America Is A Free Country - Includes Background Information On Barack Obama And Lots Of Legal & Admiralty Law Information

8th September 2008

The Enslaving Of Americans

Waheguru ji ki Fateh

The founders of this country were slave owners. They invaded and enslaved the local native people. They imported slaves to work tobacco and cotton plantations.

Lincoln may have freed slaves, but did not abolish the slavery of corporate America. Self serving politicians and their ilk whose campaigns are paid for by corporations are little more than slave mongers seeking to further enslave the American people giving tax breaks to corporations and saddling average citizens with huge deficits incurred by those who are profiting inn billions and trillions quarterly from war and oil.

The profiteers use misdirection and fear, religion and focus on the distant past to sidestep dialogue about present election issues of ecology, economy, environment, and commerce, making empty promises and misleading statements.

Their band of 'democrazy' seeks to further enslave the entire world with outsourcing and trade agreements with leaders whose peoples energies go to manufacturing exports rather than influx into their own economy.

Sukhmandir Kaur Khalsa
sikhism.guide@ about.com
Guide to Sikhism: http://sikhism.about.com
Blog: http://sikhism.about.com/b
Forums: http://sikhism.about.com/mpboards.htm

------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

SearchScanBETA On WEB RESULTS: America land Of The Fee And Home Of The Knave

1. Land Of The Free - Home Of The Depraved: http://www.rense.com/general70/deprav.htm
... and their bureaucratic stooges at all levels of government in America. ... It's "Land Of The Fee, Home Of The Knave!" And number two: ... www.rense.com/general70/deprav.htm

2. American Suicide: http://www.rense.com/general67/amsui.htm
It is now referred to as, "Land of the Fee and Home of the Knave. ... the Constitution of the United States of America, we should be free. ... www.rense.com/general67/amsui.htm

3. MaxiBucksInc.com: http://maxibucksinc.com
and its elected operatives will assure the continued existence of a fee ... America: Land of the Fee and Home of the Knave. Contibuting PACs. Outsource America ... maxibucksinc.com

4. Patrick Henry: America's Radical Dissenter: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_summer_fall/henry.htm
... land to arms, "his soul was bowed down and bleeding under the heaviest sorrows ... Henry accepted the offer and sent his troops home. ... www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_summer_fall/henry.htm

5. "America" by Noah Webster: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1789
But the distribution of land in America, not only supersedes the necessity of ... Home. Special Exhibits: Constitutional Convention | Ratification of the Constitution ... www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1789

6. A Citizen of America by Noah Webster: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1782
Thus the honest and punctual are doubly loaded—and the knave triumphs in his negligence. ... country, a general possession of land in fee simple, may be rendered ... www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1782 - 88k

7. Of Lythos and Lythosants: http://lythosants.wordpress.com
Google's America; Land of the Fee, Home of the Knave. May 27, 2008 by pscyclone ... and do whatever it is gay couples do; what happens in the privacy of a home ... lythosants.wordpress.com

----------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Kennan Devan

From America is a free country. Americans love freedom, critical thinking, peace, progress, prosperity, scientific spirit, pluralism, and pursuit of happiness. Recently Islam has been invading America and recruiting criminals, vagabonds, miscreants, anti Zionists, subversive agents and anti social elements. Islam is liberating them from American freedom and enslaving them with the rigid, totalitarian, closed Islamic dogma. Once an American is forcefully or deceptively converted to Islam he will lose his freedom. Since Islam is against freedom, democracy, pluralism, peace and coexistence, Islamic invasion of America and conversion of criminals will pose a grave danger to our life, liberty, peace and prosperity.

-----------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Blue Lori

Absolutely right! And bo's pick of biden who is an ADMITTED zionist is even more scary! biden is also a plagiarist and he wrote the bill to bail out the banks! bo also participated in that voting for it. And who can name a good communist country? Is that anything like we have in America...no, no, no!

# Digg - JOE BIDEN: I am a ZIONIST: http://digg.com/politics/JOE_BIDEN_I_am_a_ZIONIST

JOE BIDEN: I am a ZIONIST watch! youtube.com — BIDEN: "Israel is not the cause of Iraq ... Israel for accidently sinking a US ship during war (which Israel has admitted and ...

# Digg - Confirmed: Joe Biden is Obama's Running Mate: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Confirmed_Joe_Biden_is_Obama_s_Running...

CNN has just broke the news that Joe Biden is indeed Obamas Running mate. ... nice day. 30somethinDad, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3 Yay, you fools are supporting admitted CFR Zionist ...

Barack Obama's New Muslim Advisor Cements Campaign's Ties To Terror Friendly Organisations

August 2, 2008

Barack Obama's New Muslim Advisor Cements Campaign's Ties To Terror Friendly Organizations

By BEILA RABINOWITZ and WILLIAM MAYER

August 1, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - In a desperate attempt to win Muslim votes and to overcome a recent PR debacle - a June 16 Barack Obama rally in Detroit during which the campaign moved two women who were wearing hijab so they would not appear in images featuring the candidate - his campaign has announced the appointment of a "liaison" to the Arab and Muslim community, Mazen Asbahi.

Asbahi's Islamist credentials are reflected by the enthusiasm with which the news was greeted by American Islamists, including the Muslim Public Affairs Council [MPAC] which stated:

"Mr. Asbahi will further the Obama campaigns outreach efforts and participation of the Muslim American community…MPAC is confident that Mr. Asbahi will encourage Muslim Americans to be civically engaged." source, http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=673

Understanding MPAC's MO, "Civically engaged" should be interpreted as a euphemism for implementing shari'a; the organization's goals having been characterized by Dr. Daniel Pipes as:

"Impeding counterterrorism efforts and forwarding an Islamist vision of America..." source, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/07/the-difference-between-cair-and-...

In testimony delivered before the House Foreign Relations Committee just yesterday, noted terror authority Steven Emerson observed about MPAC:

"Marayati has repeatedly justified the actions of Hizbollah before the Department of State invited him as a speaker. In November 1999, on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Marayati responded to accusations that he supports Hizbollah, "If the Lebanese people are resisting Israeli intransigence on Lebanese soil, then that is the right of resistance and they have the right to target Israeli soldiers in this conflict. That is not terrorism. That is a legitimate resistance." source, Steven Emerson Testimony, U.S. House Committe On Foreign Affairs, pg. 4 : http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/eme073108.pdf

The constellation of organizations to which Mr. Asbahi is linked should give pause for concern.

For example, Asbahi, a Chicago lawyer, is on the speakers list of the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] [see, http://www.isna.net/Programs/pages/Speakers-Services.aspx#17].

ISNA is widely understood to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist Egyptian group that created Hamas. ISNA was named last summer as an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation's largest terror prosecution, U.S. vs Holy Land Foundation and is the largest Saudi funded da'wa enterprise in North America. [source, http://www.nysun.com/article/55778?access=284047]

Asbahi's ISNA biography reveals that he is involved in numerous Islamist organizations including the Nawawi Foundation [a da'wa organization run by a convert to Islam which presents all of history from an Islamist perspective] as well as the National Association of Muslim Lawyers [NAML] which has close ties to the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR], which has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas as well as having been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing Holy Land prosecution.

According to his ISNA bio, Asbahi also, "serves as a member of the board of directors of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding," [ISPU].

The ISPU's Islamist roots run deep.

Muktedar Khan, a prominent Islamist and fellow at ISPU, testified before Congress [see, http://www.ispu.org/policy_briefs/articledetailpb-8.html] absurdly claiming that Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, "is struggling for independence," and that Hezbollah is only, "motivated by geopolitics," and does not share, "political goals with Al Qaeda."

The National Association of Muslim Lawyers often serves as the legal mouthpiece for terror friendly groups such as CAIR and ISNA and recently petitioned the Attorney General to remove, both CAIR and ISNA from their designation as co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.

