Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Private Attorney General's REPLIES Re: Got a sandwich? by Dinesh D'Souza

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:48 PM Subject: Private Attorney General s REPLIES Re: Got a sandwich? by Dinesh
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:48 PM
      Subject: Private Attorney General's REPLIES Re: Got a sandwich? by Dinesh D'Souza

      Greetings Cindy et al.:

      I'm REALLY glad you posted this video:


      First of all, I recognize Dinesh as a very intelligent and very articulate
      human being, and I honor him for his ability to frame moral issues
      so succinctly and so clearly.

      Nevertheless, I did NOT hear one single reference to the supreme Law in America,
      so allow me an opportunity to fill in that HUGE GAPING HOLE in his brief statements:

      (1)  the whole issue of Federal "social welfare" legislation
      arose back in the period of 1932-35, when the Congress tried to enact
      a metric tonne of such social welfare programs;  what happened?
      Answer:  the Supreme Court struck down much of it, and
      that was one of the main reasons why FDR resorted
      to his "Court Packing" scheme -- to eliminate high Court obstacles
      to FDR's socialist plans;

      (2)  Social Security was allowed to remain, in part on the
      basis of the FACT that it is Federal MUNICIPAL law, and
      as such it ONLY applies to areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction
      like D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico:
      we know this from "legal experts" in the Office of the Legislative Counsel
      and the Congressional Research Service (both agreeing):


      (3)  it should already be very evident, from (1) and (2) above,
      that the Constitution authorizes NO POWER for Congress
      to compel Citizens of the States to participate in such
      social welfare programs;  and, Dinesh is correct to place
      emphasis on the "compulsory" nature of these programs;

      (4)  you will also note, I hope, that the role of the State governments
      in providing social welfare programs is rather conspicuous
      for its absence from the comments Dinesh made;

      (5)  there IS another MAJOR MORAL ISSUE that arises from
      the fact that the Federal government has a well documented
      propensity to proliferate boated and inefficient bureaucracies
      whose major raison d'etre (reason for existence) is to
      implement and regulate programs like the thousands of
      studies which killed millions of dogs to prove that smoking
      is a health hazard;  there were so many dogs killed by these
      federal smoking studies that Congress needed to appropriate
      funds to build a dog crematorium, to incinerate all those dogs
      effectively euthanized by "compelling" them to inhale
      toxic cigarette smoke 24/7;

      (7)  this brings us full circle to ask how much discretionary
      money would be available, in the aggregate, if the Congress
      were NOT allowed to waste so many BILLIONS of tax dollars
      for so many THOUSANDS of programs whose main objectives
      are to COMPEL social engineering at all levels of American society,
      particularly when Congress does so by means of fraud e.g.
      by re-defining "States" to mean something OTHER THAN
      the 50 States of the Union and doing so after the Supreme Court
      specifically prohibited such re-definitions of terms that occur
      in the U.S. Constitution;

      (8)  an excellent example of (7) is the fraud that has been forced
      upon churches throughout the country, by requiring them to apply
      for 501(c)(3) "tax exemption", when it is now well known that
      those churches had no legal obligation to request such exemptions
      in the first place, and those same churches have no legal obligations
      to require their paid employees to execute IRS Forms W-4,
      and certainly not when those workers are NOT included
      in the IRC's definition of "employee" in the first place:


      (9)  therefore, a strong argument can be made that churches --
      and the many members of their congregations -- would have
      far more discretionary money at their disposals, if the
      Federal income tax and the IRS simply did NOT exist
      and if neither were being sustained secretly and fraudulently
      to continue collecting interest payments payable to the
      Federal Reserve Banks -- particularly when those very same Banks
      have no desire to promote the welfare of the American People;

      (10)  it should also be obvious from the above that the entire
      American macro-economic situation would have far more
      discretionary money at its disposal to purchase voluntary and
      private health insurance, PROVIDED that the Congress restricted
      its legislation within the 50 States to the specific authorities
      which are authorized to it by Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 thru 16
      and 18:


      (11)  I like to close such discussions with a moral comparison
      to the divisive issue of abortion:  if Congress restricted its
      legislation on this issue to the federal zone, and allowed
      the State Legislatures to make their own decisions
      on this issue, I predict with moral confidence that
      the Most High would allow States to flourish insofar
      as they prohibited abortion, and the Most High would
      punish States that permitted and encouraged abortion;

      (12)  of course, impostors and dictators like Barry Soetoro
      continue to believe, falsely, that Congress has PLENARY authority
      to enact MUNICIPAL legislation that applies EVERYWHERE
      inside the 50 States of the Union;  and, as we already know
      with certainty, that belief is totally contrary to the intent
      of the Framers and the essence of a Republican Form of
      Government which the Congress is required to guarantee
      to all 50 States of the Union but has failed to do so at least
      since the end of the Civil War in the year 1865.

      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      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 Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Cindy Macdonald <macrealm6@...> wrote:
           SUBJECT:  Got a sandwich?
      This was an on-stage discussion at a college ( taking questions from students), and the topic came to the topic of entitlements and the Christian perspective regarding same. One of the panelists was Dinesh D’Souza. THIS is the best explanation I have ever heard...
      Here is a little discussion about sandwiches that is worth hearing:
      Click here.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.