatives in Washington, DC would have been, “Why should the taxpayers finance the construction of giant reactors to experiment with hot fusion reactions that produce nuclear waste and lethal amounts of radioactivity, when cold fusion research only requires a small fraction of the funding, while producing no waste and little radioactivity?”

In the minds of the MIT professors, such as MIT Plasma Fusion Center Director Ronald R. Parker, that question could never be allowed to cross the minds of those that paid for their employment. So in an effort to belittle cold fusion research so no one would take it serious, the members of his department (including some scientists from others) took every opportunity they could to attack Pons and Fleischmann. For example, consider how
.

A funeral party or “Wake for Cold Fusion” was held by the Plasma Fusion Center, before their replication test of Pons and Fleischmann’s setup was even complete. They held another such party afterwards.

Mugs belittling cold fusion were given out by Ron Parker, the head of the MIT hot fusion research group, who was supposed to be doing serious research to determine if cold fusion was a reality or not. The mugs read, “The Utah University: Department of Fusion Confusion” and had mocking instructions for cold fusion on the back.




Ron Parker would use the test results to discredit cold fusion, while at a celebration of the death of cold fusion stated to Eugene Mallove (after being shown evidence in support for cold fusion) stated that the data from the MIT replication was “worthless.”
How examination of the data from MIT’s replication showed obvious evidence of tampering. In fact, the corrected data showed excess heat. Yet it was still used to discredit cold fusion research for many years.

How the former President of MIT, Charles Vest, refused to order an investigation into how the Plasma Fusion Center handled the replication, and their obviously unscientific behavior — such as partying for the death of something instead of doing unbiased research. Even worse, years later he signed onto a Department of Energy report stating that cold fusion did not deserve funding for research, yet hot fusion deserved millions of additional dollars and was a “bargain.”


Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest were ignored from the very start. For example, those who had the strongest need for cold fusion to be proven not to work (hot fusion scientists), were tasked with the replication of the effect. It would be like giving a cigarette company the order to conduct a study on the reality of lung cancer, or the lumber industry the job of determining the usefulness of industrial hemp. What the hot fusion scientists were going to say was obvious!



How some scientists were so closed minded they stated that if cold fusion was real, Pons and Fleischmann should be dead from radiation poisoning. In addition, some scientists went so far as to personally attack them. In one case, a scientist stated that even if a thousand tests showed excess heat, that the results would not vindicate Pons and Fleischmann.


“Words to Eat”

MIT Professor Ronald George Ballinger may hold the all time record for making a foolish statement against cold fusion. He wrote in 1991: “It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann.”

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the article is how Ronald R. Parker and Ronald G. Ballinger had a phone call with Nick Tate of the Boston Heraldin 1989. They were talking to him about a potential story about cold fusion, hoping that he would write a hit piece. In their conversation, which is transcribed in the article, Parker uses the fraud word in his description of their work. He also talks about how he is setting up another “blast” against cold fusion with Bob Bazell, a reporter with NBC.When Tate reported in the Boston Herald on May 1 that the MIT scientists had called Pons and Fleishmann’s work a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Pons and Fleishmann were viciously attacked at the meeting of the American Physical Society. In a retrospective piece written in 1991, Tate asserted that: “Some say those comments set the tone for the national criticism of the Utah work that followed.”





Meanwhile, when Tate’s article in the Boston Herald revealed that Parker had described Pons and Fleishmann’s work as being a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Parker rushed to deny he had made such statements. Probably, he realized that in his rush to discredit cold fusion he had crossed the line, and committed slander. In order to avoid possible legal repercussions, in a media advisory from the MIT News Office, Parker specifically denied making such assertions to Tate during their telephone conversation. However, Tate had recorded the phone call, and therefore had rock solid evidence that Parker had made those statements. Years later, Tate allowed Eugene Mallove to listen to the recording, which revealed the truth about what was said. It was too late, the damage to cold fusion’s reputation was done.