The appointment of Mazen Asbahi to be Obama's liason to Arab and Muslims is another indication of Obama's worrying associations. With Islamist Asbahi at the helm of the campaign's outreach effort to Muslims it is clear that an Obama presidency would give groups like MPAC and ISNA intimate access to key government decision makers and bring the "United States of Allah," one step closer to reality .

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=obamaid=8.1.08%2Ehtm

-----------------------------

# Subject: RADICAL MARXISTS, COMMUNIST PARTY USA & OBAMA

CPUSA, (Communist Party USA) and Obama Platforms Are Identical

Election 2008 Help Make History

Turn Our Country Around A new day is dawning. Our country is at a turning point. This is a time of great possibility. Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA The choice is clear. Stay with the Bush-McCain race to the bottom or raise up the whole country with a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right on November 4.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cpusa-and-obama-platforms-are-identic...

CPUSA - websites below
http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/

The 1960's Radical Marxists Behind Obama's Campaign: http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/2008/07/1960s-radical-marxists-...

http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama%20is%20a%20M...

Almost every Marxist from the 1960's has been reborn supporting the Obama campaign. Obama is now in the middle of lying to the public in pretending to move more centrist. Don't believe it.

Patriots Against Obama: http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com
From the The Wall Street Journal 6-17-08:
Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Marxist Obama is for Redistribution of Wealth: http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/2008/06/marxist-obama-is-for-re...

As Patriots we must stand together against the Marxist that is Barack Hussein Obama. He is unqualified to be President of the United States. He is Jimmy Carter part II. He is part and parcel of the dirty, elitist, Chicago political machine. Obama has never managed or run anything of significance. He is man of questionable background with dubious associations to criminals, racists, and terrorists. It would be a dire, dire four years if this man becomes President.

http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/2008/06/marxist-obama-is-for-re...

-----

Here is what you will have left if you vote for bo! Since the lie's are being spread that Palin called him "Sambo" which by the way are untrue!!!!

Sambo's Coffee Wooden Nickels

# Obama's global poverty programhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=73554

Barack Obama's hallmark, keystone plan during his short tenure in Congress. It is called the Global Poverty Act, and its initial cost was set at $845 billion.

* www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=73554

* · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obamas+global+poverty+plan&d=739139...

* I have been telling people this for months now from the article on the Democratic underground now here is more!!! The original article I found is below. Someone should get this information out ~~~

Fanny, Freddie, and Obama *** "...waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle."
Source: American Spectator
URL Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp? art_id=13841

Washington Prowler
Fanny, Freddie, and Obama
By The Prowler
Published 9/8/2008 12:08:38 AM

When President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson to serve as Treasury Secretary, Republicans raised a red flag that Paulson, who, along with his wife, has strong ties to the Democrat party, would not be an honest broker with Republicans.

That seems to have been borne out, with sources inside of Treasury reporting that Paulson briefed Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign advisers on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout plan before offering such a briefing to the McCain campaign.

In fact, the McCain campaign had sought a similar briefing several days ago as word spread that a bailout plan was to be unveiled and had been turned down by Paulson's senior staff.

The next question is: Why was the Obama campaign so keen on getting advanced word about the bailout?

"They have a huge problem with the mortgage and housing market story, and everyone is missing it," says a Republican political media consultant with ties to the Obama campaign due to the bipartisan nature of the firm he does work with.

"You look at Obama's economic advisers, the guys he has counted on from day one and who have raised him a ton -- and I mean a ton -- of money: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of them are waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle."

Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.

"How can Obama go out with a straight face and saw it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?" says a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "It's his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama's campaign coffers. If the McCain campaign let's this one go, they deserve to lose."

It isn't just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.

Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.

"We ought to be able to -- rightly -- hang the Fannie and Freddie scandal around the neck of Obama, if they can get out in front," says a House Republican. "Middle-class folks' mortgages are probably safe, but the American taxpayer will also be paying for this scandal for years to come."

U.S. government takes over mortgage giants (PRICE UP TO $200 BILLION)
Source: Seattle Times
URL Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com
Published: Sep 7, 2008
Author: (unknown)
Post Date: 2008-09-07 23:38:58 by glc1173
14 Comments

The Bush administration's seizure of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is potentially a $200 billion bet that it will help reverse a prolonged housing and credit crisis.

The historic move announced Sunday won support from both presidential campaigns, but private analysts worried that it may not be enough to stabilize the slumping housing market given the glut of vacant homes for sale, rising foreclosures, rising unemployment and weak consumer confidence.

Officials announced that both giant institutions were being placed in a government conservatorship, a move that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said allowing the companies to fail would have extracted a far higher price on consumers by driving up the cost of home loans and all other types of borrowing because the failures would "create great turmoil in our financial markets here at home and around the globe."

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com predicted that 30-year mortgage rates, currently averaging 6.35 percent nationwide, could dip to close to 5.5 percent. That's because investors will be more willing to buy the debt issued by Fannie and Freddie - and at lower rates - since the federal government is now explicitly standing behind that debt.

"Effectively, the federal government has now become the nation's mortgage lender," he said. "This takes a major financial threat off the table."

Futures on all major stock indexes rose about 2 percent in electronic trading Sunday night, another sign of investor relief about the takeover plan

The companies, which together own or guarantee about $5 trillion in home loans, about half the nation's total, have lost $14 billion in the last year and are likely to pile up billions more in losses until the housing market begins to recover.

The Treasury Department said it was prepared to put up as much as $100 billion over time in each of the companies if needed to keep them from going broke, in exchange for senior preferred stock. Treasury will immediately be issued $1 billion of such stock from each company, which will pay 10 percent interest. Further purchases of preferred stock will be triggered if quarterly audits find that the companies' capital cushion is below prudent standards.

The government, which will receive warrants representing ownership stakes of 79.9 percent in each company, is hoping that its moves will reassure nervous investors that they can continue to buy the debt of the two companies.

In a statement, President Bush said, "Americans should be confident that the actions taken today will strengthen our ability to weather the housing correction and are critical to returning the economy to stronger sustained growth."

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama issued a statement agreeing that some form of intervention was necessary, and promised, "I will be reviewing the details of the Treasury plan and monitoring its impact to determine whether it achieves the key benchmarks I believe are necessary to address this crisis."

Republican presidential nominee John McCain also voiced support while his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said that Fannie and Freddie "have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

The conservatorship will be run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the new agency created by Congress this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie, a move taken at the same time that Congress greatly expanded the power of the Treasury Department to make loans to the two companies and purchase their stock.

The executives and board of directors of both institutions are being replaced. Herb Allison, the former head of the TIAA-CREF retirement investment fund, was selected to head Fannie Mae, and David Moffett, a former vice chairman of US Bancorp, was picked to head Freddie Mac.

Paulson was careful not to blame Daniel Mudd, the outgoing CEO of Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac's departing CEO Richard Syron for the companies' current problems. While both men are being removed as the top executives, they have been asked to remain for an unspecified period to help with the transition.

Fannie and Freddie both purchase home loans from banks and then repackage those loans as mortgage-backed securities which they either hold on their own books or sell to investors around the globe. This process provides banks with more money to make more home loans, greatly expanding home ownership.

The impact of the government takeover on existing common and preferred shares, which have slumped in value in the last year, will depend on how investors react to Paulson's assertion that they must absorb the cost of further losses first. Under the plan, dividends on both common and preferred stock would be eliminated, saving about $2 billion a year.

After the Treasury Department's announcement, credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded Fannie and Freddie's preferred stock to junk-bond status, but reaffirmed the U.S. government's triple-A rating.

The Federal Reserve and other federal banking regulators said in a joint statement Sunday that "a limited number of smaller institutions" have significant holdings of common or preferred stock shares in Fannie and Freddie, and that regulators were "prepared to work with these institutions to develop capital-restoration plans."

The Fed released a letter from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to James Lockhart, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in which the Fed chief said he concurred in Lockhart's decision to take control of Fannie and Freddie saying the action "will help ensure the safe and sound operation of the enterprises."

