Monday, March 2, 2015

The fascist state of America

tattered American flagThere comes a time in the course of human events that it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with another. America is fast hurtling toward that time.
The United States was founded on the republican principles of federalism (states’ rights) and representative government. Today’s government is “constitutional” in name only.
The undocumented usurper currently despoiling the peoples’ house has for six years shown utter disdain for the founding document. In a town hall meeting on Wednesday last, Barack Obama bragged that he has expanded his authorities “under executive action and prosecutorial discretion.”
But Article II of the Constitution lays out the chief executive’s authorities quite explicitly. There is no room for “expanding” them within the scope of the Constitution. The President is neither tasked with nor authorized to write law or change it. That falls solely under the scope of Congress, as outlined in Article I, Section 1. The executive’s role under Article III, Section 4 is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
But Congress has ceded its authority as the lawmaking body to the imperial president and the myriad alphabet soup agencies of government. Now we have the IRS, the FCC, the EPA, HHS, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the FDA, the USDA, etc., writing and enforcing laws under the guise of “regulatory authority.” The result is a contemptible abuse of the people by agents of the federal government, rising taxes and fees, closed businesses, stifled innovation, and depressed economic growth.
When some in Congress do take the tepid step of attempting to regain some of its authority, the bureaucrats show their disdain and contempt of that “august body” by refusing to testify when called on or by refusing to provide requested documents outlining their regulatory agenda or demonstrating the depths of their criminality (see Tom Wheeler, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, etc.).
An activist judiciary is likewise writing law, overturning the will of the people as demonstrated by their votes on state issues and granting by fiat special rights and privileges to one group at the expense of the rights of the others. This is another place where Congress has ceded its authority.
Should it choose to, Congress has the power under Article III, Section 2 to regulate the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. In other words, Congress can pass a law prohibiting the federal courts from ruling on such issues as state-passed referenda on gay marriage, abortion, legalization of pot or anything it chooses.
Of course, few in Congress when considering doing a thing stop to consider whether they are authorized to do it. Fewer still in government consider the Constitution at all. That’s because politics and government attract psychopaths, liars and thieves. It attracts people who are parasitic in nature, greedy and without conscience. In short, these are people who have the born mentality to live off of other people.
They are selfish and attracted to money and power. Therefore, they are easily swayed and even bought by the corporatists and banksters; and their every act is to increase their and their agency’s power and sphere of influence.
The masses of people have been propagandized by the state-controlled media and the public (non)education system into believing that government is designed and tasked with looking out for the best interests of the people. But nothing could be further from the truth. They have little knowledge of the Constitution and little concept of limited government, and they believe government can and should be all things to all people… particularly if a check to them from the federal Treasury is involved.
The so-called regulatory agencies of government are typically staffed at the top by crony capitalists and lobbyists for the industries they supposedly regulate. As such, they write rules and regulations that benefit preferred large multinational corporations and government at the expense of the people. I have documented this so many times here that it is now self-evident to all but the most sycophantic worshipers of government. However, given its relevance considering the passage last Thursday of misnamed “net neutrality” regulations by the FCC, I give you for evidence the agency’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, former president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, which are lobbying organizations for the cable and telecommunications industries. He was also an executive for a venture capital firm that invested in technology firms.
As Benito Mussolini stated, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” and “The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.” That exactly explains what our former constitutional republic has become. It is benevolent totalitarianism, tyranny under the guise of democracy. But the truth is democracy = socialism = fascism = communism. They are one in the same.
Mussolini also said of his fascism, “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty,” and that is likewise the goal of the American fascist politician and federal bureaucrat. Liberty necessarily perishes under collectivism, egalitarianism and government altruism.
Now we have in America laws that allow for the indefinite imprisonment without trial of those the state deems “terrorists,” without that term being defined. We have an American president who has assumed the authority to kill Americans with drones without due process. We have federal authorities and state and local police abusing citizens with impunity, shooting unarmed and complying citizens down like rabid dogs. And we even have evidence of local police using CIA- or Gestapo-like “black sites” to hold and interrogate Americans without charges or due process.
America is a prison nation, with more citizens incarcerated than the most vile and oppressive government you might care to name.
It bears little resemblance to the free and prosperous nation envisioned as the 18th century turned into the 19th, or even as the 19th turned into the 20th.
In his book, “The Political Crisis of the 1850s,” Michael Holt describes how Americans, particularly Southern Americans, had lost all confidence in the current political system because the existing parties did not represent the people but instead represented the agricultural aristocracy and big business and the banksters. There was also an influx of aliens (mostly Irish Catholics and Germans) who Americans believed did not understand or appreciate America’s “values.” The political parties agitated the people over these immigrants, creating a constant state of strife in addition to the already existing acrimony over the slavery issue, the addition of states to the union and tariffs.
America’s current political system is very similar. Regardless of which “party” holds power, government grows more oppressive and steals more wealth from its people. It creates one crisis after the other, keeping the people agitated against each other so they cannot focus on the real culprit behind their lost liberties: fascist government.
Elite politicians and most white progressives hold most Americans in great disdain. To them, conservatives are racist hicks and trailer trash clinging to their guns and religion — backward and ignorant and “anti” progressive. Or, in their minds, regressive. To the elite politicians and most white progressives, blacks are incapable of providing for themselves or are simply another minority group ripe for continued exploitation. It is slavery under another name.
Elite politicians and most white progressives would like nothing more than to see those in “flyover country” left to their own devices. Yet talk of separation is deemed seditious, unpatriotic or unAmerican; and those who mention secession are considered more dangerous than ISIS, or IS or ISIL by the current regime. Just belonging to a group discussing secession now gets you raided by the FBI and fingerprinted and your personal communication devices confiscated.
This is freedom in America.
The Constitution was ratified to create a government “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Can anyone honestly say American government does these things today?

