From The Martinez Report by Melvin Martinez, June 29, 2012
In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.
The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.
The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.
According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used. [...]
“The wiretap affidavit details that agents were well aware that large sums of money were being used to purchase a large number of firearms, many of which were flowing across the border,” the letter says.
The application included details such as how many guns specific suspects had purchased via straw purchasers and how many of those guns had been recovered in Mexico.
It also described how ATF officials watched guns bought by suspected straw purchasers but then ended their surveillance without interdicting the guns.
In at least one instance, the guns were recovered at a police stop at the U.S.-Mexico border the next day.
The application included financial details for four suspected straw purchasers showing they had purchased $373,000 worth of guns in cash but reported almost no income for the previous year, the letter says.
“Although ATF was aware of these facts, no one was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw purchasers. Upon learning these details through its review of this wiretap affidavit, senior Justice Department officials had a duty to stop this operation. Further, failure to do so was a violation of Justice Department policy,” the letter says.
Archive for June, 2012
From The New American Magazine, June 25, 2012
The Charlotte, North Carolina, police department has made it clear that Jesus is not welcome at its functions.
According to the Associated Press, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) has informed its volunteer chaplains that they are not to mention Jesus’ name when they pray at official ceremonies.
The Charlotte Observer reported that the new policy was announced by the head of the department’s volunteer chaplain program, Major John Diggs, who explained that the goal was to make sure the chaplains were sensitive to the variety of religions practiced by the department’s more than 2,000 employees. “This is not in any way an effort to demean anybody’s Christian beliefs,” Diggs assured. “It’s to show respect for all the religious practices in our organization. The CMPD is not anybody’s church.”
Apparently, some chaplains, most of whom represent the Christian faith, think the new policy is too restrictive. Terry Sartain, a volunteer CMPD police chaplain for the past seven years, said he got the news shortly before he was to give the invocation at a promotions ceremony last month. When he was told not to use Jesus’ name in his prayer, he asked to be excused from the event.
Sartain, who pastors Charlotte’s Horizon Christian Fellowship, told the Observer that “Jesus is all I’ve got for a blessing. Now I’ve got to find a balance. I want to serve the officers and their families and I don’t want to jam my beliefs down anybody’s throat, but I won’t deny Jesus.”
Diggs insisted that chaplains such as Sartain, who have strong convictions about their faith, won’t be required to compromise their beliefs on behalf of the department. He said there are enough volunteer ministers to cover the now-secularized events at which police chaplains are called to officiate.
But according to the Blaze, Sartain was told that his decision not to attend and pray at the event would harm his standing as a police chaplain. In the end, while he did not change his mind about praying at the government function, Sartain said that he decided to continue as a CMPD chaplain because the spiritual service he provides to law enforcement officers is important.
The Charlotte Observer noted that earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court backed a lower court ruling that banned North Carolina’s Forsyth County from opening its meetings with sectarian prayer. The move to ban mostly Christian prayers in favor of a “non-sectarian” invocation has been increasing across the nation and even in the U.S. military, the paper observed.
Diggs said that the CMPD currently has six chaplains who serve police employees who may be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or, perhaps, have no faith at all. Chaplains are now expected to pray in such a way that will offend no one.
Some Charlotte clergy fully support the move, emphasizing that the police chaplains must be prepared to serve those who do not embrace Christianity. The Rev. Dennis Foust, pastor of St. John’s Baptist Church in Charlotte, said that the police department is simply directing its Christian chaplains “to observe the same practices we would desire and respect from Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu chaplains. When we gather as citizens, we do not gather in the name of Jesus. Our prayers are offered to God with respect for the first clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Foust was mouthing the mantra, popularized by the ACLU, that there is a supposed wall of separation that bars religious (usually Christian) sentiments from blending with public, government-controlled forums. Jim Gronquist, a former Methodist minister who now works as an ACLU attorney to stamp out religious expression, told local Charlotte television station WSOC that “it’s past time when they should’ve made a policy” banning real prayer at CMPD police events.