Analysts were split on how much the takeover could eventually cost taxpayers although they all agreed the up-front costs will be substantial, possibly hitting $100 billion as the Treasury is called upon to bolster the capital cushions at both institutions.

However, if the plan does the trick of stabilizing the housing market and home prices stop falling and rebound, then the assets of both Fannie and Freddie should rise in value and the government should be able to sell off the companies and recoup its investments.

But it could take a long time to work through that process given all the headwinds facing housing at the moment from the plunge in home prices to soaring defaults on mortgages which are dumping more homes on an already glutted market. The weak economy has pushed unemployment to a five-year high of 6.1 percent, further reducing demand for homes.

"I think the government will end up having to put in far more money then they are planning right now (given all the problems facing housing) but the important thing is the agencies have been taken over by the government," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands. "That means there will be less panic in financial markets."

Under government control, the companies will be allowed to expand their support for the mortgage market over the next year by boosting their holdings of mortgage securities they hold on their books from a combined $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion. Starting in 2010, though, they are required to drop their holdings by 10 percent annually until they reach a combined $500 billion.

In addition, officials said the Treasury Department plans to purchase $5 billion in mortgage-backed securities issued by the two companies later this month, the first of a series of purchases planned by the government in an effort to bolster for these securities, which was badly shaken a year ago when the credit crisis first erupted with soaring defaults on subprime mortgages.

Paulson said that it would be up to Congress and the next president to figure out the two companies' ultimate structure and the conflicting goals they operated under - maximizing returns for shareholders while also being required to facilitate home buying for low- and moderate-income Americans.

"There is a consensus today ... that they cannot continue in their current form," he said.

Members of Congress will be watching in the coming months to see how the takeover works, but more housing legislation appears unlikely until next year given the few weeks remaining both Congress quits to hit the campaign trail.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. said the intervention was sparked by worries within the Bush administration that foreign governments would stop holding Fannie and Freddie's debt. "This was the prudent course to take," he said.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., announced his committee would hold hearings on the takeover to address a number of unanswered questions so that the American people will know "if this unprecedented proposal will help keep mortgages affordable, stabilize the markets and protect taxpayer interests."

Lockhart said that all lobbying activities of both companies would stop immediately. Both companies over the years made extensive efforts to lobby members of Congress in an effort to keep the benefits they enjoyed as government-sponsored enterprises.

Sunday's actions followed a series of meetings Paulson had with Bush and other top administration economic officials with Bush relying heavily on the judgment of Paulson, who was the head of investment giant Goldman Sachs before he joined the Cabinet in 2006.

"It is really an assent to Hank's direction, guidance and judgment," said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss behind-the-scenes deliberations.

* Jackson Williams: Joe Biden: No True Friend of Working Men and Women: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/joe-biden-true-friend-of_...

... knows that the bankruptcy bill is a disaster for average folks. Joe Biden ... book and he pays on a mortgage for ... Those bankruptcy bills are a root cause of the housing crisis.

o www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/joe-biden-true-friend-of_b_12077...

o · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=biden+bill+started+the+mortgage+cri...

o MBNA paid Biden son at critical time for bill: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/25/politics/p15...

... the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill early in 2005, Biden ... remain on Palin vetting; 49ers' daunting start doesn ... Mortgage crisis aside, suburban sprawl isn't going away.
+ www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/25/politics/p151551D46...
+ · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=biden+bill+started+the+mortgage+cri...

+ Obama Got Discount on Home Loan - washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/01/ST20080701...

Obama Got Discount on Home Loan Campaign Defends Lower Rate as Lender Competition for Business ... of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan ...
# www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/01/ST2008070103301.h...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=738670...

+ Obama Got Discount on Home Loan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR200807...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=738670...

# Show more results from www.washingtonpost.com: http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=site:www.washingtonpost.com+obama+...

+ Newsmax.com - Obama, Like Dodd and Conrad, Got Cheap Home Loan: http://news.newsmax.com/?K6CDX1fFxaCTBJFqH12u.BRZn3letJR1K&http://www.ne...

Obama, Like Dodd and Conrad, Got Cheap Home Loan ... home loans. Obama, D-Ill ... Countrywide is the same bank involved in the loan scandal that caused Obama's vice ...

w# news.newsmax.com/?K6CDX1fFxaCTBJFqH12u.BRZn3letJR1K&http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/oba...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=739083...

+ newsobserver.com | Obama got discount on home loan after becoming ...: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1127541.html

Obama got discount on home loan after becoming senator ... the banking committee, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., by another lender, Countrywide ...

# www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1127541.html

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=739083...

+
Obama's Countrywide-like Sweetheart Mortgage Deal | Redstate: http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/obamas_countrywide_li...

... as head of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan ... That said, those loans carry a much higher rate than a loan for 650k. Obama got an enormously ...

# archive.redstate.com/stories/elections2008/obamas_countrywide_like_sweetheart_mortgage_de...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=738934...

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 1 of 4

Obama's Money Cartel
February, 23 2008
By Pam Martens
Source: CounterPunch

Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it’s marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn’t the press curious about this?

Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you’ll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by
predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - and this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared this month on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don’t. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn’t compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, ! and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the “yes, we can” candidate in bed with this cartel? How can we, the people, make change if Obama’s money backers block our ability to be heard?

Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street.

The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we’re still in the primary season.

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13
http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 2 of 4

But hasn’t Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn’t taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn’t the press given him a free pass on this statement?

Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina, on January 22, 2008:

“Washington lobbyists haven’t funded my campaign, they won’t run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president”.

Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:

“Candidates typically spend a week like this – right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline – on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees”.

The Center for Responsive Politics’ website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he’s not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist.

What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy.

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005.

Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:

“Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights..”.

Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13
http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 3 of 4

House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway. The AGs wrote: “State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions...”

The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as follows:

“Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law”.

This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. “The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class-action bill”, says Public Citizen.

One of the hardest-working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.

According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown’s class-action lobbyists included “Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La).”

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown’s partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped to gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.

Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation’s history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion, for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:

“According to federal data, people of color are three times more likely to have subprime loans: highcost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites”.

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13
http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 4 of 4

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. “This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism.”

Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans?

How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called “Rocopoly Money” (like a sick board game), after “blitz” nights of soliciting loans by phone?

How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the classaction vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation’s poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer.

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741 @ aol.com

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16601

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

AMERICA IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY
By Doug Newman - dougnewman @ juno.com
June 30, 2004

Independence Day is upon us. This July 4 we will celebrate the 228th anniversary of our independence from Britain and our birth as a free nation. We will watch fireworks, go to barbecues, go camping (at tax-funded state and national parks), go to baseball games (in tax-funded stadiums) and hear endless talk about how gosh darn wonderful it is that we live in a free country.

Or do we live in a free country?

Consider the following.

In a free country, taxation would be well-nigh non-existent. You could keep what you earned and you could spend, save, invest and donate as you saw fit. You would have far more money with which to solve your own problems.

In a free country, there would not be 20,000-plus laws on the books infringing – and even denying – the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Crime would plummet as criminals would never know who was armed.

In a free country, you could educate your children as you saw fit, without asking anyone’s permission. You could home school you kids if you wanted. Catholics could send their kids to the Our Lady of Mercy School; Baptists could send their kids to the Obadiah Baptist School; Mormons could send their kids to the Joseph Smith school; Muslims could send their kids to the Allah Akbar School; believers in Mungabunga could send their kids to Mungabunga school. If you are not spiritual, you could send your kids to the Whitney Houston School -- “Where the children are the future” – or to the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young School – “Where we teach your children well”. Prayer, declining academic standards, evolution, creation, condoms, gay curricula, busing, standardized testing, bullying, discipline, dress codes and all the other debates surrounding education today would cease to be social issues.

In a free country, businesses would not be crushed in a regulatory vise grip. Millions of jobs would stay here in America rather than going to Honduras and Bangladesh.