Thursday, February 19, 2015

President Gollum’s ‘Precious’ Secrets

By Robert Parry

Exclusive: Despite promises of “openness,” President Obama has treated information that could inform American democracy like Tolkien’s character Gollum coveted his “precious” ring. Obama is keeping for himself analyses that could change how the public sees the crises in Syria and Ukraine, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
President Barack Obama promised a “transparent” administration, reviving democracy by letting Americans see into the inner workings of their government as much as possible, an implicit criticism of the excessive secrecy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. But instead Obama’s presidency has been one of the most opaque and deceptive in modern history.
Not only has Obama continued to wrap the carry-over anti-terrorism wars in maximum secrecy but he has taken unprecedented steps to shut down leaks by prosecuting whistleblowers who talk to the press. And, he has left standing his administration’s misleading rushes to judgment on key issues after U.S. intelligence analysts have refined or reversed the first impressions.
Gollum, a character in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings fantasy novels.
Gollum, a character in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings fantasy novels.
Whether on the Syrian sarin attack in 2013 or pivotal incidents in the Ukraine crisis – who was behind the sniper attacks in Kiev last Feb. 20 and who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 last July 17 – Obama has withheld evidence developed by U.S. government analysts rather than undercut the propaganda value of the initial accusations.
In the sarin incident, Secretary of State John Kerry and others rushed to blame President Bashar al-Assad’s government – bringing the U.S. military to the brink of war – and similarly the State Department exploited the two most iconic events of the Ukraine crisis by blaming then-President Viktor Yanukovych for the sniper killings and Russia and ethnic Russian rebels for shooting down MH-17 killing all 298 people onboard.
After the State Department had squeezed out the propaganda value of those accusations, U.S. intelligence analysts came to more detailed conclusions with their findings conflicting with the hasty finger-pointing after the events. But instead of refining or correcting the record, the Obama administration typically went silent, leaving the initial impressions in place even when the President knew better.
In the context of Ukraine, I asked one senior administration official about this behavior and he responded that Russia held most of the advantages there by nature of proximity and history but that one advantage the United States wielded was “information warfare” – and it made no sense to surrender that edge by withdrawing accusations that had put Russian President Vladimir Putin on the defensive.
Thus, in this Orwellian world that seems to have swallowed America’s major institutions, what mattered most was how “information” – including false or misleading propaganda – could be deployed for geopolitical purposes even if it also involved deceiving the U.S. public. Or, one might say, especially if it deceived the U.S. public.
‘Perception Management’
This attitude toward manipulating rather than informing the American people has a long and grim history. For instance, President Lyndon Johnson won congressional support for his disastrous Vietnam War escalation by citing the Tonkin Gulf incident, a false claim about North Vietnamese aggression which has since been debunked but still is used historically by the Defense Department to justify the millions killed in that conflict.
After the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, President Ronald Reagan set up inter-agency task forces devoted to the concept of “perception management,” essentially how to get the American people to “kick the Vietnam Syndrome” and get back into line behind U.S. military interventions abroad, a CIA-inspired campaign that proved stunningly successful. [See’s “The Victory of ‘Perception Management.’”]