Where things stand

In summary, Mallove’s article paints a damning picture of MIT scientists and professors hell-bent on discrediting cold fusion. Out of desperation to protect hot fusion research, they went so far as to tell blatant lies, alter data, hurl personal insults, conduct celebrations of the “death” of cold fusion, and organize journalists to write hit pieces to try and dismiss Pons and Fleischmann’s work in the public eye. Then the leadership of MIT turned away and ignored the misconduct and potentially criminal behavior, even when they were specifically alerted to it. Years later, these same individuals (working in other positions with the DOE and DOD) continued to promote the idea that cold fusion was “garbage.”

If you want to know the TRUTH about why it has taken twenty plus years for a commercial cold fusion technology to be developed, you should read this article. It is a tragedy beyond measure that an institution like MIT would allow such inappropriate behavior. Everyone involved has blood on their hands from all the people on this planet that have died due to the suppression of this technology. Literally, due to their suppression of cold fusion, children have needlessly starved, millions have suffered dehydration due to a lack of clean water, the environment has been trashed, and the global economy has been almost destroyed.

If the suppression of cold fusion by MIT had never happened, we might not even have an energy crisis today!





And this is but one of many such stories about the suppression saga from 1989.

The suppression from back then has had phenomenal staying power due to the brainwashing that pronounced “cold fusion” to be “junk science,” no matter what, despite thousands of replications worldwide, with several making significant gains toward marketplace viability, and the E-Cat actually reaching the marketplace on October 28 of this year with a 1 MW unit. So now, when people attack Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, it’s hard to tell whether they are acting as a function of that brainwashing, or as a present-day disinformation agent, or if they have honest misgivings of a scientific basis.

Gratefully, Rossi keeps moving forward despite these negative statements.

A few individuals in the mainstream are coming around and waking up to the reality of cold fusion, like NASA’s Dennis Bushnell who claims cold fusion is the number one most promising alternative energy technology on the planet. However, to protect hot fusion research, protect the status quo, and to keep the public from realizing how the scientific community suppressed cold fusion, he calls the phenomena LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). In addition, he claims there is no fusion in cold fusion, in order to try and make the technology seem more mundane, and more acceptable.

There were enemies of mankind in 1989 that wanted to prevent the proliferation of cold fusion, and there are still such enemies today. Reading about how cold fusion research was attacked from the very start can help us prepare for attacks from these in the future.

We cannot let greedy, selfish, and power-hungry monsters and their countless minions suppress cold fusion for another twenty years or more. There are too many lives at risk. Simply put, the future of our civilization is at stake.


Hank Mills has contributed a large number of stories to Pure Energy Systems web site at PES.com.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hank_Mills#Bio

Sterling D. Allan is the Founder and CEO of PES Network, Inc., and of the New Energy Congress
http://pureenergysystems.com/about/personnel/SterlingDAllan/


See also:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#17386 From: JtwB <blazingstar1776@...>
Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:52 am
Subject: Garet Garrett, Mr. Old Right 		blazingstar1776
Send Email Send Email
 

Rise of Empire

By Justin Raimondo On August 18, 2004

 

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2004/08/18/rise-of-empire/print/

 

Amid the plethora of recent books on the rise of an American empire, and the veritable flood of magazine and newspaperarticles on this topic, the Caxton Press, of Caldwell, Idaho, has done us all a great service by republishing the very best critique of the imperial impulse: Ex America, by Garet Garrett.

 

First published in 1953, as The People’s Pottage, Ex America is a collection of three essays: the first, "The Revolution Was," is the story of how the New Deal pulled off a "revolution within the form," overthrew the Constitution, and initiated a revolutionary expansion of government power that sees its endpoint, or pretty near to it, in the so-called PATRIOT Act. As ostensible "conservatives" rationalize the greatest expansion of federal power ever, Garrett’s "Old Right" analysis of how and why we got to this point is resonant with elegiac sadness:

 

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom."