But another local minister, the Rev. Russ Dean of the city’s Park Road Baptist Church, appeared to side with Sartain, wondering, “How else do you expect Baptists to pray” but in Jesus’ name? Dean told the Charlotte Observer that chaplains of all faiths — whether they are rabbis, imams, or Christian ministers — ought to be allowed to pray according to the dictates of their own faiths. But under the CMPD’s politically correct policy “we are really asking people of diverse faiths to become a part of some homogenized pseudo-faith, a public religion that is offensive to all because it attempts to offend none,” he said.
Sartain told Fox News that the CMPD policy “brings about a very real concern about where we are heading as a nation. I serve a God who loves people unconditionally, who died for their sins on the cross, who wants to reconcile himself to them and love them where they are … and now I’m told I can’t bless people as a result of that.”
The Christian chaplain emphasized that while he would honor the new policy by opting out of praying at public events, when relating one-on-one with police officers, he would continue to give them the full Christian treatment he is called by God to provide. “They know when I ride with them that I love them for who they are,” Sartain said of the officers.
From http://www.wsoctv.com, June 29, 2012
WADESBORO, N.C. – The Wadesboro Police Department is trying new tactics to solve a February homicide.
Police Chief Janie Schutz announced a $5,000 reward on Thursday to find Sheri Eveangelisti’s killer.
The chief had a warning for the alleged killer.
Evangelisti’s body was found in an abandoned house on Valentine’s Day.
Her family had reported her missing a few days earlier.
From ABC News by Raisa Bruner, June 28, 2012
In the latest example of Mexico’s warring drug cartels taunting each other with gruesome on-line videos, footage posted on a popular cartel-tracking blog shows members of the Gulf cartel interrogating and then beheading at least three members of the Zetas cartel.
The grainy three-minute video, which appeared on Mundonarco.com Wednesday, depicts five shirtless men on their knees, their chests painted with large black “Z”s, surrounded by masked members of the Gulf cartel wielding machetes.
Each Zeta prisoner states his name for the camera, at the prompting of an unidentified voice behind the camera. When asked who sent them, each responds “Z-40.” “40,” as he is known within the Zetas organization, is Miguel Angel Treviño Morales — the cartel’s second-in-command. The U.S. has offered a $5 million reward for information leading to the capture of “40,” and he and his two brothers are also under federal indictment in Texas for alleged laundering of cocaine profits through a U.S. horseracing venture.
“You find yourselves here because you came to f*** us,” says the narrator of the video, after the hostages have finished speaking. “Pay attention, men.”
Then the slow and bloody process of hacking off their heads begins. “This is how all your filthy people are going to end,” says the narrator as the victims plead for mercy.
Over a minute later, the video ends with masked Gulf members holding up three severed heads for the camera. “Very good, very good,” says the narrator. The two other Zetas prisoners are not shown.
According to Mundonarco.com, the video was shot in Río Bravo, Mexico, on the U.S. border just south of McAllen, Texas in the state of Tamaulipas. Río Bravo is six miles from the Donna International Bridge border crossing. No date is given for the creation of the video.
The Gulf cartel has been operating out of Tamaulipas state since the 1970s. In 2010, when the Zetas cartel, which had once worked as the Gulf cartel’s security force, went into business for itself, violence in Tamaulipas and the neighboring state of Nuevo Leon soared, with 2,000 dead in 2010 alone. Multiple mass graves have been discovered in the region and beheadings, hangings, and other forms of torture are common.
In January, Los Zetas released a video in which they hanged two members of the Gulf cartel. Last month, another video showed 49 decapitated bodies of migrant workers being dumped on a highway by alleged members of Los Zetas, with warnings to other cartels to expect similar treatment.
By Michael Snyder, The American Dream, Wednesday, May 2, 2012
When it comes to Barack Obama, one of the most important things to understand is that he is a committed globalist. He firmly believes that more “global governance” (the elite don’t like to use the term “global government”) will make the world a much better place.