Last decade, the American people got their perceptions managed once more regarding Iraq’s non-existent WMD, leading to another catastrophic war which continues to spread chaos and death across the Middle East to this day. One might think that with that bloody history, President Obama would want to fulfill his promises of “transparency.”
According to a memorandum instructing Executive Branch department heads, Obama wrote: “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”
Instead, Obama has clamped down more than ever on openness and transparency, including the prosecution of more government whistleblowers than all the previous presidents combined and sitting on U.S. intelligence reports that would change how Americans understand major international crises.
By and large, Obama has continued the excessive secrecy of President George W. Bush, including withholding from the American people 28 pages of the 2002 congressional investigation into the 9/11 attack that relate to Saudi financing for al-Qaeda terrorists.
Obama also has refused to give the U.S. public access to the updated intelligence analyses of more current crises, including the near American military entry into the Syrian civil war in 2013 and the potential nuclear showdown with Russia over Ukraine in 2014. So, even when American lives are being put at risk by rushes to judgment, Obama doesn’t believe that the people have a right to know the facts.
The Pathology of Secrecy
I spoke with one person who has known Obama since he was a senator from Illinois who suggested the President is fearful that if he does release these secrets and some negative consequences result that he’ll be blamed. In order words, Obama in practice is too scared to live up to his commitment about “transparency.”
Another less generous explanation is that Obama is at heart an elitist who likes to surround himself with secrets but doesn’t want to share them with common citizens who are best treated like the proverbial mushrooms kept in the dark and fertilized.
Or put differently, Obama is like the character Gollum in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings series who is entranced by the power of the One Ring and obsessively pursues it, what he calls “my Precious.” In that analogy, Obama can’t part with his precious secrets despite his promises to the American people about government openness.
Surely, Obama does get warnings against letting the public in on what the U.S. government knows about pivotal events. Government bureaucrats can always find reasons to keep information secret. But presidents have the ultimate say in what is kept secret and what is released.
And, except for a flurry of disclosures immediately after taking office, including Bush’s legal memos justifying torture, Obama has done less about opening up the federal government’s archives than many recent presidents. For instance, President Bill Clinton declassified Cold War-era files on U.S. participation in Guatemala’s decades of brutal repression.
Obama has shown less enthusiasm for giving Americans back their history. More importantly, however, Obama has withheld crucial information about current crises, such as the Syrian sarin attack and events that drove the Ukrainian civil war. [See’s “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case” and “The Danger of an MH-17 Cold Case.”]
In both areas, his administration rushed to judgment based on fragmentary information and – as more detailed data became available challenging the earlier claims – Obama clamped down on what the American people were allowed to hear.
Much like the Tonkin Gulf case, war hawks in the U.S. government found the misimpressions useful, so they didn’t want to correct the record. All the better to get an edge on foreign “adversaries” and manage the perceptions of the American people.
And, for whatever his reasons, President Obama couldn’t let go of his “Precious.”