 

Yes, the revolution was already behind us in 1938, when those words were written – but Garrett’s account of how and why it happened is just as relevant today as when the author conceived of it.

 

As a mortal enemy of the New Deal and the leviathan state it created, Garrett saw himself as holding the last redoubt of an America about to vanish. Oh, the outward form of the Old Republic would endure, if only for the sake of appearances. But by the time FDR had set up a series of provocations, both covert and overt, and gotten us into another world war, the new Caesars had already abolished the stern republican virtues and set America on the road to empire.

 

"Regime change" is a phrase with which we are all too familiar: Garrett, in this slim volume, tells the story of how regime change was effected in the America of the 1930s. The economic elites, in alliance with the "left," i.e. the Communist party and its fellow travelers, launched a Popular Front against the traditional American idea of strictly limited, constitutional government. The collectivist intellectuals, and their Commie allies, couldn’t do it on their own: "When the opportunity came," Garrett wrote, "a Gracchus would be needed. The elite could produce one," and did in the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

The liberals and lefties in my audience will start to grow impatient, at this point, but I hasten to assure them. While Garrett’s analysis of the Rooseveltian revolution is surely rooted in his Old Right libertarian opposition to redistributionism and support for laissez-faire, his insight into how the New Deal centralized, and, ultimately, militarized the economy, and much of American life, speaks to our present predicament with a certain eerie prescience.

 

FDR’s relentless campaign to subordinate all rival centers of authority to the power and glory of the Imperial Presidency – isn’t that a familiar story? Under the rubric of the economic emergency – the biggest financial collapse in the history of American capitalism – the ordinary rules and constitutional restraints on the power of government were relaxed and eventually suspended, as opportunists moved quickly to exploit the shocked and vulnerable populace. A propaganda of fear was utilized to engineer the overthrow of "the old order" – "We cannot go back to the old order," FDR often intoned, without naming which order, and the casualties of the Great Depression could only nod their heads numbly.

 

There is a timeless modernity about Garrett’s style as well as his subject matter:

 

"Revolution in the modern case is no longer an uncouth business. The ancient demagogic art, like every other art, has, as we say, advanced. It has become in fact a science – the science of political dynamics. And your scientific revolutionary in spectacles regards force in a cold, impartial manner. It may or may not be necessary. If not, so much the better: to employ it wantonly, or for the love of it when it is not necessary, is vulgar, unintelligent and wasteful. Destruction is not the aim. The more you destroy the less there is to take over. Always the single end in view is a transfer of power."

 

In Garrett’s day, the revolutionaries in spectacles wanted to bring about regime change in the U.S.: their descendants have their sights set on the Middle East, Central Asia, and the former Soviet Union. It’s true, the ancient demagogic art has advanced since the era of FDR, but the basic methodology – a campaign of lies circulated with the complicity of the major media, funded and relentlessly promoted by foreign lobbyists and their American supporters â€“ seems pretty much unchanged.

 

As for the method of financing this "revolution within the form," FDR’s disdainful reply to those who objected to the explosion in the public debt, "We will owe it to ourselves," which seemed revolutionary yesterday, is today the conventional wisdom. Congress routinely ups the debt into the trillions, and shovels American wealth into the U.S. Treasury faster than we can produce it. Much of it is funneled overseas, which brings us to the second essay, "Ex America," specifically to the opening paragraph:

 

"The winds that blow our billions away return burdened with themes of scorn and dispraise. There is a little brat wind that keeps saying: ‘But you are absurd, you Americans, like the rich, fat boy from the big house who is tolerated while he spends his money at the drugstore and then gets chased home with mud on his shoes. He is bewildered and hurt, and yet he wants so much to be liked that he does it again the next day. But this is parable, and you are probably too stupid to get it. If you do, you won’t believe it, and so no harm is done. You will come again tomorrow.’"

