galtgulch

Has anyone here ever gone to this event? If so would you comment on your experience? Thanks. www.campaignforliberty.com 230,949 gulch

A link to upcoming Atlas Society Objectivist meeting in Alexandria, VA. June 30-July 8: http://www.freeminds2010.org/

I am not for shedding the blood of my own people. Foreign devils I will gladly kill. My own? No. I will not fight a civil war unless the government became as ruthless as the Nazis or Stalinists. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, My question to you is just what would you suggest citizens do if the Congress passes a blatantly unconstitutional law? Would you really ignore the history of America? The States were encouraged to adopt and ratify the original Constitution with the assurance that if the Congress did pass a law which gave the Congress a power not granted by the States, that the States could declare that law unconstitutional and NULLIFY it under the Tenth Amendment which reserved all powers, which were not explicitly forbidden to the States (in Article 1 Section 9), to the States or to the people. Thus NULLIFICATION is a legitimate response to a Congressional unconstitutional power grab. If you are afraid that the Congress would try to use force against the States you are probably mistaken. Nullification is acceptable but rarely exercised. See the new book, not yet available by Tom Woods entitled NULLIFICATION. See Tom Woods articles on the subject at www.campaignforliberty.com archived there. I await you thoughtful response. gulch

Prometheus, Thanks for your response. I wouldn't blame the nightmare on Kant alone. I thought I would add Plato for sure, St. Augustine as well, and even the lesser mind of Keynes. Usually a trinity comes to mind such as mystic-altruist-collectivist. Our current financial crisis includes derivitives which amount into the quadrillions which is a precedent for a foursome. Thus a Kantian-Augustinian-Keynesian-Platonic nightmare! Whoops I left out Obama himself and Marx. Nevermind! www.campaignforliberty.com 231,278 Update: Bernie Sanders the Senator who submitted S604,the companion to Ron Paul's HR1207, Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, has submitted to pressure from the White House and removed crucial Paul-Grayson language from his bill limiting the scope of any audit of the Fed and only letting one such audit occur! Strange bedfellows. His office is 202 224 5141 for anyone willing to call him to register opinion or to urge him to reconsider. Buy silver and gold bullion coins as the bull market in precious metals is gaining strength and has quite a ways to go. Remember not to ever sell them back into worthless paper currency. The purpose here is to maintain purchasing power rather than let your hard earned dollars lose value. Someday no one will accept the Federal Reserve Notes which is where your Mercury head dimes will come in handy.

GS, Of course they knew! But they realized that most people are ignorant of such things as details of the eligibility requirements of the Constitution for President. They know that Obama was a valuable person for their purposes. He was well educated and eloquent. He was intelligent and crafty. He shared the establishment premises and know how to cash in on them. They knew he was a more appealing candidate than Hilary and could easily beat McCain. They appointed many judges who would not hear challenges by using the lack of standing argument. Specious to be sure but it has worked so far. I can't believe you people. The bad guys in this game are truly evil and willing to use lies and deceit to achieve their goals. Why Obama is even willing to argue in public that his health plan will require individual mandates to raise the money to make it work. He has said in no uncertain terms that without such mandates it will not work. There are accepted mandates such as having auto insurance, compulsory public education, taxation for which there is evidently no actual law. They have us or most of us being compliant or in favor of their agenda. The media is in their pocket as are the courts and the public schools teachers and the university professors. The ideological foundation for their agenda is in place. They have been getting away with their interventions for decades with virtually no opposition of any strength. "electoral authorities!" Give me a break! The only individuals who are interested in the truth are a handful of individuals to whom the truth and the Constitution matters. I was kind of hoping there might be a few here on OL. I am not going to go to Washington D.C. to march although I will be there in spirit. One must choose one's battles. I will be watching closely. In the meantime I am submitting a Resolution to the House of Delegates of the Massachusetts Medical Society next week at their annual meeting to oppose Obamacare and to press the Attorney General and the State House to sue for nullification. I believe 38 other states are in some stage of advocacy of the nullification process. Not too late for you to take possession of gold and silver bullion coins. The rise in price of gold is just at the beginning of a long term bull market given the debt crisis in the world and Bernanke's inclination to respond by rolling the printing presses as he has been doing. SIlver will do better given its smaller market, enormous industrial demand, short supply and its role as money in addition to gold. Check out www.APMES.com to see what is available and to follow the prices. Beware of high premiums on rare coins rather stick to bullion coins. www.campaignforliberty.com 231,258