Throughout his time in the White House, Obama has consistently sought to strengthen international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. At every turn, Obama has endeavored to more fully integrate America into the “global community”. Since he was elected, Obama has signed a whole host of new international economic agreements. He regularly speaks of the need for “cooperation” among global religions and he has hosted a wide variety of different religious celebrations at the White House. Obama once stated that “all nations must come together to build a stronger global regime”. If you do not want to live in a “global regime” that is just too bad. To globalists such as Obama, it is inevitable that the United States of America will be merged into the emerging global system. Just this week, Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to “harmonize” U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system. Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening.
The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to “harmonize” their work with the international community. The following is how this new executive order was assessed in a recent Businessweek article….
Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.
“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.
Members of the Obama administration are touting this as a way to “reduce regulation”, but the truth is that this is much more about aligning ourselves with the rest of the world than anything else.
Obama’s “Information Czar”, Cass Sunstein, authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal on Monday in which he stressed the need to eliminate “unnecessary regulatory differences across nations” so that the United States can compete more effectively in our “interdependent global economy”. The end result of this process will be that we will now do things much more like how the rest of the world does things….
In an interdependent global economy, diverse regulations can cause trouble for companies doing business across national boundaries. Unnecessary differences in countries’ regulatory requirements can cost money, compromising economic growth and job creation. Think of divergent requirements for car headlights, or the labeling of food, or standards for container sizes.
Recognizing this, President Obama’s Jobs Council has called for U.S. agencies to better align U.S. regulations with those of our major trading partners. And today the president is issuing an executive order, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” with a simple goal: to promote exports, growth, and job creation by eliminating unnecessary regulatory differences across nations.
But a one world economic system is not going to arrive overnight. Initially, it is much more likely that there will be a very strong push toward North American integration first. The goal will be to shape North America into an integrated regional economic unit similar to the EU. Cass Sunstein discussed how this new executive order will affect North American integration on the White House website on Tuesday….
The new Executive Order will build on work that is already underway. We have started close to home, with President Obama launching Regulatory Cooperation Councils with Prime Minister Harper of Canada and President Calderon of Mexico. The Councils are implementing work plans to eliminate or prevent the creation of unnecessary regulatory differences that adversely affect cross-border trade; to streamline regulatory requirements; and to promote greater certainty for the general public and businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, in the regulation of food, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and other areas. The United States and Canada released the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Action Plan last December. In February, we announced the United States-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) Work Plan.
Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far plans to integrate the United States, Canada and Mexico have advanced.
Last year, Barack Obama signed an agreement to create a “North American security perimeter” and most Americans never even heard about it because the mainstream news networks almost entirely ignored it.
But this is exactly what the globalists want. They don’t want people to become alarmed by these moves toward North American integration. In fact, a document uncovered by Wikileaks shows that those involved in the effort to integrate North America believe that an “incremental” approach is best. Apparently they believe that small moves toward integration are less likely to alarm the general population. The following is from an article that appeared in The National Post last year….
The integration of North America’s economies would best be achieved through an “incremental” approach, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable.
The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.
“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the document said. “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.”
If the people of Canada, the United States and Mexico were told that there was a plan to merge all three economies, there might be massive protests to stop it, and the globalists do not want that.
A few years ago, the “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America” (SPP) that was being promoted by President George W. Bush started to generate quite a bit of negative publicity. That caused those seeking to integrate the economies of North America to back off for a little while.
But as an article by Jerome Corsi last year detailed, the eventual goal is to turn North America into another version of the eurozone. That includes a common currency for North America called the “amero”….
The SPP in the administration of President George W. Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as “the eurozone.”
The concern under the SPP has been that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could be evolved into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.
So will we ever see the “amero” replace the U.S. dollar?
If the globalists try to introduce the “amero”, it would probably be after a horrible financial crisis in which the U.S. dollar falls apart. The “amero” would be heralded as the “solution” to the problems that were plaguing the dollar.