 

As the Iraqis complain that they don’t have regular electricity, and the Israelis build a "Wall of Separation" with our money while disdaining the U.S. State Department’s timid objections, the contemporary reader is taken aback by how little things have changed in half a century.

 

The jet-propelled economy of the modern super-state, Garrett pointed out, is fueled by inflation, and by its own frenetic momentum: to stop, or even pause momentarily, would cause a crash fatal to many. Rather than face the grim specter of deflation, politicians look forward to an eternity of deficit spending. The constant ratcheting up of the public debt powered a perpetual motion machine of continuously expanding government.

 

By 1953, when the third essay, "Rise of Empire," was written, the "revolution within the form" was complete in all its essentials:

 

"We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night: the precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say: ‘You are now entering Imperium.’ Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: ‘Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.’ And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: ‘No U-turns.’"

 

Garrett was a master of the opening paragraph, and I have cited his openers in the case of all three essays in part due to their sheer readability. He announces his theme in the form of an arresting image, and then develops it throughout, and the whole trilogy develops in the same way. A decade passed between the publication of "The Revolution Was" and "Rise of Empire," yet Garrett was still entranced by the vision of an elite that had seized power, effecting a revolution within the form until the American republic was transmuted, by some clandestine alchemy, into an empire.

 

Yet it wasn’t a secret cabal that overthrew the Constitution in the dead of night, but an open conspiracy that "reinterpreted" the general welfare clause of the Constitution to legalize the Welfare State. As Garrett put it:

 

"To outsmart the Constitution and to circumvent its restraints became a popular exercise of the art of government in the Roosevelt regime."

 

When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court, and spoke contemptuously of "the reactionary members of the Supreme Court" as stubborn obstacles to "reform," he became a hero to the Left. "Among the millions who at the time applauded that statement of contempt," Garrett wrote,

 

"There were very few, if there was indeed one, who would not have been frightened by a revelation of the logical sequel. They believed, as everyone did, that there was one thing a President could never do. There was one sentence of the Constitution that could not fall, so long as the Republic lived.

 

"The Constitution says: ‘The Congress shall have power to declare war.’ That, therefore, was the one thing no President could do. By his own will he could not declare war, and Congress could be trusted never to do it but by will of the people – or so they believed. No man could make it for them."

 

Though Roosevelt wanted war, worked for it, and was relieved when it finally came, even the man who, for a while, had aspired to make himself a dictator still felt duty bound to go to Congress for a war declaration – even after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Nine years later, Garrett points out, "a much weaker President" didn’t bother.

 

Reading Garrett on Truman makes one realize why he’s the neocons’ favorite president, second only to Lincoln. It was the haberdasher from Independence, Missouri, after all, who first took us to war without consulting Congress, in Korea, and openly argued, for the first time, that the constitutional clause conferring on Congress sole power to make war was "obsolete" – on account of the Cold War. In a state of perpetual war, the president’s dual role as chief executive and commander-in-chief is weighted in favor of the latter. Truman and his supporters argued that technology had changed the way wars are fought, and started, so that the president had to be able to act on a moment’s notice, presumably in order to respond to a threat of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.

 

Yesterday, the imminence of a conflict with the Soviet Union meant that the president had to be granted the right to strike at will, and today we’re hearing a rerun of the same old Cold War rationalization. Bush has gone beyond even Truman, though, in claiming not only the right to strike at will, but openly declaring his intent to strike preemptively. Terrorism, we are told, poses a "new kind of threat," one enhanced not only by new developments in technology, but also by the peculiar vulnerabilities of an empire that can project military force halfway around the world, but can’t protect its own borders.

 

In spite of Russia’s essential weakness – a weakness inherent in all socialist states – and the Kremlin’s general reluctance to use its own military forces to achieve its goals, except by proxy – the fight against Communism was always presented by the adherents of the West as a defensive measure. In spite of Stalin’s stated determination to limit the Soviet project to building "socialism in one country," the commies, we were told, wanted to conquer the world. We, on the other hand, were determined that they would not. And no one, at least no one on our side, ever said or implied that we opposed the Leninist legions because we wanted the world for ourselves. In the early 1950s, when Garrett’s essay first appeared, world conquest was the preoccupation of mad scientists, and even madder ideologues. We Americans would have none of it.