<<<"Minister of Lands In Kenya Obama Was Born Here In Kenya Submitted by Thomas on Thu, 05/06/2010 - 02:30. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-ad-washington-times-na...'>http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-ad-washington-times-na... Washington Times National Weekly Edition - 03 May 2010 - Page 5 The Minister of Lands in Kenya, James Orengo, on 25 March 2010 during Kenyan National Assembly debate on their new Constitution, declares on the record that Obama "was born here in Kenya" and is not a "native American"! Another Kenyan Minister, Dr. Bonny Khalwale, stated on the record on 14 April 2010 in the Kenyan National Assembly that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. http://www.scribd.com/doc/30855663/Minister-in-Kenyan-Nation... Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired) Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress http://puzo1.blogspot.com http://www.protectourliberty.org #### P.S. The Manchurian President is being exposed in his homeland, the land of his birth, Kenya. Obama's birth was fraudulently registered as occurring in Hawaii by Obama's maternal grandmother who knew how easy it was to illegally get her newborn grandson statutory U.S. citizenship via Hawaii by simply filling out a mail-in born and saying Obama was born at home with no witnesses and no emergency medical attendants, nothing. Simple attestation of a family member. That's it. Nothing else. U.S. citizenship is a highly coveted status now and then. Birth registration fraud occurs now and it did then too. That is what Obama is hiding. There is no corroborating evidence in his original birth registration to prove he was born in Hawaii, ... because he wasn't. More: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-ad-washington-times-na...'>http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-ad-washington-times-na...">>> www.campaignforliberty.com 231,225

Here is the link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=134881 <<<" Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace Posted: April 01, 2010 1:00 am Eastern By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. © 2010 The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen. The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court. The relevant Obama admission At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published: When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children. This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated: In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a "natural born citizen" of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1. The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship: 7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: (e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. This helps explain why the definition of "natural born citizen" as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems. If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation. Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen. Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship. While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president's citizenship be "natural born." A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen. "Natural born" simply describes a circumstance of citizenship. Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?" There are multiple circumstances that create "citizens at birth." Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language. But they didn't. In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be "natural born citizens," but the words "natural born" were repealed in 1795. Congress never again legislated the definition of "natural born citizen," and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it. The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1. Origin of the natural born citizen clause The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance. It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787: Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. Jay underlined "born" which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth. The "natural born" requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity. One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible. An important historical definition of "natural born citizen" comes from a 1797 translation of the "Law of Nations," a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the "Law of Nations": 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. Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child's birth. That was made clear by the Supreme Court's opinion in Perkins v. Elg. It appears from James Madison's notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms "native" and "natural born citizen" synonymously. Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel's text. Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to "punish ... offenses against the Law of Nations." In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated: 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. ..." Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel's text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated: 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. ... It's significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born. If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn't have been eligible since he doesn't fit the Minor Court's standard for a natural born citizen. The strange case of Chester Arthur The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor. Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth. Arthur's deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father's heritage, immigration and age. He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age. Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur's eligibility until recently. Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible. This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect. Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama's eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn't known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles. (Column continues below) In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated: Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. It's ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn't be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen. Chester Arthur's true eligibility defect doesn't appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog. Clearly, Chester Arthur's deception cannot serve to validate anyone's presidential eligibility. He got away with it, but that doesn't make it right. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that's not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens. Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was "natural born." In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett: That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. ... 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. ..." While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray's restatement of the Minor Court's definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent's fear. A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)): If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen" should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion. The term "native born citizen" has been erroneously substituted for "natural born citizen" by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous. His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur's dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn't mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance. The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a "natural born citizen" as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens. This is not a political issue. It's a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review. [For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, "What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?" by John Greschak. Leo Donofrio is an attorney with 20 years' experience. He is a partner in the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio and he authors the Natural Born Citizen blog.">>> www.campaignforliberty.com 231,225