In a free country, the military would be used strictly for national defense. We would not have troops in 135 countries. We would heed the Founders’ advice and steer clear of foreign alliances, which have been nothing but trouble anyway. We would withdraw from the United Nations and all its subsidiary organizations. Terrorism would cease to be a threat: when we stop throwing our weight around “over there”, hatred and resentment toward the United States will be far, far less.

In a free country, we would not have the world’s highest incarceration rate.

In a free country, jurors could judge not only the facts pertaining to a given case, but also the law relevant to that case. If Juror Smith thought Defendant Jones was being tried under a stupid law, Juror Smith could vote to acquit on that basis and that basis alone. The prison population would plummet.

In a free country, the value of money would be tied to gold or silver. The Federal Reserve Bank would be shut down. We would not see our savings and our futures eroded by inflation. And we would not owe bazillions of dollars to folks who already have bazillions of dollars.

In a free country, it would take neither a village nor a police state to raise a child. Government would not act in loco parentis for an absentee Mommy and Daddy. Parents would be responsible for raising their own children. Most of the problems we have with kids today – sex, drugs, violence – would be greatly minimized.

In a free country there would be no war on drugs. Drug profits and street crime would plummet. It would not be the government’s job to keep people off of drugs. It would be the job of parents, churches, Mungabunga temples, etc. Back when it was this way, there was almost no “drug problem” at all. (If the Mungabunga people smoke that hooch in their rituals, they would be free to do so without fear of DEA harassment.)

In a free country, we would not constantly be relinquishing our freedom in exchange for security. People would know that the greatest threat to their security comes from their own government.

In a free country, if a state decided it had had enough of rule by Washington, D.C., it could secede from the union without fear of reprisal.

In a free country, there would be no law forbidding what you could ingest into your body. If a certain medication worked, your doctor could recommend it and you could take it without fear of punishment.

In a free country, there would be no welfare state, no education state and no medical state. There would not be a permanent underclass, the quality of education would be vastly improved, and medicine would be far less expensive. Moreover, immigrants would know that coming to America would mean either sink or swim. Deadbeats would not come here looking for a handout. And all immigrants would, out of necessity, learn English.

In a free country, there would be no minimum wage. Millions of jobs would be created in the inner cities overnight. Congressmen, senators, and other government workers would be paid what they are worth.

In a free country, there would be no Selective Service System. Threats of a draft would meet with furious resistance, not lame justifications.

In a free country, there would be no Patriot Act. There would be no "sneak and peek" warrants. The authorities would have to obtain a warrant to review your bank accounts and e-mails. Habeas Corpus would be secure.

In a free country, there would be no surrender of sovereignty to entities like the UN, where we can be outvoted 2-1 by such paragons of personal freedom as Sudan and North Korea. Our troops would not be involved in UN sponsored wars. Moreover, things like NATO and the International Criminal Court would no longer have any relevance.

In a free country, there would be no “promise” of Social Security at age 62 or 65 or 67 or … how far back will they have moved it when you reach your golden years? You could take that same money and put it in the most profitable private sector investments you could find. Furthermore, you would not be constantly tracked by means of your Social Security Number.

In a free country, you would only be punished if you inflicted physical harm on somebody else. Rick Stanley: http://www.stanley2002.org would never have been arrested and Martha Stewart would be a free woman. Randy Weaver’s wife and son would still be alive. The Branch Davidians would be living in peace on the outskirts of Waco. Non-violent drug offenders would not waste away in prison, while convicted rapists and murderers went free.

In a free country, churches would truly be exempt from taxation, which would be minimal to begin with. The IRS would not have conducted raids on the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, Dr. Kent Hovind’s creation science theme park and other ministries that have not kissed up to the government in order to be tax exempt. Indeed, there would be no IRS.

In a free country, we would not have adopted nine of the ten “planks” of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. How have we done this? (1): http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/notafree.html#Gene

In a free country, your property rights would not be under attack. (Plank 1) There would be no zoning laws. You could not lose your home or business for failure to pay taxes. There would be no EPA harassment of landowners over “wetlands” and other issues. The FEDGOV would not be the nation's largest landowner.

In a free country, there would be no progressive income tax. (Plank 2) Again, there would be no IRS. Period.

In a free country, there would be no inheritance tax. (Plank 3)

In a free country, there would be no confiscation of property of those who resisted the powers that be. (Plank 4) Consider what they did to my friend Rick Stanley. (2): http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/notafree.html#Rick

In a free country, there would not be a central bank. (Plank 5) There would be no Federal Reserve and there would not a multi-zillion dollar national debt.

In a free country, there would be no government control of communications and transportation. (Plank 6) There would be no FCC, DOT, ICC, etc. Airports would not be mini-police states.

In a free country, there would be no government intrusion in manufacturing and agriculture. (Plank 7) There would be no Department of Labor or Department of Agriculture. Your business could not be shut down for OSHA violations. There would be no federal farm subsidies or price supports.

In a free country, there would be no federal control of labor. (Plank 8) There would be no National Labor Relations Board, no minimum wage laws, no affirmative action or racial quotas.

The merger of agriculture and industry (Plank 9) is tough to explain in one short paragraph. The centralizers can only be happy that farming is increasingly controlled by conglomerates that are far more likely to kiss up to the FEDGOV than a family that has worked the same piece of land for three generations.

In a free country, the government would not be in control of education. (Plank 10) I am fond of pointing out to people that, while neither the Bible nor any of America’s Founding documents say anything about state education, you will find state education as a policy prescription of the Communist Manifesto.

So there you have it.

America is not a free country.

I know, I know, I know: I can vote this November and I can write this essay without fear of punishment. And, no, there are no death camps yet.

However, if this country continues on its present course, I will one day be imprisoned for dissing the FEDGOV and there will be death camps.

The incineration of 80 innocent people by the FEDGOV at Waco in 1993 was a trial balloon floated before a brainwashed nation. Grotesquely excessive forced was used for no good reason, and millions of Americans derisively giggled at “that cult.” When they came for the Davidians, we did not say anything because we were not Davidians.

Today, millions of Americans still buy the lie that America is a free country. Hitler knew the power of the lie: if you lie to people often enough, they will believe anything. And while we are not at the Hitler phase yet, we will arrive there if we keep (a) believing everything our government – or at least our preferred faction of the government – says and (b) believing we are a free nation. You cannot have it both ways.

Sadly, some people will not clue in until the death camp phase. I pray fervently that enough Americans wake up before then.

Scripture tells us to preach the truth without ceasing, for there will come a time when people will not want to hear the truth. Rather, they will surround themselves with ear-ticklers who will tell them whatever they want to hear, regardless of its veracity. (II Timothy 4:2-4)

People ask me from time to time if I get frustrated fighting the freedom fight in a society where so many will gladly relinquish freedom for a false sense of security. To be honest, the answer is yes. However, I must continue to fight this fight and leave the results to God.

Happy Fourth of July.

------

One reader's response: In a truly Free Country anybody could do what ever they damned well wanted to do with out any form of limitations whatsoever!

------

(1) For my info on the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, I must give credit to my friend Gene Chapman, who asks if American troops are in fact fighting for communism: www.exodus10-3.org/us-troops-fighting-for-communism.shtml

(2) http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_29524...

Freely Speaking: Essays by Doug Newman: http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/iwrote.html

http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth
dougnewman @ juno.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From John Stokes

Post your comments to The Canadian blog. www.members.agoracosmopolitan.com.

John Stokes
The Canadian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Big Al

American have been enslaved since before the founding of this country and totally subjects to criminals running the show since 1787. As the Last of the Mohecians said, "not untill the white man is free will we be free"

Big Al

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Sankar Narayanan

Indian aborigines were crushed and subordinated by the invading Aryans. The minority rogues calling themselves upper castes introduced the obnoxious racism viz Varnashrama system of apartheid since Rig Veda days. The minority hegemony over the majority Sudras and 5th varnas still persists. Buddha attempted. But failed. Gandhi tried and paid a heavy price. These upper caste rascals proclaim vasudeiva kutumbakkam; but practice treacherous colour discrimination. Any attempt to break this 5000 years old caste-based RESERVATION enjoyed by this exploiting sect will be met with fiercest resistance in the name of MERIT.