 

Not so today, as neoconservative intellectuals openly proclaim the glories of the American Empire and celebrate the coming of a "benevolent world hegemony." Garrett foresaw the emergence of Imperial America in all its aspects – and he named and numbered them, the six signs of empire:

 

The dominance of the executive branch, the subordination of domestic policy to foreign policy, the ascendancy of the military mind, "a system of satellite nations," "an emotional complex of vaunting and fear," and the tyranny of imagined necessity:

 

"That is to say, a time comes when Empire finds itself 
– A prisoner of history."

 

To envision what that means, listen to all the reasons "responsible" people and pundits in both parties give for not withdrawing from Iraq. Garrett, as usual, says it best:

 

"A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."

 

As we put forth our hand in the Middle East, and cover our heads here at home, this fiftieth anniversary edition of Garrett’s book could not have been more auspicious. I do believe Garrett’s power of foresight takes on near supernatural proportions as he explains the fifth sign of empire:

 

"Fear may be understood. But a curious and characteristic emotional weakness of Empire is: A complex of vaunting and fear.

 

"The vaunting is from what may be called that Titanic feeling. Many on the doomed Titanic would not believe that a ship so big and grand could sink. So long as it was above water her listing deck seemed safer than a lifeboat on the open sea. So with the people of Empire. They are mighty. They have performed prodigious works, even many that seemed beyond their powers. Reverses they have known but never defeat. That which has hitherto been immeasurable, how shall it be measured? So those must have felt who lived out the grandeur that was Rome. So the British felt while they ruled the world. So the Americans feel."

 

That might’ve been written yesterday, or, for that matter, the day after tomorrow. But wait, there’s more:

 

"
 Conversely, the fear. Fear of the barbarian. Fear of standing alone. Fear of world opinion, since we must have it on our side. The fear that is inseparable from the fact – that security is no longer in our own hands."

 

The rise of Empire meant the end of security: that realization is slowly dawning on the American public. As our great "victory" in Iraq is touted by the War Party, we get ready to vote in the shadow of an "orange alert," i.e., just below panic, and government officials talk openly of canceling the election. The price of Empire – are we willing to pay it, not only in dollars but in human lives, not to mention the cost to our own souls?

 

Garrett – and the Old Right he, in many ways, epitomized – would answer with an emphatic no. In Ex America there is plenty of pessimism, expressed with a kind of bittersweet sadness, but the author points the way forward to a future in which it is possible to recapture "the lost terrain." I could quote Garrett infinitely, but let me leave you with this final citation:

 

"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people."

 

We face an election year in which the burning question of our age – will we return to our republican roots, or "progress" to the decadence of Empire? – is not being debated, where both "major" candidates agree that, yes, we are and should be an Empire. Once again, Garrett’s prescience, tinged as it is with bitterness, seems downright spooky.

 

With an informative as well as empathetic introduction by Bruce Ramsay, an editorial columnist for the Seattle Times, and a very attractive cover design and typography, Ex America is a great buy – $16.95 for a quality hardbound book. This is the third, and in my opinion, the best in the series of Garrett’s works so far released by the Caxton Press, and it couldn’t have been timelier. One minor quibble: the copyediting could have used a second going over. I found two typos. But then these bother me more than they would practically anyone else on earth, and not just out of regard for the author.

 

At any rate, if you want to understand how we got to where we are, and how we might get out, then buy this book, read it, and give it to your friends. Turning Ex America into a bestseller would do more to build the cause of liberty, peace, and a non-interventionist foreign policy than all the election campaigns ever conducted. Thank you, Bruce Ramsay and Caxton Press!

 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
Messages 17357 - 17386 of 18440   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help