If there ever is a move to get rid of the U.S. dollar for an international currency of some kind, the American people will need to resist it with all of their might.
The more integrated the world becomes, the more likely it becomes that we will see nightmarish global tyranny someday. It is very frightening to think of what someone very evil might do if they had the chance to run the entire planet.
Once our national sovereignty is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get back. If the American people don’t take a stand while they still can, their children may wake up someday as citizens of a very oppressive “global regime”.
From Canada Free Press by Sher Zieve, May 5, 2012
In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.
Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.
As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders. The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution. Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen. In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”
The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012. This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports: “Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.
“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.” This also brings the USA closer to becoming a “North American Union” and—also—eliminating its sovereignty—in toto.
Suffice it to say, no one in Congress has issued even the proverbial “peep” over either of these illegal “orders.” Do the American people really want to continue to live under this blatant tyranny?
The second question is “Will the Supreme Court of the United States of America bow to Obama and give up its co-equal status to the dictator as the US Congress has already done?” If so, perhaps its time for We-the-People to recruit the Honduran Supreme Court who, along with their military, ousted its then President Manuel Zelaya who had become a dictator. Oppression under the Obama syndicate becomes worse each and every day, folks. Will we ever choose to go back to the sunshine?
“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”—Revelation 13:4
The chief justice’s ruling looks good for Obama — but will actually benefit conservatives
Chief Justice John G. Roberts is an evil genius. The ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act is, on its face, a win for President Obama both because the media are saying it is and because it is the signature piece of legislation of his first term. But it may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory, as Roberts accomplished numerous, subtle victories for conservative Republicans.
First, remember that “Obamacare” and the individual mandate started out as a proposal from the conservative Heritage Foundation as a counterproposal to the Clinton administration’s health care plan. The only reasons Republicans are now opposed to it is because Obama proposed it and is getting credit for it. Before it was Obamacare, the program was known as Romneycare in Massachusetts — and if the 2008 election had gone the other way, it might be known as McCaincare today.
Meantime, the survival of the Affordable Care Act eliminates any clamor for real, progressive health care reform, whether universal Medicare or for the creation of a public insurance option. Such programs are anathema to conservatives who want most things privatized — either for ideological reasons or so that their corporate masters can further enrich themselves.
The effect of the law will be to drive millions of people to buy insurance from insurance companies in many cases with federally subsidized funds, lining the pockets of those corporations with the public’s money. Is it any surprise that health care stocks were surging in the wake of the ruling?
And while the decision is a political boost for Obama in the near term, it will also energize the Republican base this fall. Before the decision was announced, House Speaker John Boehner was already saying he would lead the charge to repeal the ACA if any part of it survived. The decision may or may not affect Obama’s reelection chances, but it could well make it harder for Democrats to hold the Senate and take the House. Conversely, if the court had struck down the ACA, it would have energized the Democratic base — and activated many of the 30-40 million people who suddenly saw the promise of affordable health ripped away from them.
But Roberts’ really brilliant move was to uphold the individual mandate under Congress’s taxing authority and explicitly to reject its constitutionality under the commerce clause. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her opinion, there was no reason for Roberts to rule on the commerce clause question, because a majority agreed that the act was a constitutional tax penalty.
Roberts did so regardless to create with the four conservative dissenters a majority view that a health insurance mandate violates the commerce clause. This result is in keeping with Roberts’ conservative view of restricting federal power and leaves him free to vote to strike down progressive federal legislation as unauthorized by the commerce clause.
Moreover, by characterizing the individual mandate as a tax, Roberts hands Republicans a facile campaign cry that Obamacare Means New Taxes — and that Democrats are the party of taxation.
Finally, his decision allows Roberts to falsely paint himself as a neutral arbiter whose principled constitutional interpretations cannot be overridden by his politics. He implies that he thinks the law is a bad idea by adding a note at the end of his decision that the court expresses no opinion on its wisdom.