Obama Cheating Scandal Here is the link to the Before Its News post: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/38585/Obama_cheating_scandal.html Contributed by Free Press International (Editor) April 30, 2010 11:52 This story has been viewed 1,305 times (508 times in the past 24 hours, 35 times in the past hour) PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say. And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle! A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions. While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, the ENQUIRER has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair. Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying. On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night." The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit. "But to the best of knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd." The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds. Vera accompanied him to each meeting. "About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!" "My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night." http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_video_/celebrity/68589

Ba'al, So far there has been no response that I know of from the administration that a number of state legislatures have sued for nullification of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” I expect that number of states involved will encourage other states to join them with nullification suits. It is a legitimate legal remedy although supporters of nullification in general are described as "extreme states rights" advocates. Thomas Jefferson was the original advocate of nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The premise for its authenticity is that the sovereign states created the Federal government with enunciated powers, all other powers being reserved to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the original Constitution in Article 1 Section 9 e.g. only gold and silver coin are legal tender, or to the people. If the Federal government exceeds its Constitutional powers as spelled out explicitly than nullification is justified. In that way the States have superiority to the Supreme Court which often upholds the Constitutionality of a law using its devious use of sophistry. I recall reading Henry Mark Holzer's article in The Objectivist entitled: The Constitution and the Draft which revealed the depths to which the Supreme Court can sink to uphold unenumerated or forbidden powers for the Feds. Tyranny is certainly just over the horizon. If we stand still for this intrusion surely more will follow. Are you suggesting that we simply do as we are told by our Leader without so much as a whimper? And here I thought you were a fighter for your own freedom. Guess I was wrong about you now that push has come to shove! I am not suggesting taking up arms. Not yet. Nullification is legit if you can find a State representative willing to submit the appropriate paperwork and able to persuade his or her legislature. Thirteen other States have done it! www.campaignforliberty.com 231,097

<<<"(1788 – 89) Measures passed by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Drafted by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (though their role went unknown for 25 years), the resolutions protested limitations on civil liberties and declared the right of states to decide on the constitutionality of federal legislation. Though their authors applied the resolutions to the specific issues of the day, Southern states later used the measures to support the theories of nullification and secession. Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, in U.S. history, resolutions passed in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were enacted by the Federalists in 1798. The Jeffersonian Republicans first replied in the Kentucky Resolutions, adopted by the Kentucky legislature in Nov., 1798. Written by Thomas Jefferson himself, they were a severe attack on the Federalists' broad interpretation of the Constitution, which would have extended the powers of the national government over the states. The resolutions declared that the Constitution merely established a compact between the states and that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it under the terms of the compact; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be unauthoritative and therefore void. It was the right of the states and not the federal government to decide as to the constitutionality of such acts. A further resolution, adopted in Feb., 1799, provided a means by which the states could enforce their decisions by formal nullification of the objectionable laws. A similar set of resolutions was adopted in Virginia in Dec., 1798, but these Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison, were a somewhat milder expression of the strict construction of the Constitution and the compact theory of the Union. The resolutions were submitted to the other states for approval with no real result; their chief importance lies in the fact that they were later considered to be the first notable statements of the states' rights theory of government, a theory that opened the way for the nullification controversy and ultimately for secession.">>> So far a number of States have used nullification to respond to the unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act. Consider urging your own State Representatives and State Senators to do the same. www.campaignforliberty.com 231,092