European thugs and outlaws landed in Americans like our Aryan invaders and enslaved the aborigines of America. These aggressors also talk the democracy and human rights. But they virtually drink human blood.

What a similarity between these thugs! Hypocrisy is the name of the game. No correlation between thoughts, words and deeds.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Kesava Pillai

Sankar,
Update your knowledge of history. Research has concluded incontrovertiblwas no Aryan invasion from the West and this was a fabrication by British to create the rift between fair and dark complexioned Indians categorizing them as Aryans and Dravidians.

Aryan is not a race. The term Arya in Sanskrit means "Respected", Enlightened, teacher..etc. and has no connotation to any particular race. There are so many Arya-s in Tamilnadu too. If you want I'll give authentic articles on the same.

Varnasrama categorises people according to their skills and professions followed. A Brahmin's son cannot be a Brahmin unless he masters the Veda-s or the texts assigned. Brahmo Gnanethy Brahmana: One who has understood and learnt about this Universe is a Brahmana. Similarly Kshatriya-s as rulers and warriors, Vaisya-s as traders/ businessmen and the rest unskilled as Sudra-s doing miscellaneoufor the three categories above. If a Sudra learns Veda-s and excels himself he could be a Brahmana according to the original classification.

In several millenea, apparently this has metamorphosed to geneology, since a father usually trains the offsprings in their skills and a Brahmin's son usually picks up the education from his parents and so on.

When the Govt. is controlled by over 67% of SC/ST/OBC as Ministers or bureaucrats or Govt. staff and there are reservations from 50% to 75%(Tamilnadu) in all admissions to educational institutions, Govt. jobs and even accelerated promotions, how can you blame the 3% Brahmin presence in these areas for the "treacherous colour discrimination" and you call them rascals?

Wherever intelligent outputs are essential you have to recruit a Brahmin or upper caste Hindu or converts from these Castes. Who is the Chairman of Pepsi the highest paid Brahmin woman from Tamilnadu? How many SC/ST/OBC-s are there in NASA or Silicon Valley or even in India- in ISRO or PRL or Professors in elite institutions?

Sc/St/OBC-s have to study hard and come up. When there is free lunch and reserved jobs even for those failed, nobody would study and status quo would continue with such bad tongue leashed out by people like you for the unreachable out of jealousy, in spite of all freeships given by Govt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Kannan Devan

Deliberate ignorance of Jihadi terrorists and their cohorts are leading them to believe in false stories, distorted historical facts and blunders. For Muslims and their paid Jihadi agents Ignorance is bliss. There was no Aryan invasion of India. This false theory is deliberately fabricated to deny native Indians due credits for their undisputed contributions in science, literature, technology, mathematics, philosophy, medicine and agriculture. There was no Aryan invasion or subjugation of any other race in India. The British colonial masters have fabricated several theories to divide, conquer and subjugate Indians. Paid coolies are unable to escape from their mindset and elevate to higher level because of their voluntary surrender of their mind to Jihadis and their pay masters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Expose

DEMOCRACY IS A LIE AND IS SLAVERY BY ANY OTHER NAME.

Exposé
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

There are three kinds of people in the world:
* Those who do what they're told without question,
* Those who control them, and-
* Those who refuse to play that game - ENVIED AND HATED BY THE OTHER TWO.
Copula eame se non posit acceptara jocularem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Kannan Devan

There are three kinds of people in the world:
* Those who do what they're told without question, (MUSLIMS)
* Those who control them, and- (MULLAHS)
* Those who refuse to play that game - ENVIED AND HATED BY THE OTHER TWO. (Non MUSLIMS)
Copula eame se non posit acceptara jocularem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Sankar Narayanan

Dear Kesava Pillai,

Why this Pillai support?

Are you not ashamed?

Yes I updated my knowledge through a neo-Varanashrama Pundit by name Kesava.

Brahmin's son picks up education from his parents.

A Dalit's son picks up night soil carriage from his parents?

5000 yrs of caste-based Reservation for you people is ok. But 100 yrs old de-reservation is destroying all the MERIT in this land! This chori MERIT acquired by centuries of cheat and loot should have been confiscated on Aug 15, 1947.

Had it been done, 70% of Central Govt employees even today would not have been from upper castes. Out of 400 professors in IIT-Madras, 340 cannot be from upper castes.

Vedas, puranas, smiritis etc preach rank racism. Brahminism, Sanskrit, Hindu Gods and casteism are inseperable. Like Kesava and Pillai.

You may say the casteist Rig Veda was written by British to defame the noble Brahmins. You may even suggest it was the British who introduced untouchability in India. Forced Dalits to carry human refuse. Refused temple entry. Taught Talibanic Brahmins that those who study need not work; and those who work must not study.

Govt jobs can accomodate mere two crore plus people. What is the number of employable youths in this nation? Whom are you fooling? We need de-reservation for 5000 yrs!!

Why are you boiling that "When the Govt. is controlled by over 67% of SC/ST/OBC as Ministers or bureaucrats or Govt. staff and there are reservations from 50% to 75%(Tamilnadu) in all admissions to educational institutions, Govt. jobs and even accelerated promotions, how can you blame the 3% Brahmin presence in these areas for the "treacherous colour discrimination" and you call them rascals"?

Democracy does not mean continued minority loot. Lower castes in Hinduism, Budhists, Muslims and Christians constitute oppressed majority. But this 3% scheming rougues still want to rule the nation by proxy. That is why the rascal namakarnam.

Kesav, there is a limit for your jokes: "Varnasrama categorises people according to their skills and professions followed". Have you ever seen a Namboodiri or a Pillai carrying night soil and a Brahmin lady planting seedlings? Ever seen an Iyengar porter?

"Wherever intelligent outputs are essential you have to recruit a Brahmin or upper caste Hindu or converts from these Castes. Who is the Chairman of Pepsi the highest paid Brahmin woman from Tamilnadu? How many SC/ST/OBC-s are there in NASA or Silicon Valley or even in India- in ISRO or PRL or Professors in elite institutions?"

That is because of your filthy merit obtained by cheating Sudras for 5000 yrs. The so called 'Merit' sanctioned by Rig Veda and Varnashrama system of Reservation brought only social ignominy and economic misery to the majority since mythological days. Merit theory can no longer fool the Sudras. Because they are not the beneficiaries of this Holy Merit. We welcome all these suckers to migrate to their original land, putting a permanent end to looting.

"Sc/St/OBC-s have to study hard and come up. When there is free lunch and reserved jobs even for those failed, nobody would study and status quo would continue with such bad tongue leashed out by people like you for the unreachable out of jealousy, in spite of all freeships given by Govt".

Don't worry, we will study after packing you all Merit cheats out of our land. By the by, why your Talibanic Iyers asked us not to study since ages? Similarly you stop your studies at least for 2500 yrs. Tit for tat. Free ships: What an arrogance?

If a Sudra listens Veda, molten tin to be poured into his ears.

If he has the audacity to read Veda, his body must be split.

Kesav, are these the writings from British?

We are Sudras. We don't require your cheating Merit. Pl quit our land. We know how to manage our affairs. Outsiders have no business to meddle with our affairs. You get lost to Sillicon valley or to Mayanam. Jan chodo.

Request drop this abnoxious casteist leg Pillai from your name. If you are a chakkiliyan, can you write Kesava Chakkiliyan? Pl realise and repent. Don't grumble and boil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

United States Of America And United States Are The Same

Links: http://freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=8434 or try https://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=2&t=2&keyword=Lieber%20Cod... or try freedomunderground.org and search for this document

The Informer

WAR POWERS TODAY IN AMERICA
by the principles applied in 1862

FALLACY & MYTH of PEOPLE BEING THE SOVEREIGN and that the Constitution was created by the common man.