If the court is not expressing an opinion, there would be no need to say so. But Roberts adds the line to underscore what a principled jurist he is voting that the law is constitutional even though he disapproves of it.
The reality, of course, is that Roberts has permitted the implementation of a conservative health-care regime, energized the Republican base, preserved his ability to vote against liberal congressional measures as violating the commerce clause and aggrandized himself as an apolitical Chief Justice. I tip my hat to his evil genius.
Malchman is an attorney and associate adjunct professor of law at Cardozo Law School.
By Paul Craig Roberts, http://www.infowars.com, November 11, 2011
The United States Department of Justice (sic) routinely charges and convicts innocents with bogus and concocted crimes that are not even on the statutes book. The distinguished defense attorney and civil libertarian, Harvey A. Silverglate, published a book last year, “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,” which conclusively proves that today in “freedom and democracy” America we have punishment without crime.
This same Justice (sic) Department, which routinely frames and railroads the innocent, argued in Federal Court on November 8 that the US government, if approved by the president, could murder anyone it wishes, citizens or noncitizens, at will. All that is required is that the government declare, without evidence, charges, trial, jury conviction or any of the due process required by the US Constitution, that the government suspects the murdered person or persons to be a “threat.”
The US Justice (sic) Department even told US Federal District Court Judge John Bates that the US judiciary, formerly a co-equal branch of government, has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever to stick its nose into President “Change” Obama’s decision to assassinate Americans. The unaccountability of the president’s decision to murder people is, the US Justice (sic) Department declared, one of “the very core powers of the president as commander in chief.”
The argument by the Justice (sic) Department that the executive branch has unreviewable authority to kill Americans, whom the executive branch has unilaterally, without presenting evidence, determined to pose a threat, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center For Constitutional Rights.
The outcome of the case will determine whether the neoconservative and Israeli stooge, president George W. Bush, was correct when he said that the US Constitution was nothing but a “scrap of paper.”
It is my opinion that the American people and the US Constitution haven’t much chance of winning this case. The Republican Federalist Society has succeeded in appointing many federal district, appeals and supreme court judges, who believe that the powers of the executive branch are superior to the powers of the legislature and judiciary. The Founding Fathers of our country declared unequivocally that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were co-equal, However, the Republican brownshirts who comprise the Federalist Society have implanted the society’s demonic ideology in the federal bench and Justice (sic) Department. Today the erroneous belief is widespread that the executive branch is supreme and that the other branches of government are less than equal.
If Americans have a greater enemy than neoconservatives, that enemy is the Federalist Society, a collection of incipient Nazis.
Disagree with me as you will, but now let’s look at this development from another perspective. I am old enough to remember the Nixon years, and I was a presidential appointee, confirmed by the US senate, in the Reagan administration. For those of you too young to know and those who are to old to remember, President Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment simply because Nixon lied about when he learned about the burglary of the Watergate office of the Democratic party.
Nixon lied about when he learned of the burglary, because he knew that the Washington Post would make an issue of the burglary, if he launched an investigation, to defeat his re-election. The military/security complex and the black ops groups in the US government were angry at Nixon for smoothing US-China relations. The Washington Post, long regarded as a CIA asset, hid behind its “liberal” image to bring Nixon down. Woodward and Bernstein wrote thriller-type reports of midnight meetings with “deep throat” in dangerous parking garages to get the scoop on the date of Nixon’s knowledge of the meaningless burglary.
Let’s assume that I have it all wrong. The fact remains that Nixon was driven from office because of the Watergate burglary. No one was harmed. Nixon did not kill anyone or claim the right to kill, without proof or accountability, American citizens. If the dastardly President Nixon had a Justice (sic) Department like the present one, he simply would have declared Woodward, Bernstein, and the Washington Post to be a threat and murdered them by merely exercising the power that the Obama administration is claiming.