Every word a golden drop of truth, but just the same the judges have the say. They have the say even if our liberty is to be sacrificed on the altar of bad laws. Just like Judge Naragansett said in -Atlas Shrugged-. This nation (U.S.A.) has been plagued by bad law since its founding. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, More ordinary citizens than ever are reading the Constitution for themselves. It brings to mind that once upon a time the Bible was printed in English instead of Latin enabling people to read it for themselves and to make up their own minds. It may be out of favor for the Congressmen who openly admit that they pay no attention to the Constitution but it is not out of favor with more and more of the people. There is more attention brought to the sophistry engaged in by the Supreme Court as people read the books of Judge Andrew Napolitano. "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." —Thomas Jefferson There is a sea change happening. People who may have been gullible and trusting but who discover that they have been taken advantage of and betrayed by those they believed and trusted will become relentless advocates of their freedom and liberty and of the kind of society which has respect for the rights of individuals, limited government, sound gold and silver backed money, non interventionistic foreign policy and free markets and the rule of law. There is already a resurgence of interest in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Lionsgate is going to produce a TV miniseries of Atlas Shrugged before the end of this year. Imagine its effect. gulch www.campaignforliberty.com 231,050 www.YALiberty.org www.fff.org www.mises.org www.atlassociety.org

Chris, I think the Supreme Court Justices believe that they are taking the Constitution seriously despite the fact that they are never unanimous in their interpretations and more often than not hold contradictory positions. We all are in the know that there are no contradictions in the universe. Still the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and every politician is sworn under oath to preserve and defend it, whatever that means to them we have yet to be told. I do think that the Founders themselves were not of one mind. Jefferson was individualistically oriented while Hamilton was certainly a statist. But the oath is what it is and the meaning of the eligibility requirement that to be eligible one must have been a natural born citizen was understood at the time without the wide disagreement we witness these days. Most ordinary people simply think it means to have been born in this country without regard to ones parents citizenship. Such a person would strictly be an American citizen but not natural born if ones parents were not American citizens. Traditionally it was the fathers citizenship which counted for all in the days when women were treated as if they were no better than furniture. There are people who do take my word seriously in my daily life and professional life. I don't mind the jibes here but prefer criticism based on reason rather than mere ad hominem nonsense. As I encourage my patients to do when they are disrespected by someone, let your estimate of them go down and your estimate of your own worth remain the same. I think I undoubtedly learned that from Nathaniel Branden. I wish someone would someday ask Obama himself what his understanding is of the term natural born citizen and if his response does not include ones parents citizenship to confront him on that. Just why did the writers of Article 2 Section 1 make the distinction which did not apply to eligibility for any other office? I am hopeful that the efforts in over a dozen states now for nullification to squelch this reform bill on health. I have submitted a resolution to the House of Delegates of the medical society to object to its passage on the grounds of its being unconstitutional. No. i did not mention the ineligibility issue. i admonished them that if they support the individual mandate which is clearly a form of involuntary servitude they may find someday a mandate focused on them. They will find they have no moral leg to stand on in their fight against being coerced if they give their moral approval to forcing mostly young people to buy health insurance or suffer a fine. Otherwise they will be guilty of hypocrisy. I imagine that the President's response, if too many doctors close their practices and retire, which might threaten availability of services, might be to require that before one can resign or retire a doctor would need to apply for permission to do so or risk substantial fines or imprisonment! Anyway I warned them in no uncertain terms. The meeting occurs in mid May. It remains to be seen if my resolution is accepted as it would be a late filed one since the passage of the health reform plan happened after the deadline for resolutions. "Does anybody care? Is anybody out there?" from 1776 voiced by John Adams Von Mises was personally cheerful but pessimistic regarding the outlook. Despite all his warnings and writings about the nature of money and inflation the printing presses keep rolling faster and faster. IS anyone here optimistic and if so why? www.campaignforliberty.com 231,043

<<<"The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry midterm, and an actual answer turned in by a student. (translation: fake) The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well : Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following: First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ...leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.' THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.">>>