By The Informer

In reading the Book WAR POWERS, by Whiting, who was the Solicitor General of the War Department of The United States, published in 1864, it does not come as a shock to me that we are nothing but slaves of Congress, AKA United States. Whiting was Lincoln point man and developed the basis for Lincolns justification of the War Policies. Whiting teamed up with Francis Lieber who wrote the "Lieber Code" that we are now under. James Montgomery, a present day researcher, also has written extensively on the Reconstruction Acts and the Lieber Code and how they apply to Americans to this very day. After Whiting left office, his position that he held, was never replaced.

A little prelude to the book by John Yoo, War Powers Under the Constitution of the United States, Author William Whiting.

An introduction by John Yoo, Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkley: JD., 1992, Yale Law School; AB., 1989, Harvard University who teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law.

Upon opening this book, the tenth edition of William Whiting's War Powers under the Constitution of The United States the reader may be surprised . . .. If anything, Whiting's work helps remove the blinders that a half century of controversy over undeclared wars- from Korea to Vietnam to Panama to the Persian Gulf- has placed over the eyes of the legal profession. Born on March 3, 1813 in Concorde, Mass., he attended Harvard and got his law degree in 1838. As a Boston attorney, Whiting became known as so masterful a trial lawyer that, in his day, the Common Pleas Court was sometimes called "Whitings Court". The Boston lawyer began writing in support of the Lincoln administration’s arrests of suspected sympathizers of the rebellion. As the war proceeded, Whiting joined the War Department as Solicitor at the request of President Lincoln himself. No doubt it had to do with Whitings publication, in 1862 in Boston. Whatever the reason for his appointment, Whiting became the point man for the Lincoln administration on the difficult and delicate constitutional issues that arose from the war.

Whiting joined a truly exceptional group of lawyers who would create many of the theories of the independent presidency and the national security state that would reappear in the middle of the twentieth century. In addition to patent officer Peter Wilson, Whiting was joined by former cabinet member and first judge advocate general Joseph Holt, international law scholar, and Francis Leiber, and Eathan Allen Hitchcock and Henry W. Halleck, both lawyers who became generals, the latter becoming General in Chief in 1862.

In Whiting's documents he developed the legal theories that would justify Lincolns measures to conduct the war successfully on both the war front and home front; he also took a prominent role in publicly disseminating and explaining these views.

One of the best students of Lincoln and of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize--winning historian- Mark E. Neely, even suggests that it was Whiting's first pamphlet, War Powers and the President, that convinced Lincoln that as commander in chief he could abolish slavery in the rebellious states. Until reading Whiting's works, Neely suggests, Lincoln had been reluctant to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is perhaps a tribute to Whiting's success that no successor was ever appointed to his position upon his resignation in 1865. His ardent support for the Republican Party continued after leaving government service. In 1868 he served as presidential elector for Ulysses S. Grant, and in 1872 he was overwhelmingly elected to Congress by the third district of Massachusetts. Death at age sixty, however, prevented Whiting from joining the legislative body that he had once worked with as a member of the executive branch.

End of prelude.

Contrary to what many people believe, the term United States is NOT separate and distinct from the term United States of America, because the two are synonymous. As I stated way back in 1990 and continue to state, America is a country, and the United States is NOT a country. The United States belongs to America. Since the phrase United States OF America contains the word "OF" between the two words United States and America, proper use of the word OF means the United States belongs to America. Another rule of grammar is that the phrase United States is a particular place and not a group of states united. To become a group of states the word United would have to appear as united States. The small "u" would change the word United from a noun to an adjective. So one, to be grammatically correct, would have to write united States of America to correctly mean all 50 States. But even that is not a country. Simply writing United States of America means only Congress, AKA United States. A very simple proof is when the TV airs the State of the Union message. The President is announced as always, "I now present the President of the United States." It is never announced, I now present the President of the united States of America. To be the President of the united States of America would mean that the Governors of each of the states would not have the final say on any laws passed in that state but would have to depend on submitting anything the Governor had to sign to the President for final approval.

Since I have shown previously in my other books, through copious government documents, both of the United States and England and History, that the common people never ratified the constitutions of any of the states, much less the United States; people still believe that they created the constitutions and are, therefore, the so-called Sovereigns. This sovereign status is claimed to be that the people can tell government what and when to do anything through their perceived notion that they have representatives and these so-called representatives are their servants. This is a myth that has been told people down through the centuries. This big lie is passed from generation to generation so much so that people of all walks of life now take it as gospel truth. This myth is what has caused much dissention among the vast majority of people and even to cause infighting amongst people called "patriots", "militia" and others of like mind.

This War Powers book is just another support for my research and others such as Mr. Montgomery. I will lead into this myth by quoting this great authority on War Powers and what he had to say back in 1864. This will be very short and as I read through the book I will add to his work to further show the Fallacy and Myth. It will be unbelievable to many, who still believe the Big Lie, that they are sovereign and somehow have control of this supposed government they alleged they created and can dispense with it when it becomes oppressive as it has today. I hope you are ready because what follows are not my words but those of the author Whiting and concurrence of all government branches. You also have to remember that we have been in a state of war with these people called Congress and the other two branches of so called government.

The United States is a belligerent government under international law of nations and the people therein. Yes you, dear reader, are the enemy subject and have never, ever, been a sovereign, and neither have your relatives dating back to 1787, UNLESS your relatives were one of the aristocracy having land and money and possibly a grant from the Crown.

Before I get into the book, and to give you what we call modern day research---Dr. Eugene Schroder did excellent research on this at the time I was also researching this material. I decided that since Mr. Schroder was doing this it would be redundant to do the same research, so I proceeded back to Lincoln to research the war powers back then. I had asked about 10 good researchers if they knew of the War Powers Acts, specifically 12 Stat 319 and none had researched it in order to give me any answers. But, I have to start with 48 Stat 1 which Roosevelt shoved through in Executive Order 2039, without Congress, on the 4th and 5th of March 1933. Then on March 9, 1933, Roosevelt convened Congress and basically told them what he did and that they had to sign off on it as he declared a national emergency. This National Emergency made the United States citizens enemies by adding them to the 1917 Trading with the Enemies Act by changing 5(b) of that Act to include Americans, which it never did before, which is you today.

The original draft was by the Federal Reserve System, NOT Congress, and can be found in President Hoover's Papers that can be obtained from any Federal Depository. On March 3, 1933, President Hoover said it was unconstitutional and refused to implement what the Federal Reserve Board drafted. Immediately after taking office on March 4, 1933, the first thing Roosevelt did after implementing what Hoover refused, was to close the banks so they could be issued licenses by the President to deal with the enemy, who was defined now to be all people in the country. Immediately after that, each State set up its own Emergency War Powers regime to coincide with the United States.

After thorough research in North Carolina by a team of 5 people, we came up with documentation between the United States, and not only North Carolina, but other States. It was to slowly induce people into obtaining licenses as now the people, being declared public enemies, had to have licenses. The documentation showed how all people that were not required to have a license to drive were now required to have a license merely to travel as a right because they were the enemies. My mother and father, both deceased, told me that they never had to get a license until 1936. This documentation also showed how speed laws were set; how federal labor laws and unemployment compensation was legislated into the States; and the most important of all the social security; touted as insurance, it was in actuality a means of licensing the "enemy" to track their commerce under the Trading Acts with the newly revised 1917 Trading with the enemy act.

This enemy surveillance is very evident today by the use of what should be termed the Social Slave number but is called Social Security. It was instituted by the President, NOT Congress as most people believe. Oh sure, Congress passed legislation so it appears they instituted it, but under the war powers only the President institutes anything of importance and Congress under the constitutional war powers takes a second seat. They, in effect, become the puppets of the Executive branch. While under the war powers, all branches that should come under the Legislative branch and even the judiciary are controlled by the executive department through the Commander-in-Chief.

