galtgulch

Members
  • Content Count

    1,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-2 Poor

About galtgulch

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    galtgulch

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Baal, Speaking of Turkey I wonder what you might think of the notion that Erd... might have caused the fake coup attempt in order to grasp even more power for himself. He has used the coup as an excuse to arrest over 1400 judges and many in the military he must deem to be opposed to his policies. It is hard to believe that a coup would have been attempted if they didn't have enough support of the coup from the military and enough elites to begin with. The idea that the coup was a fake is not original with me but I wanted to bring up the subject because I find no one else has mentioned it unless I just don't know where to look. gg
  2. Will no one here acknowledge that the Founders were guided by Vattel's contention in his Law of Nations in 1756 that Natural Born Citizen meant that both parents had to be citizens of the country. If one accepts that understanding then it follows that Obama, whose father was Kenyan as he readily admits, does not meet the eligibility requirements to be president of the United States. For that matter the eligibility of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are in question as well. What we have is a Constitutional crisis the establishment is unwilling to deal with.
  3. We know the bad guys ignore the Constitution except when it serves their evil purposes in their pursuit of more power for the central government. Judging from the decisions of the Supreme Court they have been so inclined as well. We should not make the same mistake. In order to take the Constitution seriously we ought to understand that the Founders were concerned about potential foreigners seeking to become president that they sought to guard against that by including the 'natural born citizen' eligibility requirement. By which they meant that both parents had to be citizens of the US for their offspring to be eligible to be president. Obama made no secret that his father was a Kenyan therefor a British subject which made him ineligible. Unfortunately judges refused to hear the challenges brought even by Democrats who revere the Constitution. It is about time this issue were taken seriously. <<<" Article II Facts 1. Constitutional Convention - Alexander Hamilton – “Born a Citizen”John Jay – “Natural Born Citizen”2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Adopted 9 July 1868 - 3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - 4. Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents- Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)5. Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the United States Constitution - 6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 - 7.Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011 - 1. Constitutional Convention – “Born a Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen": When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause: Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States. No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States. Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law. Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787: See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787: There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT] So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II - 2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen." Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents. Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.” As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT] Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” – 3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor: As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.) Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US. John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor: All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor: Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT] And of course we’ve all heard the Supreme Court has never ruled on or defined what a “natural born citizen” is, but that is a folly – 4. Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents: The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . . Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens. "But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship." Let’s take a look at the numerous attempts congress has made over the years to change the definition of Article II even though any educated American knows that to change the constitution in any shape or form a constitutional amendment is required. - 5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution: The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record… 1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [iL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]. 2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] 3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] 4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors. 5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] 6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor 7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] 8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [iL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.) From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election. In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude. Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [iL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama) However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;” The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II. Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements. The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government. The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT] 6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 - Click Here to View Citizenship Status As you can see our past presidents eligible after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 were all born on U.S. soil to Citizen parents. 7. Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011 Then we have the 13 eligibility bills introduced between 2009 and 2011 by Republican’s in their respective state general assemblies. Two made it to a Governor’s desk for signature – New Hampshire’s Governor signed HB1245 into law and Arizona's Governor, who was the Secretary of the State Board of Elections in 2008, vetoed HB295/529 – with the rest dying in committee, Click Here to View the 13 Eligibility Bills So there you have the facts of this roaring debate in a nutshell. The people are dismissed as clueless while the congress, the media, the current crop of presidential contenders, the Republican and Democrat Parties and the legal system are all living in a fantasy land. The people are 100 percent correct, and the people have every intention of showing those who continue to obfuscate this extremely serious constitutional crisis the door. SOURCE CREDITS: 1. Constitutional Convention - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org 2. The Fourteenth Amendment - Attorney Mario Apuzzo www.Puzo1.blogspot.com 3. Rep. John Bingham - Attorney Leo Donofrio www.NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com 4. Supreme Court Cases - John Charlton www.ThePostEmail.com 5. Attempts to Amend Article II - J.B. Williams www.NewsWithViews.com 6. Citizenship Under Article II - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org 7. Thirteen Eligibility” Bills - Art2SuperPAC www.Art2SuperPAC.com #### MAKE A SECURE CREDIT CARD OR E-CHECK PAYMENT Donate by Mail made payable to Article II Super PAC, Article II Super PAC PO BOX 7011 Richmond, VA. 23221 Questions, Info@Art2SuperPAC.com Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Article II Super PAC does not make contributions to candidates. Art2SuperPAC may accept unlimited corporate contributions and unlimited individual contributions. Funds raised by Art2SuperPAC will be used for independent expenditures. Contributions to Art2SuperPAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from foreign nationals and federal-government contractors are prohibited. www.Art2SuperPAC.com">>>
  4. I have subscribed to the newsletter entitled Market Report which includes condensed commentary on financial matters in the US. James Cook is the founder of Investment Rarities and has been warning of the coming crisis for over forty years attributable to the egregious money printing by the Federal Reserve and which has been emulated all over the world. The voice of the newsletter has always sounded as if the collapse were just around the corner but the hyperinflation has yet to manifest itself. This time though we are closer than ever before given the magnitude of the unsustainable debts of so many influential countries including China and the USA. The Fed has brought us to this point and has no effective way to prevent the inevitable outcome as predicted by Ludwig von Mises years ago. Some of the commentators in the latest issue of the newsletter are explicit in their description of what life would be like once the collapse is upon us. Curiously a discussion of the outlook for the economy and the stock market in the latest Barron's found every member of their discussion, each of whom works for various Wall Street firms, was optimistic basing their forecast on predictions of increased earnings. On the contrary, the discussants James Cook's newsletter are predicting imminent collapse of the economy, failure of the dollar, frightening drop of the stock market, increased unemployment, overreaction by the Fed with Yellen instituting another round of QE as the deflationary depression hits leading to a hyperinflation. You can call Investment Rarities and ask to receive their Market Report newsletter. www.investmentrarities.comPleasant dreams.
  5. A full page ad appeared announcing the publication of the "lost" novel , Ideal, by Ayn Rand. I am surprised that no one else has noticed this.
  6. Here are a couple more: www.studentsforliberty.org www.YALiberty.org www.fff.org www.fee.org And a book or two: Tom Woods: Nullification Griffin: The Creature From Jekyll Island Timberlake: Constitutional Money:A Review of Supreme Court Monetary Decisions Levy: The Dirty Dozen www.KingWorldNews.com www.silverseek.com www.USAGold.com www.APMEX.com Enjoy!
  7. Well our own country under the guidance of the current administration is in more trouble than is realized by those who still have jobs. The unemployment rate is officially touted as about 5.4%, an asserted improvement over the nearly 10% when O took office years ago. Actually, according to John Williams of Shadowstats it is closer to 22% and much higher for inner city minorities. The national debt has doubled from 9T to 18T although there are off budget items such as the promises made to the baby boom cohort which is entering eligibility for receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits at the rate of 10,000 newly eligible every day from now on for the next ten years! Lawrence Kotlikoff estimates the actual national debt as a consequence to be $240,000,000,000,000 or 240T, which in order to be paid would require the tax rate to be over 50% and/or mandatory expenditures cut. Our own handout recipients are at least as adamant in their willingness to riot in the streets as those in Greece who do not tolerate austerity programs which cut their handouts. Forty eight million Americans are on food stamps. A significant chunk of high school graduates who do go on to college have to attend remedial courses in mathematics and English. Graduates of Law School are finding it harder to find job offers. Those college graduates who do find jobs find that they do not earn enough money to marry, have a child and save enough for a down payment for a house, because of the payments they must make to pay off their student loans. The stock market has been overvalued and remains so because the cost of money has been so cheap for the last six years at nearly zero, ZIRP, it is an interest rate policy of zero. In 1934 FDR signed into law the Gold Stabilization Act which authorized the gold market to be manipulated as it still is to this day. In 1970 an amendment to that law authorized the government to manipulate all markets. In 1971 Nixon famously closed the gold window, no longer exchanging gold for US dollars which Americans spent overseas which were being redeemed by foreign governments. The Constitution held that only gold and silver coins were tender for payment of debts in Art 1 Section 10. Ten SCOTUS monetary decisions have disemboweled that so now a paper fiat currency is forced upon citizens. There turns out to not be enough of the stuff in the form of paper dollars you can hold in your hand around as most is in the form of digital entries on bank ledgers and the like. Cash is on the verge of being outlawed across the country. If you rely on the main stream media you will find a fairy tale in which the recession is long gone and we are supposed to be in a recovery, with falling unemployment, growing corporate profits, an ever rising stock market, a promise of a reduction in health care costs because of the ACA, and the Federal Reserve in competent hands of an unelected person with the authority to manipulate the money supply and interest rates as if she knew what she was doing, which she doesn't. To watch the Greek fiasco is to look at a microcosm of the state of our own fiscal nightmare. Ludwig von Mieses wrote many books which were recommended by Ayn Rand half a century ago. They are not being read by presidential advisors rather by college students who are fortunate enough to have discovered Students For Liberty or Young Americans For Liberty both of which encourage reading and learning with the advice of The Atlas Society and Foundation for Economic Education and The Independent Institute and Institute For Humane Studies. So there is hope.