Friday, February 13, 2015

Bad Government Policies are the Cause of Financial Collapses

By Peter Fricke

Government policies rooted in a flawed understanding of the causes of the financial crisis will only make future crises more likely, according to the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
At an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling spoke glowingly of AEI scholar Peter Wallison’s new book, “Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World’s Worst Financial Crisis and Why it Could Happen Again,” which makes the case that government policies, not private sector excesses, were the main cause of the financial collapse.
Hensarling asserted that, “History has been kind to the Left, mainly because they wrote the history of the financial crisis,” and that this has led to misguided policy responses like the Dodd-Frank banking reforms.
“If you read the wrong history,” he explained. “You come up with the wrong remedy, and Dodd-Frank is the wrong remedy.” (RELATED: Is Congress Creating Another Financial Crisis?)
The conventional liberal narrative, according to Hensarling, is that the financial crisis came about due to excessive deregulation in the financial and housing markets, but as he went on to note, “regulations increased 17 to 18 percent immediately prior to the crisis.” In fact, he added. “I’m not sure there’s ever been an industry as heavily regulated as housing.”
“We [in Congress] will continue to work on creating a sustainable housing policy,” Hensarling vowed, but “we cannot move forward until we have a shared understanding of what went wrong.”
“Everybody knows that the financial crisis was caused by a mortgage meltdown,” Wallison told audience members, but while the prevailing wisdom has it that Wall Street greed led to the housing collapse, “the facts show an entirely different story,” which is that, “government policies created the demand for those mortgages” in the first place.
For decades, he noted, the housing market was relatively stable, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dealt almost exclusively in so-called “prime” loans, which required down payments of 10 to 20 percent, good borrower credit histories and low debt-to-income ratios.
In 1992, however, the Department of Housing and Urban Development began requiring Fannie and Freddie to meet a quota of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, starting at 30 percent of their annual acquisitions and gradually rising to 56 percent by 2008. (RELATED: Holder’s Legacy: Double Punishment of Financial Crisis Victims)
To meet the quotas, the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) were compelled to reduce their underwriting standards, taking on increasingly risky “subprime” loans in order to satisfy federal officials. And with the GSE’s standing by as ready buyers for subprime loans, banks in turn were encouraged to lower their lending standards, as well.
“This is not a defense of banks or the private sector, nor is it partisan,” Wallison cautioned, noting that Presidents Clinton and Bush both presided over the growth of the housing bubble, and that the private sector shares some of the responsibility for making the bad loans that fed the bubble.
Currently, though, Wallison averred that, “We are dealing with a narrative that puts no blame on government, and that’s what I’m fighting against,” because backed by that interpretation, “government is doing the exact same things today that it did before the crisis.” (RELATED: FINANCIAL CRISIS: Government Keeps Pushing Mortgage Guarantees as Risk Index Rises)
“Instead of focusing on promoting economic growth, we made the financial sector into a whipping boy” with the Dodd-Frank Act, which Wallison called “easily the most restrictive regulatory law since the New Deal.”
“Because the American people don’t understand the policies that caused this crisis,” he summarized, the government has responded by doubling-down on those very policies, putting the country on a path toward a repeat of the “Great Recession.”
Follow Peter Fricke on Twitter

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Eligibility nipping at Obama's heels again

Supreme Court again faced with unresolved questions over current administration

obama_shrug_smirk Barack Obama has been focusing more and more, including in his 2015 State of the Union Tuesday, on what pundits describe as legacy issues.
He may envision a legacy 20 or 30 years after his White House tenure of a Web-oriented, Washington-centric health care system that efficiently dispatches what system managers believe people need for health care – a quick abortion, dietary rules or a painkiller for a terminal disease.
In that future, he may hope, as a result of his executive amnesty, for a new Hispanic majority that routinely gives the Democratic Party power as the GOP fades into oblivion.
He may even visualize little plaques on community college campuses across the 50 states noting that Americans are attending for free in exchange for mandatory public service, because of the work of President Barack Obama.
But it’s doubtful he’s rejoicing in the fact that it was his presidency that raised the issue of constitutional eligibility to headlines, courts and congressional debate, and possibly even a ruling from the Supreme Court.
The issue arose even as he ran for president the first time. It surged on his election, was on fire after his inauguration and has been in the courts  ever since.
The issue appeared to fade after the 2012 election. But a case that originated during that campaign season now has appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court again.
It focuses on whether or not Obama meets the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” Obama’s response over the years has been to joke about the issue, drawing guffaws from audiences when he says his birth certificate is “somewhere on the Internet.
But the fact remains that a law enforcement investigation by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio found there likely was fraud in the creation of the image of a birth certificate Obama released in a White House news conference as “proof positive” of his “natural born status.”
The newest case, the subject of a request for review to the high court, was brought on behalf of John Albert Dummett Jr. and Edward Noonan.
The appeal from California’s 3rd Appellate District Court of Appeal was filed by the William J. Olson P.C. law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation.
They argue that Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution “vests in the legislatures of the several states the exclusive power to direct the manner by which the electors for president of the United States shall be chosen.”
“Pursuant to this expressly delegated power, the legislature of the state of California has determined to hold statewide elections to appoint the state’s presidential electors, delegating to the California Secretary of State the duty to administer such elections.”
However, the brief explains, California state courts have decided there is no way for the secretary of state “to take care that persons whose names appear on the general election ballot as candidates for the office of president of the United States meet the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.”
They argue that the U.S. Constitution imposes on the states an obligation to “ensure that each state’s electoral votes are cast for a person who, if elected, is eligible.”
“This court does have the responsibility and the duty to ensure that state legislatures such as California’s do not abdicate their constitutional role in ensuring that their state’s electoral votes are cast for a candidate qualified to serve,” the petition explains.