Nixon might be too far in the past for most Americans, so let’s look at Ronald Reagan. The neoconservatives’ Iran/Contra scandal almost brought down President Reagan. It is unclear whether President Reagan knew about the neocon operation and, if he did, whether he was kept in the loop. But all of this aside, what do you think would have been President Reagan’s fate if he, or his Justice (sic) Department, had declared that Reagan had the power as commander in chief to murder anyone he considered to be a threat?
Instantly, the media would have been in an uproar, law schools and university faculties would have been in an uproar, the Democrats would have been demanding Reagan’s impeachment, and his impeachment would have occurred with the speed of light.
Today in Amerika, approximately 25 years later, the ACLU has to go to federal court in order to attempt to affirm that “if the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.”
In reply, the Justice (sic) Department told the court that murdering American citizens is a “political question” that is not subject to judicial review. The “freedom and democracy” government then invoked the “state secrets privilege” and declared that the case against the government’s power to commit murder must be dismissed in order to avoid “the disclosure of sensitive information”
If the Obama Regime wins this case, the US will have become a dictatorship.
As far as I can tell, the “liberal media” and most Americans do not care. Indeed, conservative Republicans are cheering it on.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
By Kurt Nimmo, http://www.infowars.com, June 28, 2012
In a victory for the New Deal bastardization of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can mandate at gunpoint that Americans buy monopolized health care insurance.
“The Supreme Court upheld the health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that appears to give President Obama a major victory,” reports USAToday.
In order to avoid arguments that the law is a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Court ruled that the requirement is a tax.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who held the court’s swing vote, dissented. Reading from the bench, Kennedy said he and three conservative justices believe “the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
Polls conducted prior to the landmark vote indicate most Americans do not favor the law.
Today’s ruling is important because it is the first time in history that the federal government has required citizens enter into contract with private corporations to buy a product or service. It also represents one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in American history.
“The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution,” writes Ron Paul. “This is patently obvious: the power to ‘regulate’ commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.”
“The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state — a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.”
Expect death panels to come back in a big way now that Obamacare is the law of the land. Now that there is no fear of political backlash, death panels will be sold as a measure to reduce medical costs which will predictably skyrocket (as costs do of anything government touches).
If you are skeptical of this, consider a recent report in Britain. “NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday,” the Daily Mail reported last week.
It is being sold as a “death pathway” that is the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.
The Nazification of America? FedGov Can Do What It Wants
By A.M. Freyed, http://www.infowars.com, June 28, 2012
There will be much written about the US Supreme Court’s decision not to overturn major portions of the “Obamacare” health care bill, but in reality it simply recognizes the obvious: the US Fedgov can pretty much do what it likes.
In a direct and cogent analysis posted on Infowars, Kurt Nimmo cuts to the heart of the issue, as follows:
Today’s ruling is important because it is the first time in history that the federal government has required citizens enter into contract with private corporations to buy a product or service. It also represents one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in American history.
Nimmo is “telling it like it is” … and giving us a larger context for this decision, and its anti-freedom impacts. In fact, this sort of authoritarianism has been building for some time.
The Constitution is often presented as freedom’s bulwark, but history seems to show it’s been pretty much of a dead letter since the Civil War, if not earlier. US patriots don’t like to hear that, of course. Put it in blunter terms: Individual freedom, such as it is, has been eroding since the Founders put pen to paper.
There are plenty of questions about the status of the United States and the secret societies that swarmed about its initial composition. There are questions about the ultimate allegiances of such “founders” as Alexander Hamilton, who may have been an agent of the European Banks and their New York counterparts.
The creeping authoritarianism of the first 100 years of the Republic was just a warm-up. The massacres of “Native Americans” and then advent of the Civil War shows us clearly how quickly the US government turned on its citizens – probably at the behest of ancient, overseas banking powers in London’s City.