Ba'al, Your rant is embarrassing. I thought you might have had more respect for the U.S. Constitution than you exhibit. If the eligibility requirement was considered to be outmoded it should have been amended a long time ago. But as it stands it still holds that to be eligible one must be a "natural born citizen." The Founders stated this for no other office except the Presidency. In those days they wanted to be sure that any child destined to become President would not have divided loyalty by having a parent who was a citizen of another country. Simply enough. As a Constitutional scholar Obama must have realized that he was ineligible but let his power lust cause that realization to be "blanked out." Instead he chose to take advantage of the widespread ignorance and lack of understanding of the issue. Obama has been forthcoming that his father was a Kenyan therefore a British subject and not an American citizen. Now we have a Constitutional crisis being ignored. Any legislation signed by our usurper President is unconstitutional. I grant that the Congress is renown for ignoring the Constitution and the Supreme Court justices have become masters of sophistry. Perhaps the Constitutional eligibility requirement can be amended and made retroactive! As I understand it the Courts have ruled only that no one addressing this issue has been considered to have standing. I wonder if you have a link or reference for your assertion that the Courts have certified his legitimacy as you allege? I was hoping for a more reasoned reaction rather than your assertions and ad hominem innuendoes. After all Objectivists are known for their advocacy of reason rather than obfuscation of the truth. galtgulch www.campaignforliberty.com 231,014

THis article appeared in the Canadian Free Press: Here is the link: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22221 <<<" The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office By JB Williams Saturday, April 24, 2010 Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds. (See JB’s new article on The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen) What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it. The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive. Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist. Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States. The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens. Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008. This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii… "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice Preseient of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:" This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however… "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the folowing were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:" Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states. Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure… The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama. The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions. Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is… Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records. Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all. Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief. Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions. No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House? How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is? And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question? The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling… The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president. Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read - proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief. DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out… Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House. They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out… The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas. The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation. I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then. But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history. The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display? Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know - already know. What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.">>> And here is a more definitive discussion of the issue: <<<"Not "native" or "naturalized" or "citizen," but only "natural born" citizens can hold the office of president. The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010 I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear. History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations. The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question. Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama. As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander. However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why; The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father. The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.” The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows; “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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;” And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V; “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;” Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president. The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born. A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth. Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.” “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?” Only the people can decide… But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore. If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life. If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands. Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?">>> www.campaignforliberty.com 230,997

Chris, If you will allow me one final rhetorical question: Don't get what? gulch

Chris, I guess you do not believe me when I have attempted to clarify that I believed that Ron Paul not only should have been the nominee but that it was plausible for him to become the nominee if only the efforts of those who distributed the DVD made especially to persuade McCain delegates to vote instead for Ron Paul at the nominating convention. I helped to send such DVDs which were created by a few Ron Paul supporters from Alaska, to delegates in several states as part of a larger coordinated effort to get the DVDs to every delegate. I knew all along that it was a long shot. I thought it was worth a try as did enough others to support the creation and distribution of the DVDs. Too bad the delegates were under the influence of the Republican Party leadership which wanted unity at the convention. Only a handful of Ron Paul delegates from Alaska managed to voice their votes for Ron Paul. Even in my own state of MA those Ron Paul supporters caved in the hope that they would be more accepted by the heirarchy in the long run as opposed to being seen as spoilers. I still have a carton of those DVDs because we couldn't get the addresses of all the delegates from certain places. It is pathetic that a couple of you still see me as some sort of irrational, gullible, paranoid person who cannot be taken seriously. Too bad. I am sure you or the other fellow will still argue that I once posted my belief that Ron Paul would be the nominee in 2008. He should have been. In the DVD there is a portion which shows how few articles showed up in print about Ron Paul during the campaign compared to the hundreds of print articles which appeared for all the other potential nominees. I still do think that was because of Ron Paul's strong views about the Federal Reserve and call for its abolition. That is speculation as there were other reasons the establishment didn't want him to be seen as a viable candidate. www.campaignforliberty.com 230,675 www.YALiberty.org gulch