  8. Baal, You said: "The matter was decided when the killer was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We can assume he received a fair trial since there was no concerted effort to reverse the conviction...." That is probably true in this case. But that there are many falsely accused and wrongly convicted cases is also true. Evidently the most common reason is mistaken eye witness identification. The Innocence Project .org has used DNA evidence to overturn over 300 convictions. One cannot assume that just because someone was found guilty of a crime that he really is the one that "did it." Since most of the cases involved eye witness testimony which was subsequently found to be inaccurate because of DNA evidence, one can assume that there are many more cases where DNA is not involved but someone is convicted by eye witness testimony which might be in error. There was an article about eye witness testimony years ago in Scientific American where you could see pictures of the man initially picked up and charged with a crime as well as the picture of the actual guilty person. There were several such cases and you could see how the eye witness was mistaken because of the striking resemblance between the two. I do hope that they find the other escapee. If I were him I would consider digging a hole and literally staying underground until the searchers move on. Not an easy task without the proper tools.
  9. On the face of it these two escapees are convicted murderers and deserve to be hunted down and recaptured or killed if they resist or ignore orders to drop their weapons. But, to adopt a Devil's Advocate position, how much do we know about the remaining escapee? He was serving a life sentence for the murder of a sheriff's deputy but we are not made aware of the circumstances of that event. Is it at all possible that, although convicted of murder, the murder was actually a case of justifiable homicide? If so maybe we should be rooting for this fellows escape. We are not told much of anything about the history of the escapee who remains at large. Did he have a long record of crimes or was it his first arrest. More than likely he deserves whatever he gets here. I just wonder.
  10. The Altas Society promulgates Ayn Rand's philosophy. www.atlassociety.org A literal handful of college activists started Students For Liberty in 2008. The SFL movement is still growing nearly exponentially and is in over one thousand campuses worldwide. SFL holds conferences in greater number each year, now over fifty. It is driven by the student activists who recruit others to the cause, read, discuss, listen to reason, establish beachheads in still more colleges and high schools. SFL is allied with The Atlas Society and other organizations within the individual freedom movement, e.g. www.fff.org, www.fee.org, www.mises.org Young Americans For Liberty started on college campuses in 2008 and is now on over 500 campuses. www.YALiberty.org Recently they reported over 204,000 student activists and still growing. The focus of each SFL and YAL is Liberty. Ayn Rand is the most ardent advocate of individual liberty with the most rational defense of individual freedom right down to basic premises. Nothing in her philosophy is taken on faith. Objectivism is a breath of fresh air compared to the faith based assertions of those who promise eternal life after death in return for abandonment of ones own judgment. At the rate these intelligent college and high school activists are going they will be present on virtually very campus in the country and the world and no one will be unaware of their existence. They are sure to be ignored by the Establishment to begin with. They are able to find professors to advise their local group who advocate individual freedom thanks to the works of Ayn Rand, von Mises, and so many others in the movement. It is conceivable to me, as usual, that they will number in the hundreds of thousands and then the millions very quickly. Tens of millions is within their reach soon after and then they will be able to influence the course of history. Lots of generators generating generations of generators. Donate to the cause: www.studentsforliberty.org and www.YALiberty.org They are not top down organizations. It is all done by the student activists with help from the top in terms of what works. The power of compounding is thought to be the most powerful force in the universe according to Albert Einstein. Endless doubling and redoubling until individual liberty wins once and for all time.
  11. GHS, Your book, ATCAG, is on my list of books which I give to promising individuals whom I meet not just in the course of my "job." It is in bold print for good measure. I am optimistic enough to believe that the day will come when children will be raised to listen to reason rather than indoctrinated by parents whose concern is that their children will have the beliefs needed to assure them a place in the afterlife. There are a handful of books which are a breathe of fresh air in a number of fields and yours is one of them. gg
  12. On the contrary, I find time I spend making some young person aware of Objectivism and the pro individual freedom movement to be time well spent when it appears to be appreciated. Today a truck pulled up and a few minutes later the doorbell rang. It was a young lady whose job it is to spray the trees in town to kill the moths / caterpillars which are eating the leaves. In the process of showing her access to the trees I asked her when she graduated and where she went to college. I asked her if she had heard of Students For Liberty or Young Americans For Liberty when she was a college student. She hadn't but was interested in knowing more about them. Before she finished the spraying I gave her a copy of the two pages of suggested reading list of books on a variety of subjects which includes Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, von Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat, G.H. Smith, Harris, Dawkins, Hayek, Hazlitt and so on, with links to O.L and others. I carry around copies of my list of books and links for just such opportunities. I would have felt it would have been a wasted opportunity if I hadn't done so! The www.studentsforliberty.org website has a link to their annual report which shows that their growth does appear to be close to exponential since 2008. SFL is all over the world on every continent with a growing number of student leaders, groups, campuses and attendees at their conferences. There is certainly the promise of continued growth with no end in sight. That means that they will ultimately be on virtually every high school and college and university campus in time, with a massive alumni section growing into the millions and tens of millions.
  13. IS it really so that material which is radioactive but has an very long half life is not as dangerous to one's health than one with a short half life?
  14. Naturally I wonder if he has given any thought to other subjects and where he stands on some of the issues of the day. At the end he said that he only had to keep one game in his mind at a time which is the key to his success and that he would need more time to give more consideration to other possible moves. It is a very impressive display. I have encountered a rated player who happened to be a blind man so all of his games were in effect blindfolded. Fun to watch a genius at work.
  15. I still don't know just what or which is causing all the sea creatures in the Pacific to be affected? I just make sure any salmon I buy is from the Atlantic Ocean.