Once it was proven that states could not leave the union, corruption began to blossom powerfully. Tammany Hall, Whiskey Ring and Teapot Dome scandals were no coincidences. Fedgov had the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It’s gone from bad to worse since then. The late 1800s saw surges of increasingly centralized stock exchange speculation – and the gradual creation of what is today a corporate state. Corporations themselves were given additional artificial powers by the Supreme Court of the day, laying the groundwork for the current troubles.
The creation of the Federal Reserve and the imposition of the income tax were among the final elements of authoritarian rule. Henceforth, Fedgov would hand-in-glove with private bankers to illegally print money and via the income tax would be empowered to know everything about its citizens finances and investments.
Of course, while the US was implementing these freedom-eroding facilities, Europe was growing worse too. This is no surprise. The same global elites that are behind the perversions of freedom in the US and the West generally helped fund the rise of Hitler’s Germany.
There are not many popularly disseminated studies of pre-war Germany’s economy, but that’s probably for a reason. AXIS nations (Germany, Italy, etc.) generally created command-and-control nation-states that were based on mercantilism, a conflation of private enterprise with government power. Sound familiar? The West is not there yet, but it’s getting there in a hurry.
In Nazi German for instance, Adolf Hitler himself reportedly decided how much money was to be printed. Hitler’s friends and enablers grew rich first – as Hitler and those around him decided on those goals and printed the money to fund them. Businesses prospered or did not depending on their value to the “state’s” goals and objectives.
People in Western democracies may not fully understand that while the AXIS was defeated, its political economy was a good deal closer to what modern elites desire for the West. The Supreme Court decision merely brings this state-of-affairs a little bit closer.
It can surely be said that national socialist-oriented “corporatism” is the defining feature of most Western states in the 21st century. Vast enterprises underpinned by state privileges have been erected and expanded. This is especially true where the military-industrial complex is concerned.
The Pentagon, for instance, has long-operated under the idea that its “suppliers” are necessary to the safety of the state and are to be protected and funded in ways that undermine any semblance of a market economy.
The same can be said for a handful of large financial firms that disseminate Federal Reserve fiat money. It has come to be an accepted occurrence within the halls of power that money center banks and other “too big to fail” enterprises must be kept afloat. Seen from this view, the Supreme Court decision is a public ratification of a de facto policy. It is only helping to midwife a full-blown version of this system.
The European Union is based on a version of the AXIS political economy and the US, increasingly, as well. While communism has always been held up as a Western bogeyman by the mainstream media, it is actually a kind of fascism that is being created before our weary eyes – first nationally and then globally.
Yes, if “they” have their way, the future of the world is to be one of fascism led by a handful of global elites who apparently fancy themselves as a kind of aggregate living godhead. No wonder the Supremes verdict turned out as it did.
For additional links see www.AmericanFreed.com.
By Frances Martel, June 21, 2012
In what will go down as one of the most emotionally jarring interviews in the history of his program, Sean Hannity had the unenviable task tonight of talking to the parents of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, the man whose passing came as a result of the botched Fast & Furious operation in which someone in the Obama administration approved selling arms to Mexican drug lords. The pained, defiant parents asked for the President to enlighten the situation, but appeared to have no hope of resolution “until after the election.”
While Terry’s parents have been publicly vocal about wanting their son’s death investigated, this was their first interview on cable news about the matter, and appeared both clearly outraged and pained about the matter. When asked if he had anything to say to Attorney General Eric Holder or the President, the elder Terry said “I can’t say on camera, what I’d want to say to him,” while his wife asserted that she believed there was “something they don’t want us to know, something they’re hiding.” “They are hiding it big time, passing the buck,” he agreed.
To give the audience an idea of the President’s response thus far to the story, Hannity then played an interview the President had with Univisión’s Jorge Ramos where he says he does not know who authorized the operation, but he knew it was not himself or Holder. “You get tired of hearing the constant lies you know they are doing,” Mrs. Terry responded, to which Hannity added that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had called the story a “fishing expedition in an election year” for Republicans. “They want to put Fast and Furious on the backburner until this election is over,” Mrs. Terry concluded. “It’s in the way.”