Ba'al, As I understand it the whistle blower emailed the CFTC investigator in advance of a particular manipulation which was to occur a few days later. He emailed again while the manipulation was underway. So it is not a mere assertion! The whole thing has the appearance to me of a manipulation which has the complicity of the administration which has no intention of exposing it or investigating it nor of acknowledging it. Perhaps they will find a way to put the blame on a business and use them as a sacrificial lamb. I can only imagine that the holders of futures contracts will demand bullion payments and the squeeze will be on leading to skyrocketing prices for gold and silver in the near future once they realize that there is not enough gold and silver behind the short positions which are "naked." www.campaignforliberty.com 230,650 I am still waiting for someone to suggest a more viable and plausible plan to get this country back on the right track than the Campaign For Liberty. Admittedly it is not growing as exponentially as it did at first. The sister organization Young Americans for LIberty is on over 170 campuses and still has promise because these young people will have to bear the burden of the trillion dollar deficits and huge debt of the various major party administrations. galt Was anyone indicted for breach of the law and if so, what was proven in court? Prior to indictment, trial and conviction, one has only assertion and allegation, not proof. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, Good grief. Can you think of no cases where someone, say Dreyfus, was indicted, tried and convicted, not to mention Giordano Bruno and Galileo, as if that is what constitutes proof of anything? You are maddening. The whistle blower is named Maguire and he informed the CFTC investigator in advance of a "manipulation" which then did occur. This is not just allegation or assertion. It sounds as if you have not listened to the GATA testimony. Suit yourself. Perhaps you would be willing to accept the hypothesis that this manipulation of the precious metals futures market has been occurring for reasons known to the government, to give the appearance of a sound and strong US Dollar. THis manipulation spans more administrations than the current one. If true it would undercut confidence in the very regulators who demand more power to regulate. HOw come the media chose not to print stories about this? Reminds me of the media blackout on the Ron Paul campaign for the Republican nomination which was well documented. Ought to be an opportunity to accumulate the very gold and silver coins which the COnstitution stated should be the only legal tender. See ARticle 1 sections 8 and 10. Here is a link to one man's opinion on the outlook for silver : http://beforeitsnews.com/story/33851/Silver_headed_to_50_an_ounce.html I want my friends and acquaintances on OL to survive the fall of the US Dollar which is process since 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was created at the urging of the private banking interests. See The Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin and The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard. www.campaignforliberty.com 230,666 gulch