Here’s where Obama comes into the case.
“In 2012, Petitioner Dummett was a write-in candidate for president of the United States on the California election ballot. In the same year, Petitioner Noonan was the American Independent Party’s declared presidential candidate. Each filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Superior Court, Sacramento County, seeking an order that California secretary of state require all presidential candidates to provide proof of their eligibility for the office … before placing their names of the official state ballot.”
That would have included Obama.
They argued a law requiring the secretary of state to put the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot would be unconstitutional.
But the California judges shrugged, more or less said “So what?” and dismissed the case.
They cited the previous adjudication of a lawsuit brought by Ambassador Alan Keyes and others over Obama’s eligibility in 2008, which found that the verification of eligibility “is better left to Congress and the political parties.”
That ruling said: “The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each [political] party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections.”
But the petition explains the founders “built a constitutional fence to keep Congress out of presidential elections, barring representatives and senators from serving as electors, and limiting Congress’s powers to specifying the day of the election, to counting the votes of the Electoral College, and to providing for an order of succession to the presidency.”
That, the petition explains, contradicts what the California courts have concluded.
“That Congress was not empowered to enforce Article II, Section, 1, Clause 5 does not mean, however, that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement is legally unenforceable. Having committed the presidential selection process to the several state legislatures under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the Constitution anticipates that each state will enforce the federal eligibility requirement,” the petition explains.
“Thus, in California – as it would be true in the other 49 states – enforcement of the citizenship requirement would best be performed before an election by the state’s chief election official’s control over the official state ballot, ensuring it contained only the names of eligible presidential candidates.”
The petition says such questions are “profoundly important” and if not resolved “will render the ‘natural born citizen’ clause in the U.S. Constitution a dead letter.”
The petition also cites the Alabama Supreme Court’s “no opinion” on the eligibility question.
But the dissenting minority of Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Roy Moore concluded the case has serious constitutional significance, warranting an investigation of the qualifications of 2012 presidential candidates by Alabama’s secretary of state.
In that case, Moore wrote in his dissent that the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request to order the state secretary of state “to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.”
“Although the removal of a president-elect or a president who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function,” Moore wrote.
He said the case was of “great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land.”
“Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, (Hugh) McInnish and (Virgil) Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.”
But eligibility is defined in the Constitution and states should bear that responsibility,  he said.
“The dissenters [in the Alabama case] explained that ‘constitutional provisions are presumed to be self-executing’ [and] ‘usually no legislation is required to effectuate a constitutional provision that is prohibitory in its language.’ … They pointed out that courts have upheld decisions by state officials to exclude candidates who were not qualified for other reasons, such as age,” the new petition explains.
barack-obama-birth-certificate In fact, California officials previously have excluded presidential candidates specifically because they did not meet the constitutional age requirement.
“The selection of a president remains as the founders intended, a matter entrusted to the various state legislature,” the petition explains.
“All this petition asks this court to do is to ensure that, in fulfilling [an oath of office supporting the Constitution] by exercising their constitutional duty to determine the matter of selection of electors, these state legislators and state officers give meaning to the eligibility requirements for the office president.”
“If eligibility cannot be considered by states in putting nominee names of a ballot, “The ‘natural born citizen’ requirement will be rendered a nullity,” the petition said.
And let’s not leave it to political parties, the petition strongly suggests.
“Political parties cannot be trusted to properly vet the eligibility of a candidate who may bring the vast benefits of incumbency to their party,” the lawyers said.
Congress can act, but under the Constitution that would be through impeachment after an inauguration. And “there is no clear authority for the federal judiciary to step in after the fact, and directly or indirectly declare that the president is ineligible.”
“However, the judicial branch cannot escape responsibility when a case properly brought to it requests that it act to ensure compliance by state legislatures with their basic duty to determine the manner of election fo the president …. Consistent with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.”
Whether or not the case will be accepted is yet to be announced.
When earlier eligibility cases were presented to the justices, they looked the other way. That was confirmed by a series of remarks by Justice Clarence Thomas, who appeared before a U.S. house subcommittee several years ago and responded to the issue.
Visit the WND Superstore for the extensive list of reports on the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility.
Thomas was before the House subcommittee when Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
And regarding the removal of a sitting official who is ineligible, there is state Supreme Court precedent.
It was in the 1930s in North Dakota when Thomas H. Moodie was “duly elected to the office of governor,” according to the Keyes case.
Later, “It was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor.”
North Dakota’s historical archives document the case.
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.