Since 1933, and before then, we have always been under Executive Emergency Orders despite in 1974 all was repealed EXCEPT for section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. You can find it alive and well in Title 12 USC 95 (a)&(b). You can also find the other emergency war powers acts still existing from 1862 which have NEVER been repealed. They have their genesis from 12 Stat 319, and are 50 USC 212, 213, and 215 and 28 USC 2461 to 2465 as statutes passed as a direct and immediate result of declared emergencies. You will see how this is done as you read through this memorandum of mine.

This is totally under military powers of the Commander in Chief, The President. This military Rule allows the civil government to operate as it has, only it all comes under administrative directives of the Commander In Chief. This explains the reason all courts fly the Executives Commander In Chief gold fringe flag and Federal courts have stationary using the United States Executive Seal. Now that you know that, you have been under executive Rule before and since 1933. I will now go back to the first President to institute the Emergency War Powers Act to make the people the enemy of the State. Roosevelt just made you the enemy of the banking cartel to protect them. That is why the private banking system Board can do what they want with impunity. They even wrote in the law that the signature card you sign when opening a bank account, unbeknownst to you, states in the 35 to 38 page contract they are to give to you, but don't, that you assume the debt of the United States. This is unconscionable under the commercial law that you were never informed. This is your promise, assumpsit in legal terms, which obligates and binds you to pay the debt of the United States by becoming the surety. Remember all Banks controlled by the Federal Reserve System are agents of the United States Treasury.

How many people would enter a contract like that, knowing they are responsible for the national debt? Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and was made the fiscal agent of the Treasury to collect and disburse money, or chose in action called federal reserve notes, is the reason the 1040 IRS Form is a return; a return of a use portion of the debt that is circulated around by the enemy, AKA the people of America. This is a very insidious scheme that people have no idea exists. In fact I have found and written on the fact that in Title 31 it states that banks can collect taxes on the 1040 form that is presented to them. I have posted this research on www.atgpress.com/.

The first President to use the Emergency powers was Washington. He used it to institute the first private bank of the United States, which, was against all principles of the constitution, EXCEPT, when instituted under constitutional war power it became constitutional. Then in order to control the banks in each of the separate states, which Congress could not do under the Constitution in time of peace, he made districts out of each of the states. So now you had states and district states and that is how the district courts of each state were formed so the United States could now have control where it dared not tread before. Once emergency had been declared then all done under this act is constitutional. Contrary to what people believe this act DID NOT set the Constitution aside. It only operated in a different way under emergency powers.

Now with all this in mind that the Commander in Chief can operate within the Constitution when military rule under the Emergency Powers Act is invoked; we move to Lincolns time and his Solicitor General of the War Department who wrote the book to show how common people have always been considered as nothing but mere chattel property of a group of aristocracy that was called Congress. From the beginning, this is the foundation that has caused people to slowly lose what rights they THOUGHT they had, but the plan was to get where we are today without a major rebellion by the people.

This almost took place in 1861 with the Southern States wanting to secede from the Union, and caused Lincoln to invoke the Emergency Powers Act in Order that he could control the Government without Congress. He did this under the guiding of the works of Whiting. Once he invoked it Congress could do nothing to stop it and the Courts, under this Act cannot stop it at all as you will see why in End Note 17.

My comments, are placed in [brackets] so you know they are not from the Book. All other comments and information are end noted so as to keep the flow of the book in order. Every jot and tittle is duplicated as in the Book. So with that in mind let us move to the Book.
WAR POWERS

Chapter I--THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE, EITHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR IN TIME OF WAR.

There is no restriction as to the kind or character of private property which may be lawfully thus appropriated, whether it be real estate, personal estate, right in action or in possession, obligations for money, or for labor and service. Thus the obligations of minor children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and of persons owing labor and service to their masters, may lawfully be appropriated to public use, or discharged and destroyed for public benefit, by Congress, with the proviso that just compensation shall be allowed to the parent or master.
See END Note #1

The right to use the services of the minor, the apprentice, and the slave, for public benefit, belongs to the United States. The claims of all American citizens upon their services, whether by local law, orby common law, or by indentures, can be annulled by the same power, for the same reasons, and under the same restrictions that govern the appropriations of any other private property to public use.See END Note #2

THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE ALL SUBJECTS TO DO MILITARY DUTY.

Slaves, as well as apprentices and minors, are equally subjects of the United States, whether they are or are not citizens thereof. The government of the United States has the right to call upon its subjects to do military duty.

See END Note #3

"The general government of the United States has, in time of peace, a legal right, under the Constitution, to appropriate to public use the private property of any subject, or of any number of subjects, owing it allegiance.

Each of the States claims and exercises a similar right over the property of its citizens.

See END Note #4

"The only question is, whether this power is not exclusive, see Chirac v Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269; U.S. v Villato, 2 Dall. 372; Thirlow v Mass., 5 How. 585; Smith v Turner, 7 ib, 556; Golden v Prince,3 W.C.C. Reports, 314

Congress may thus give the privileges of citizenship to any persons whatsoever, black or white. Colored men, having been citizens in some of the States ever since they were founded, having acted as citizens prior to 1788 in various civil and military capacities, are therefore citizens of the United States, see case of Dred Scott; which no part denies that if colored men were citizens of either of the states which adopted the Constitution, they were citizens of the United States. ... If white subjects or citizens, owe labor or service, even by formal indentures, such obligations afford no valid excuse against the requisition of government to have them drafted into the militia to serve the country."

See END Note #5

INDEMNITY IS REQUIRED

"But, when individuals are called upon to give up what is their own for the advantage of the community, justice requires that they should be fairly compensated for it; . . . (Amendments, Art. V, last clause,) "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The language of this amendment admits the right of the United States to take private property for public use. This amendment, being now a part of the Constitution, leaves that right no longer open to question, if it ever was in questioned.

"PUBLIC USE"

What is "public use" for which private property may be taken?
Every appropriation for the benefit of the United States, either for a national public improvement, or to carry into effect and valid law of Congress for the maintenance, protection, or security of national interests, is "public use."

See END Note #6

REFERENCES AS TO THE CONSTITUTION, SHOWING THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS

The powers of the Legislative department in relation to war are contained chiefly in the following sections in the constitution:--

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.11. Congress may institute war by declaring it against an enemy. The President alone cannot do so. Also Congress may make laws concerning captures on land, as well as on water.

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl 12. Congress may raise and support armies: and provide and maintain a navy.

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.14. Congress may make laws for the government of land and naval forces.

Art. I., Sect. 8. Cl. 15. Congress may provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion.

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl. 16. And may provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.
The preamble to the Constitution declares the objects for which it was formed to be these: "to form a more perfect Union; establish justice; insure domestic tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

See END Note #7

RULES OF INTERPRETATION

"Congress may pass such laws in peace or in war as they are within the general powers conferred on it, unless they fall within some express prohibition of the Constitution. If confiscation or emancipation laws are enacted under the war powers of Congress, we must determine, in order to test their validity, whether, in suppressing a rebellion of colossal proportions, the United States are, within the meaning of the Constitution, at war with its own citizens? Whether confiscation and emancipation are sanctioned as belligerent rights by law and usage of civilized nations? And whether our government has full belligerent rights against its rebellious subjects."

ARE THE UNITED STATES AT WAR?