David, i know it is difficult to accept that the prices of gold and silver have been held down by some sort of manipulation especially when both precious metals have seen significant gains over the last ten years already. Industrial demand for silver has grown and still more uses are found for this unique mineral. In order to make up for the shortfall between mining production each year and market demand there has been draw down of reserves to the point where they are virtually depleted. If you have sufficient curiosity to explore this a little further I refer you to articles by Ted Butler who is a silver market analyst employed by Investment Rarities owned by James Cook. Butler contends that he has been aware of the existence of naked short futures positions on the Comex originally held by Bear Stearns and taken over by JPMorgan. There is an article on the home page, www.investmentrarities.com, "The Biggest Factor in the Future price of Silver " which presents his position. There are also interviews with Ted Butler, Jim Rickards, Andrew Maguire (the whistle blower himself),GATA, Peter Schiff, Eric Sprott Rob McEwen and John WIlliams regarding the metals manipulation and the outlook for gold and silver. Whether there is a manipulation or not and whether the CFTC's new president, Gersner, does anything about it or not, the market will overwhelm any attempt to manipulate it and given the fact that all world central banks are printing paper notes as their governments engage in excessive spending, one ought to consider maintaining the purchasing power of however many USDollar denominated paper investments, MMFs, notes, CDs, ETFs, futures or the like one may have and upon which one depends. It has always been hard to believe that people believe the nonsense that passes for wisdom or convention, not only in religion, but in any field. That Bernanke believes that his shenanigans in increasing the number of Federal Reserve Notes is not inflation and will not cause price increases in time is mind boggling. I gather he simply has the Fatal Conceit of which F.A. Hayek wrote, that he can withdraw FDRs from the market in time to avoid hyperinflation or some degree of inflation. I am reading Naomi Wolf's The End of America which includes The Ten STeps That Close an Open Society which I copy below: <<<" 10 STEPS THAT CLOSE AN OPEN SOCIETY 1. invoke an internal and external threat People who are afraid are willing to do things that they wouldn’t otherwise do. 2. establish secret (unaccountable) prisons where torture takes place In a secret system, the government does not have to provide any proof of wrongdoing by those it holds, so it can incarcerate anyone it wants. 3. develop a paramilitary force A private military force — under the exclusive direction of the “commander in chief” with no accountability to Congress, the courts, or the public — blurs the line between a civilian police force and a militarized police state. 4. surveil ordinary citizens People who believe they are being watched are less likely to voice opposition. To scare a population into silence, the government need only monitor the activities of a few to make everyone fear that they are being surveilled. Every closed society keeps a “list” of so-called opponents it tracks. 5. infiltrate citizen’s groups Spies in activist groups put psychological pressure on genuine activists by undermining their trust in one another. They may also disrupt legal activities, undermining the effectiveness of group efforts. 6. detain and release ordinary citizens Detention intimidates or psychologically damages those arrested and also lets everyone know that anyone could be labeled an “enemy combatant” and “disappeared.” 7. target key individuals People are less likely to speak out when those who are highly visible, like journalists, scholars, artists, or celebrities, are intimidated or have the livelihoods threatened. Targeting those who are especially visible makes it less likely that people will speak out and robs society of leaders and others who might inspire opposition. 8. restrict the press The public is less likely to find out about government wrongdoing if the government can threaten to prosecute anyone who publishes or broadcasts reports that are critical of the government. 9. recast criticism as espionage and dissent as treason People who protest can be charged with terrorism or treason when laws criminalize or limit free speech rather than protect it. 10. subvert the rule of law The disappearance of checks and balances makes it easier to declare martial law, especially if the judiciary branch continues to exercise authority over individuals but has no authority over the Executive branch. ">>> She points out how rapidly these steps have been used in places like Germany and Argentina as dictators have learned how to do these things and they are proven to shut down opposition. I think we are closer to becoming under tyrannical rule than others here are willing to admit. I can easily see our leader reacting to the chaos his policies will lead to by assuming more powers. He already speaks ill of anyone who would oppose his reform plan in health. Nevermind that he purposely fed limited info to the CBO which led to his contention that his plan will reduce the deficit. He removed items from the bill and set them up in separate bills to avoid showing how his reform will actually cost more than one trillion each year and will enlarge the deficit. I remember reading portions of The Third Reich which my older brother had bought when I was not yet ten years old. Maybe that is why I am more sensitive to the signs of the direction our country is heading in. I am certainly afraid that unless those of us who are willing to fight by enlightening the populace to the dangers do so we are in for a totalitarian dictatorship in the near future after an economic collapse brought on by onerous interventions which stifle entrepreneurship and innovation. Here is the link to Naomi Wolf's website where there is a link to a trailer of her End Of America movie: http://www.endofamericamovie.com/trailer

Sorry for unintentional double post here. see #6

Ba'al, As I understand it the whistle blower emailed the CFTC investigator in advance of a particular manipulation which was to occur a few days later. He emailed again while the manipulation was underway. So it is not a mere assertion! The whole thing has the appearance to me of a manipulation which has the complicity of the administration which has no intention of exposing it or investigating it nor of acknowledging it. Perhaps they will find a way to put the blame on a business and use them as a sacrificial lamb. I can only imagine that the holders of futures contracts will demand bullion payments and the squeeze will be on leading to skyrocketing prices for gold and silver in the near future once they realize that there is not enough gold and silver behind the short positions which are "naked." www.campaignforliberty.com 230,650 I am still waiting for someone to suggest a more viable and plausible plan to get this country back on the right track than the Campaign For Liberty. Admittedly it is not growing as exponentially as it did at first. The sister organization Young Americans for LIberty is on over 170 campuses and still has promise because these young people will have to bear the burden of the trillion dollar deficits and huge debt of the various major party administrations. galt

A few days ago I posted a story entitled: "Whistle blower proves AU and AG prices manipulated Trillions involved exceeds Madoff fraud" Although there appear to have been fifty some odd views of it no one here chose to comment. I am just trying to understand why. In the article it is pointed out that a whistle blower, a silver trader for one company had first hand knowledge that silver traders for JP Morgan in the London trading pit were boasting of their manipulation of the price of silver and giving advance notice of their intention and plan to bring the price of silver down again so others could prosper by taking advantage of the manipulation. The article revealed that there is not enough bullion to back up the futures trades rather just enough bullion of gold or silver to back up one in one hundred contracts! Also that some time ago those who demanded delivery on their contracts were paid off in paper dollars. Testimony before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by the president of the Gold Anti Trust Action group made those at the hearing aware of the whistle blowers revelations but the live TV broadcast was interrupted for the duration of his testimony. At first there were almost two dozen requests for interviews with the whistle blower by the main stream media but suddenly they were mysteriously all cancelled. Not to mention a hit and run accident in which the whistle blowers car was hit but he and his wife were not seriously hurt. The point is that the gold and silver prices are being manipulated in the major trading places by JP Morgan and the CFTC now knows about it and has done nothing to stop its ongoing manipulations by limiting the amount of naked short positions a company can hold. It is pointed out that once those who believe they have a contract for delivery of gold or silver bullion demand delivery that would create a squeeze on those who hold naked short futures positions which could not possibly be fulfilled. There is simply not enough gold and silver bullion in the world to fill those contracts. And no one here cares to comment. When JP Morgan took over Bear Stearns, which was known to hold excessive naked short positions, JPMorgan was enticed by the government to take them over with some sort of assurances. Holding down the prices of gold and silver make the paper dollar look stronger than it is. If the prices of gold and silver were allowed to go to the true free market prices, presumably higher than they are now, that would show the world that the US Dollar is so weak that it might be impossible for the government to raise money by selling US Treasury Bonds backed by the US Dollar. The fraud involved in the market manipulation of the prices of gold and silver would dwarf any Ponzi scheme in history. Confidence in the financial system would disappear as would the US Dollar as the reserve currency of the world. Is there nothing to discuss here on this matter facing our country? www.campaignforliberty.com 230,640

David, Not my intent to preach. Appreciate the links by anonrobt. The Reuters journalists were evidently embedded with the "insurgents" who don't wear uniforms. www.campaignforliberty.com 230,387 gulch

Here is the link to a video I came across on stumble: http://tinyurl.com/yb7my5b I will settle for vicarious pleasure. www.campaignforliberty.com 230,345 gulch

Michael, I am surprised that you don't mention that our illustrious Fuhrer (I have purposely not used his name in the futile hope that I will avoid surveillance) actually fulfills Ayn Rand's definition of a fascist. I mean FASCIST! Of that there can be no doubt. His advocacy of individual mandates alone is enough to meet the criteria. Ayn Rand pointed out the difference. In socialism the State owns everything including you and the ground you stand on. In a fascist state you are permitted to keep your name on yourself and on your business but the State dictates whatever it wishes regarding how you run your business and your life. Admittedly the distinction is superficial. Judge Napolitano has a new book out Lies the Government Told You and there is an interview with him on the Reason website. I don't think his solution to repeal the Seventeent Amendment so that the States will have a seat at the table will be enough or goes deeply enough to solve the problem: http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/08/injustice-system/ If the campaign for liberty and Young Americans for LIberty accomplish drawing the attention of young people to the ideas in a handful of books which the public schools and liberal colleges keep from them perhaps there is some hope. www.campaignforliberty.com 230,291