Tuesday, February 10, 2015

The Difference between the Crusades and Islamic Jihad


As you most likely know by now, President Obama offered something of a dismissal of today's Islamic Jihadists by comparing their actions to the Crusades and Inquisition. Here's what he said:
“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."
Obama pulled the tu quoque (pronounced too-kwo-kwee) fallacy, or the appeal to hypocrisy. Its less technical name is the "you too" argument. "Yes, some people who claim to be Islamic have done some evil things, but Christians have done evil things too."

The former Soviet Union used the "you too" argument against the United States when human rights violations were brought up: "And you are lynching Negroes." The use of the phrase was a way "to deflect criticism, e.g. by referencing racial discrimination and lynching in the United States."Obama used an old Soviet tactic. Bill Clinton also pulled the "you too" argument in a speech after the events of 9-11.
Committing an act in the name of Christ is not the same thing as finding in the Bible a command to perform that act. The Bible prohibits man stealing (slavery) and requires the death penalty for those who are engaged in the act of man-stealing. There is nothing in the Bible that can be used to support Jim Crow laws or lynching, which is murder.
Consider this from "Darwin's Bulldog" Thomas Huxley in his Controverted Questions (1892):
The Bible has been the Magna Carta of the poor and of the oppressed; down to modern times no State has had a constitution in which the interests of the people are so largely taken into account, in which the duties so much more than the privileges of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up for Israel in Deuteronomy and Leviticus; nowhere is the fundamental truth that the welfare of the State, in the long run, depends on the uprightness of the citizen so strongly laid down.
"Arthur Koestler – a Jew and Zionist – who perhaps best expressed the difference between the Christian idea and its rivals, in his anti-communist novel, Darkness at Noon:
There are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units. The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community…. Humbugs and dilettantes have always tried to mix the two conceptions; in practice, it is impossible.
Islamists claim that the Koran mandates certain actions. You can read some examples of using the Koran to justify violent acts.
But what about the Crusades? Can they be compared to 1400 years of Jihadic advance and battles?
"For the record, the crusades were completely REACTIONARY to a multi-century onslaught by jihadists. The purpose of the crusades [was] to free Christians while the purpose of jihad (Islam’s march) was to conquer and kill the kaffir (non-muslims)."
Thomas F.  Madden writes, "It is generally thought that Christians attacked Muslims without provocation to seize their lands and forcibly convert them. . .  Every word of this is wrong. Historians of the Crusades have long known that it is wrong, but they find it extraordinarily difficult to be heard across a chasm of entrenched preconceptions."
Watch this informative video by Dr. Bill Warner that compares the perpetual wars of the Jihadists with the Crusades:

For s study of the Spanish Inquisition, see Rodney Stark's comments on the subject in his books For the Glory of God and The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion. On the Crusades, see Stark's book God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades. There is also material on all these subjects in The Triumph of Christianity.

Nelson Hultberg: The Ark of Freedom

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic
There is only one hope to stop the tyrannical rot of statism stealing over our country. We must challenge the Democrat-Republican monopoly of politics that foments the rot.
Is this being redundant? Heard all this before? Perhaps, but our most defiant Founding Father, Samuel Adams, was very redundant in his pursuit of justice. He told his fellows repeatedly: “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” Irate and tireless are what’s important here. We can save our country only if we patriots (who are the minority) relentlessly challenge the Democrat-Republican monopoly and the egregious falsity it spews out every election year.
Our Democrat-Republican politicians are not interested in freedom. They're interested in power and riding around in black limousines. Conservatives and libertarians must break from them totally and join with millions of patriotic independents and blue-collar Democrats to form a new governing coalition.
Never can we hear too much of this message of American salvation. The Democrat-Republican monopoly is like the Bolsehviks’ Master Party collectivizing us with its regimentation (only done with ballots rather than bullets, subsidies rather than gulags), but always degrading our lives in so many ways, keeping us from what could be and ought to be. So if redundancy is the price we must pay to rouse the people from their stupor, so be it. But the People Just Don’t Care! The most frequent objection encountered in discussing a challenge of the Democrat- Republican monopoly is that it will be impossible for an alternative political party to win at the polls because the people just don't care enough to do something so revolutionary. They are mesmerized by their SUVs and all the goodies that Consumerland has brought them. Voting will not change things because the voters are already bought and paid for with the bread and circuses government perpetually sends their way. Apathy dominates their lives. This is partly true; most people will not listen at first. But life is not static. The great majority of Americans will begin to be receptive as the country descends deeper into the massive debt and immigration crises now upon us. It will not be long until the dollar is dropping like a rock in a dry well, 30 million illegals are banging on the door of our Congressional appeasers, and government is stultifying everything in its path. Then the people will be willing to listen to calls for an alternative party solution.
How far into the future that day is cannot be said with certainty. But we need to start building an anti-amnesty, patriot party NOW. The time to build an ark is before the raging flood is upon us, not after we're waist-deep in the tides of chaos and despair.
Amidst the coming socio-economic tumult, there will be a breakdown of many of the established ways of doing things. When the Keynesian fallacies plaguing us today have wreaked sufficient destruction upon our economic stability and sanity, there will take place an inevitable economic crash much bigger than the busts of 2008 and 2000; more lethal even than 1929. It is then, as we are climbing out of this catastrophic crash, that the people will be crying for radical change. Our danger lies in the fact that Democrat-Republican demagogues, bolstered by waves of third-world immigrants, will stampede the confused masses into accepting all-pervasive government control of the economy. They will abandon what vestiges of a free country we have left.
There will be a rash of sequels to what Roosevelt biographer, John T. Flynn, called the "dance of the crackpots" during the Great Depression era. Ivory tower eggheads will descend upon Washington like weevils to the gristmill to bring government and our corporations further together into not just today’s partial fascism, but into the total form.
Attacking the Fortress
This “dance of collectivist crackpots” and its government-business partnership will have to be fought. And there is only one way to do that. We must attack its protective fortress, the Democrat-Republican monopoly over politics. But the time to start doing so is now. This means commitment instead of cynicism. This means a new political party – the National Independent Party – that AFR is forming.
Only in this way will we have a chance to save America as we are climbing out of the upcoming crash. Only in this way can we convince voters to return to the Founders’ ideal of freedom, rather than subordination of America to World Government, which is what the Democrat-Republican monopoly will certainly be preaching.
If, during the coming crisis, we do not have a strong “freedom candidate” in the national TV presidential debates to counter Democrat-Republican proposals for subordination of America to World Government and a World Bank, the first stages of Orwell’s nightmare will arrive. American sovereignty will become a “19th century delusion” in the media’s eyes. The United Nations will begin to dictate our political direction in huge and hideous ways. To avoid this denouement, it is crucial that we get a “freedom candidate” into the national TV presidential debates to challenge the globalist propaganda that Washington’s odious elites will be heaping upon a confused American populace.
To help make this happen, we at AFR have published Salvation of America (4 pgs). It lays out a revolutionary strategy of reform for our monetary, tax, immigration, and foreign policy systems that will stop the Democrat-Republican monopoly from its steady march to bigger and bigger government.
The Failure of the Libertarian Party
“But alternative political parties always fail,” reply the naysayers. Yes, this is true. But there’s a reason for their failure. They fail because they structure themselves upon excessively idealistic platforms that frighten the electorate with dissolution of the welfare state. They ignore the fact that politics is a game of incrementalism. They ignore the fact that we’re not going to eliminate the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and the welfare state overnight.
As a result, no nationally prominent candidates choose to run on the tickets of any alternative “freedom party” out there. Thus their candidates end up getting at best 1% of the vote. Our article, Why the Libertarian Party Fails (4 pgs), explains how today’s alternative parties foolishly marginalize themselves.
The National Independent Party will not make this mistake of “marginalization.” Thus it will be able to attract a nationally prominent candidate (of libertarian-conservative beliefs) such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Mike Lee. Our Four Pillars of Reform platform is designed to stop the growth of government and restore sanity to the country, but not threaten the voters with dissolution of the welfare state like the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party do every election year. Restoring the Republic will be left to future generations; we need to get the runaway freight train of government growth stopped first.
Libertarians and Immigration
Those libertarians of America who oppose our tough stand on immigration must rethink their reasoning. Tight borders are based upon one of the most libertarian of all principles – the "right to freedom of association." This means humans have the right to form into groups and establish rules for entrance into their groups, whether it's a family with a fence around its yard, or a country club with a gate at its entrance, or a labor union with closed doors and by laws, or a country with tight borders and a Constitution. There is no such thing as a "right" to go wherever we please as Judge Napolitano and the Libertarian Party maintain. Immigration is not a fundamental "right." It is a conditional "privilege" conveyed by the members of the group one is seeking to enter.
This was the view of Washington, Jefferson, and the Founders in 1787. [1] It was the view of the Supreme Court in 1892. [2] And it must become America’s view again. No individual has the right to enter a country uninvited.
All property in the world is owned either individually by persons or collectively by groups. The owners of a house and yard decide who can enter their house. The members of a country club decide who can enter their club. And the citizens of a country decide who can enter their country. The government is not destroying rights by denying entrance to certain people to the country it governs. It is merely expressing the rightful will of the owners of the country.
Challenging Liberal Statism
American voters are ready for this kind of common sense campaign in which a nationally prominent libertarian-conservative challenges the Democrat-Republican monopoly. It was too early in 1992 when Ross Perot made his run. Now it’s not. The people are fed up and ready for an alternative political party. An anti-amnesty, freedom candidate running as an Independent would electrify the country’s conservatives, libertarians, independents, and blue-collar Democrats. He would get 38-40% of the vote and win in a three-man race.
This then is AFR’s goal – to build an Ark of Freedom for America, to rekindle that spirit that exists eternally in the hearts and minds of all those who will not kowtow to tyranny. We are the “New Sons of Liberty.” We intend to take back our country from the statist black limousine crowd and all its collaborators – the academic cheerleaders for multiculturalism, the vast legions of obtuse bureaucrats, the liberal media apparatchiks, the mobs of unthinking voters – who are selling the greatest country in history down the river for an illusion of security and wealth via government pork and privilege.
America was meant for the free, for the self-reliant, for those individuals who are willing to live on their own wits, energy, and courage. She was never supposed to have a powerful centralized maze of bureaucracies regimenting and subsidizing every aspect of our lives. She stood in the beginning for “limited government,” “personal independence,” and a “small, selective flow of immigrants gaining entrance to the country.” Unless she restores that stand, there will be no true liberty or justice for men on this earth in the future.
1. Writings of George Washington, Government Printing Office, 1931-44, 27: 254. See also Erler, West, and Marini, The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration, 2007, pp. 18-22, and Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders,1997, pp. 150-151.
2. Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S., 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892).
- - - - - - - - - - -
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, The Freeman, Liberty, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, The Daily Bell, etc.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

by Lisa Zyga
big bang
This is an artist's concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. Credit: NASA
( —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the , as estimated by , is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or . Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
Old ideas revisited
The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.
In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.
Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of , the does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.
No singularities nor dark stuff
In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.
Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.
In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.
New gravity particle
In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.
In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.
Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for and , the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.
"It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said.
More information: Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das. "Cosmology from quantum potential." Physics Letters B. Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057. Also at: arXiv:1404.3093[gr-qc].
Saurya Das and Rajat K. Bhaduri, "Dark matter and dark energy from Bose-Einstein condensate", preprint: arXiv:1411.0753[gr-qc].