"War may originate in either of several ways. Civil war, within the meaning of the Constitution, exists whenever any combination of citizens is formed to resist generally the execution of any one or all the laws of the United States, if accompanied with overt acts to give that resistance effect."
See END Note #8

"Hence it follows, that government, while engaging in suppressing a rebellion, is not deprived of the rights of a belligerent against rebels by reason of the fact that no formal declaration of war has been made against them, as though they were an alien enemy--. . .. The right of a country to treat its rebellious citizens both as belligerents and as subjects has long been recognized in Europe, and by the Supreme Court of the United States* See Geo.III. Ch. 9 1777; Pickering Statutes, Vol. 31, page 312; President's Proclamation, April 16, 1861 and U.S. Statute at Large , 1861, App.P. 2. It has been decided, since this edition was in type, that citizens of the States in rebellion are considered as public enemies, and are not entitled to sue in courts of the United States

See END Note #9

THE LAW OF NATIONS IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION

Having shown that the United States being actually engaged in civil war ---- in other words, having become a belligerent power, without formal declaration of war,--- it is important to ascertain what some of the rights of belligerents are, according to the law of nations. It will be observed that the law of nations is above the constitution of any government; and no people would be justified by its peculiar constitution in violating rights of other nations. With this caveat, it will be desirable to state some of the rights of belligerents.

Either belligerent may seize and confiscate all the property of the enemy, on land or on the sea, including real as well as personal estate.

[This is exactly what they did to the woman as expressed in end note #9 and hundreds of
thousands of people in this country every year]

CAPTURE BY TITLE

Some persons have questioned whether title passes in this country by capture or confiscation, by reason of some of the limiting clauses of the constitution; and others have gone so far as to assert that all the proceedings under martial law, such as capturing the enemys property, imprisonment of spies and traitors, and seizures of articles contraband of war [all drug related or other avenues the government of 1999 uses, whether guilty or not to seize such property], and suspending the habeas corpus, are in violation of the Constitution, which declares that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, Art. V; that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, Art. V; that unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be made, Art IV; that freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, Art. I; and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Art. II.

THESE PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO A STATE OF WAR

If these rules are applicable to a state of war, then capture of property is illegal, and does not pass a title; no defensive war can be carried on; . . .Not a gun can be fired constitutionally, because it might deprive a rebel foe of his life without due process of law ---firing a gun not being deemed due process of law.

If these rules above cited have any application in time of war, the United States cannot protect each of the States from invasion by citizens of other States, nor against domestic violence;.

TRUE APPLICATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES

The clauses which have been cited from the amendments to the Constitution were intended as declarations of the rights of peaceful and loyal citizens, and safeguards in the administration of justice by the civil tribunals; but it was necessary, in order to give the government the means of defending itself against domestic and foreign enemies, to maintain its authority and dignity, and to enforce obedience to its laws, that it should have unlimited war powers. The right of war and the rights of peace cannot coexist. One must yield to the other. Martial law and civil law cannot operate at the same time and place upon the same subject matter. Hence the Constitution was framed with full recognition of that fact; it protects the citizen in peace and war; but his rights enjoyed under the Constitution are different from those to which he is entitled in time of war.

See END Note #10

WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT

None of these rights, guaranteed to peaceful citizens, by the Constitution belong to them after they have become belligerents against their own government. They thereby forfeit all protection under that sacred charter which they have thus sought to overthrow and destroy. [People, this was the ploy that the Roosevelt and Lincoln governments used to reign over the people of America. The South wanted to leave, not overthrow the government. The United States always talks with forked tongue and reversed the roles, as they declared the people the enemy, not the other way around]. One party to a contract cannot break it and at the same time hold the other to perform to it. It is true that if the government elects to treat them as subjects and to hold them liable only to penalties for violating statutes, it must concede to all of them all the legal rights and privileges which other citizens would have when under similar accusations;.

THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONFISCATION

Nothing in the Constitution interferes with the belligerent right of confiscation of enemy property. [Always remember people, that you are the enemy declared by your wonderful supposed government that you, claiming to be Sovereigns, can abolish.] The right to confiscate is derived from a state of war. It is one of the rights of war. The right of confiscation belongs to the government as the necessary consequence of the power and duty of making war--OFFENSIVE or defensive. (EMPHASIS mine)

If authority were needed to support the right of confiscation, it may be found in 3 Dallas, 227; Vit.lib.iii., ch. 8, sect. 188; lib., ch. 9, sect. 161; Smith v Mansfield, Cranch, 306-7; Cooper v Telfair, 4 Dallas; Brown v. U.S., 8 Cranch 110, 228, 229. >From the foregoing authorities, it is evident that the government has a right, as a belligerent power, to capture or to confiscate any and all the personal property of the enemy; that there is nothing in the Constitution which limits or controls the exercise of that right; and that capture in war, or confiscation by law, passes a complete title to the property taken; and that, if judicial condemnation of enemy property be sought, in order to pass title to it by formal decree of courts, by mere seizure, and without capture, the confiscation must have been declared by act of Congress, a mere declaration of war not being ex vi termini sufficient for that purpose.

See END Note #11

MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL LAW

In addition to the right of confiscating personal property of the enemy, a state of war also confers upon the government other not less important belligerent rights, and among them, the right to seize and hold conquered territory by military force, and of instituting and maintaining military government over it, thereby suspending in part, or in whole, the ordinary civil administration. The exercise of this right has been sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of California, Cross v Harrison, 16 How 164-190. And it is founded upon well-established doctrines of the law of nations. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived of any right guaranteed to him in the Constitution by reason of his subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in force, is constitutional law.

A SEVERE RULE OF BELLIGERENT LAW

"Property of persons residing in the enemys country is deemed, in law, hostile, and subject to condemnation without any evidence as to the opinions or predilections of the owner. If he is the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent States, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments towards his country, still his residence in the enemy's country impresses upon his property, engaged in commerce and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation. This familiar principle of law is sanctioned in the highest courts of England and of the United States, and has been decided to apply to cases of civil as well as of foreign war.

CIVIL RIGHT OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN LOYAL DISTRICTS ARE MODIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF WAR

While war is raging, many of the rights held sacred by the Constitution-- rights which cannot be violated by any acts of Congress-- may and must be suspended and held in abeyance.

See END Note #12

BELLIGERENT RIGHT TO CONFISCATE THE ENEMY'S REAL ESTATE

The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemys real estate, situated in this country, can hardly admit of a question. The title to no inconsiderable part of the real estate in each of the original States of the Union, rests upon the validity of the confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown. Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and American acts of confiscation were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties; their validity was never denied. The only authority which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived from the fact that they were the belligerents.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE JUDGE

"It belongs exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he has the authority, under the constitution, to call forth the militia and his decision is exclusive on all other person.

*Such is the language of Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in Martin v Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19

[Jumping to Chapter five and reading what the true meaning of the constitution is, will be shocking to those that think what they read is what they read, and cannot infer any other meaning. No so because the Constitution is couched in technical meaning, NOT common sense meaning. This was shown when I quoted Article I Section 8 clauses.]

TECHNICAL LANGUAGE TO BE CONSTRUED TECHNICALLY.

The language of the Constitution is peculiar; it is technical; and it shows on the face of it an intention to limit the technical operation of attainders, not to limit the scope or extent of legislative penalties. If the authors of the Constitution meant to say that Congress should pass no law punishing treason by attainder, or by its consequences, viz., forfeiture of estate, or corruption of blood, they would, in plain terms, have said so; and there would have been an end to the penalties of attainder, as there was an end to bills of attainder. Instead of saying, "Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but shall not impose the penalties of attainder upon the offender," they said, "Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted."

This phraseology has reference only to technical effect of attainder. The Aworking of forfeitures" is a phrase used by lawyers to show the legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts.

Note. Since the publication of the seventh edition, it has been decided by Underwood, J., in the Eastern District Court of the U.S. for Virginia, in the case of U.S. v Latham, first, that the Confiscation Act above cited is authorized by the Constitution; second, that by the terms of that Act (dated July 17th, 1862, ch. 195),

Love for Life

Search Love for Life

Main Menu

Navigation

Mailing List

Active forum topics

New forum topics

Recent comments

America Is A Free Country - Includes Background Information On Barack Obama And Lots Of Legal & Admiralty Law Information

Name:
E-mail: