Category Archives: Youth Educational Material

Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, Youth Educational Material December 4, 2009
I am so glad that the grandchildren are now home schooled, but it still does not totally eliminate the possibility of government intrusion into what content the parents may exclude from the curriculum.
 
This is a MUST read with follow-up calls to all our reps in DC. This rogue administration must be stopped and all the commie czars must be thrown back to the cesspool of corruption from whence they came.
 
Via FirstThings  aka former GatewayPundit:

excerpt:

Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily becausehe had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).

(snip)

Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own.According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.

The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

Continue here  for the complete disgusting breakdown of the Obama appointed & approved Safe Schools Czar’s agenda of what US Children are now to be taught in the classroom.

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part III: McCain & S. Res. 511 Were Meant To Sanitize Obama’s Ineligibility to Be President [correction/important addition in blue]

Corruption, Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material October 26, 2009 Comments: 16

Leo, this ones for you. “Thank You” for your dedication that lit a fire underneath me while educating me at the same time.

With persistence & perseverance, a researcher will inevitably come across the “ONE” document that brings full circle his/her research to a specific conclusion. Sometimes the conclusion backs the researcher’s theory and sometimes it does not.

I give you my final research to judge for yourself. Parts I & II with all the Congressional actions to eliminate ‘natural born’ from Article II, Sec I Clause V of the Cosntitution from 1973 forward can be found here.

Gasoline & Fire Do Not Mix

This is not a new concept in DC, yet it would seem these days that it has become the norm. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t as in the case of S. 2678, a bill [To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become president].

The bill was sponsored by Sen. McCaskill (MO) and introduced in the Senate on February 28, 2008. After having been read twice, the bill was then referred the Judiciary committee. On February 29thSen. Obama (IL) signed on as a co-sponsor and then on March 3rdSen. Menendez (NJ) & Sen. Clinton (NY) were added as co-sponsors to the bill. By March 4thSen. McCaskill & team had recruited a Republican, Sen. Coburn (OK) to join the ticket to usurp the constitution.  

Now, this particular bill was also 2 fold, its 1st point was to declare all children born to military ‘natural born’ citizens. The 2nd mission of the bill was to expand on the defininition of ‘natural born’ by including the following which is what jumped right out at me:

“Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: ‘Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.”(emphasis added)

So if we take McCaskill’s words ‘shall include’ and the singular use of ‘citizen’  we can conclude that Congress was aware of the Congressional history of the term ‘natural born’ and was looking for an out for McCain. But Obama, seizing his opportunity to ride the wave, rushed right over to McCaskill’s office and requested to be assigned as a co-sponsor of the legislation the very next day. Or was McCaskill the ‘fall gal’ all along? Did Obama & the Democratic elite know ahead of time of Obama’s ineligibility problem and used McCaskill or did she sign on to the corruption of her own volition? This we may never know.

Beginning sometime in 2007, the blogosphere was a buzz with a former Washington Post article from 1998  titled “McCain’s Panama Problem’ that had resurfaced and the search into the Panama Canal history took off at rocket speed. Questions regarding McCain’s eligibility continued to plague McCain & the RNC. The public announcement of S. 2678 on February 28, 2008 was like pouring gasoline onto an already burning fire.

A quick search of Internet archives shows that the issue was quite a ‘hot’ topic  however I was not paying too much attention to it at the time which I will forever regret. But someone else was paying very close attention. A certain someone, who has remained very close to Obama since his years at Harvard, was quietly working the backrooms of college campuses for the Obama campaign.

Obama’s “Tribe”

On January 16, 2007, Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times breaks with the scoop  that [L]aurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, calls Obama “one the two most talented students I’ve had in 37 years in teaching…When I look at my kids and grandkids and ask what makes me hopeful about the future-one thing is Barack Obama.]

Now, while this is not a full out in the open endorsement, it does give the initial opening for a future endorsement which seems to come in June of 2007  when Tribe appears in a campaign TV ad  for Obama, that kicked off in Iowa. Also in June, Tribe gives an interview to The Harvard Crimson  in which he states that although [h]e would back Hillary if she won the Democratic Party’s nomination, he has always championed Obama’s cause.]

On September 17, 2007 the Chicago Tribune publishes  an extensive list of Obama’s Policy team and listed under domestic policy is ‘Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law Professor). Then on November 19, 2007 MSNBC reports  that the first Obama campaign mailing had been sent out to NH voters and inside the mailer is a quote from Tribe. In addition to the endorsement in the campaign mailers, Tribe spent quite a bit of time that November touring New Hampshire campaigning for Obama.

Moving on into December of 2007, Tribe’s former endorsement is officially listed at Obama’s my.barackobama.com  by Eddie Lee, Obama Staff.

For some readers, this is where you may want to switch from coffee to a stiffer drink.

The “Fix” Is In

On January 31, 2008 Professor Tribe gives a persuasive talk  with the main argument on electability. In his talk, Tribe openly states that

he [c]onsidered it highly probable the John McCain will be the Republican candidate] and also that [h]e is convinced that Hillary is unelectable]. Tribe finishes his persuasive by talking about the importance of voting in the primaries, the importance that a candidate not win by a small margin and how there was no room for complacency.]

This pretty much wraps it up for me as to why Obama signed onto S. 2678 so quickly and why the wheels shifted so swiftly from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511. With Tribe already on Obama’s policy team, you can bank on the fact that discussions were already had that S. 2678 would have to be resubmitted as an amendment to the constitution, however there was a much swifter and less ovbious way to proceed that would sanitize Obama’s eligibility problem through McCain. With the help of the 2 most prominent/influential constitutional lawyers known to the DC circuit, they would use a non-binding, but publically accepted backdoor method called a Resolution.

Already laying out the background on Laurence Tribe, we must now look at Theodore Olson. Olson was born in Chicago; however he grew up in the same liberal stomping grounds of the San Francisco valley as Tribe. He received his law degree at Berkley in 1958 & is a member of The Federalist Society. While serving under Reagan & Bush Jr., Olson championed conservative & constitutional causes, though his actions out of public office lean more to the liberal progressive causes. After retiring from Solicitor General in 2004, Olson returned to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher at their DC office. Olson had previously worked for Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles (beginning in 1965) as an associate where he eventually made partner. Soon after the 2008 elections, Olson jumps the conservative ship & joins David Boies, (lead council for Gore in Bush v. Gore & an invited guest to Olson’s nuptials to Booth in Napa Valley, Ca in 2006) in Boies’s lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 in California.

Thus the question begs to be answered, why would a member of the Federalist Society, co-write an analysis that is in complete conflict to what the Federalist Society’s review of natural born citizen is? Is his membership for decoration purposes only? Maybe, however I believe Olson finally released his inner ‘liberal civil rights activist’ that has been pent up for decades.

Note must also be taken that Olson’s wife, Lady Booth is very active in the liberal activist realm & was a staunch supporter of Obama during the 2008 campaign. Thanks to commenter ‘royll’ for bringing this to my attention.

The Two Views Become One

As I stated earlier, the change from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511, a resolution [R]ecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen] moved curiously swiftly.

I will also not go into all the ‘whereas’, as I have already covered this. You can read them here, along with my commentary. What I will do is pick a couple of them apart that pertain to Olson & Tribe’s analysis, as well as the testimony/analysis of Olson & Tribe. I will also place special emphasis on Tribe who is on record as officially endorsing Obama as well as a current member of Obama’s domestic policy team well before S. Res. 511 was introduced. I do believe Olson’s part, for the most part, was pure decoration for the benefit of the GOP to get them to go along with the scheme. I’ll let you judge for yourself by reading this article from the ‘World Socialist Website’. There could be no better cover-up, than to put a so called conservative constitutional lawyer who is loathed by the liberal left, but also happens to be a closet liberal civil rights activist in bed with a progressive one.

First let’s begin with the written analysis/testimony that was permanently recorded in the congressional record on April 30, 2008 but was officially sent to the Senate on April 8ththrough the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The analysis which begins by citing that the Constitution does not define ‘natural born’ citizen & that Congress has never given a definituion either can be argued against. Some argue otherwise, however the best place to find the definition would be in the 39th Congress records of 1866 when the 14th Amendment was being drafted. They then go on to cite Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 which is a 1983 Supreme Court case on freedom of religious speech. While this had me baffled for a day or so, it suddenly hit me. Maybe they were not using the deciding opinion of the case. Maybe they went to the dissenting opinion. BINGO! Justice Brennan dissenting wrote:

“Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose every meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted in to the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee…”

So basically what they did was take Brennan’s dissenting opinion and use it as precedent to usurp our guarantee, our national security protection under the Rule of Law that the person attaining to the highest office of land, the Commander of our military forces would have no foreign influences or intrigues. But let us not stop there with this opinion, Brennan goes on to write:

“Our primary task must be to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century…”

And there we have it, that big ‘it’s my constitutional right to be president some day’ analogy thrown right in our faces. Framers be damned!

So now that we have an initial grasp of the view of the Constitution these two men hold, let’s look further into their true interpretation of who they believed the Framers to be. You know, those men who were our founding fathers and who also fought a bloody war. A war to end America’s ties to an all powerful Monarchy and put in the hands of the people, the power to govern themselves by drafting a Constitution & establishing a Republic.

Next, Tribe & Olson brings up the subject of common law at the time of the founding and also reference Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). If this surprises you, then you have not been paying attention because it is the premise to all their legal analysis. Tribe has written, lectured extensively, as well as teaches in depth Blackstone’s English Common Law as the guide to interpreting our Constitution. In the analysis sent to the Senate Judiciary, they write:

“These sources ALL confirm that the phrase ‘natural born’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within the nation’s territory and allegiance.” (emphasis added)

Oh, really?

Tribe & Olson go on to mis-cite the specific part of Wong Kim Ark they are relying on for their conclusion, and they also do not cite the case Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 which we know for a fact, from extensive research done by Leo Donofrio & team, was the guiding case for the Wong Kim Ark decision.

“In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”.  And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.  The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

 ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.” (Emphasis added)

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of  natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

In Minor,they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama.  As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“

Now, why, would the Supreme Court be relying on the Law of Nations if in fact, as Tribe & Olson claim, the Framers relied on English common law. The same law that kept them oppressed while under the rule of the English Monarchy. The fact is they didn’t. In the 1st commentaries on the Constitution written by Supreme Court Justice Wilson (who was appointed by George Washington, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and was as member of the Continental Congress), Wilson specifically refers to the law of nations as the guiding force behind our Constitution and it interpretation.

“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

Clear, concise & truthfully spoken. This is also one of the most inspirational commentaries on our Constitutional law & patriotism I have read. If you have not read James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law (1791) as of yet, I encourage you to do so.

So, putting Wilson’s ‘Lectures on Law’ to task, we can say with confidence that Tribe is completely misguided and flat out wrong when he claimed:

“British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were ‘natural born Subjects’ were also ‘natural-born Subjects…to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever…The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy…”(emphasis added)

For supposed constitutional scholars, Tribe & Olson really miss the mark on this one. They also make reference that we are a democracy which is just an out right lie. The Framers wrote a Constitution for a Republic with citizens as sovereigns who are superior to the government institution itself, not Subjects to some Democracy who are ruled by a central government put in place by mob rule and where individual rights are only those given to you by the government. Democracies rarely last, they either give cause for revolution or they ascend to a Monarchy or Dictatorship.

Hitting More Pay Dirt 

In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory  written by Professor Lawrence B Solum  of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;…]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of  ‘natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

Thus, wrapping up on British Justice Blackstone, I refer you to another writing of his that pertains to what was on the minds of our founding fathers when they declared independence from the king:

“The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness.”

To believe that the Framers held onto this logic and thus held onto the common law definition of subjects for the newly emancipated citizens, would be to believe there was never a bloody revolution to escape it. The truth is Blackstone was a Kings Knight. He loved his dear England and was faithful to the end and to the Monarchy who he adored just as much. Blackstone was also noted for contradicting himself, which I believe is the reason for such confusion in interpreting his commentaries.

Moving on to the real truth of which law guided the Framers, we turn to another early Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, who was also the main founder of Harvard law School. Story gives a very distinct conclusion to the Law of Nation & the law of nature as the guiding force behind the Framers definition of ‘natural born’ citizen when he wrote this of the qualifications for President in one of his early commentaries.

Volume 3, Section 73: § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (emphasis mine)

Story specifically calls the founding fathers ‘naturalized’ citizens, and rightly so.

Tribe & Olson’s analysis is all over the place. They bring in the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and in light of Wilson’s 1st ‘Commentary on the Constitution’; we can put to rest the reason as to why that Act was repealed. Congress was not invested with the powers of declaring anyone a ‘natural born’ citizen. The only powers regarding citizenship they had were those of naturalizing alien immigrants. A ‘natural born’ citizen is clearly defined in the laws of nations as well as the Congressional records of 1866.

“Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following: § 212. Citizens and natives: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” 

“Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”(emphasis added) 

Tribe & Olson also refer to several statutes pertaining to citizenship, however, the Constitution trumps statutes, thus using them to define ‘natural born’ citizen is grossly incompetent in light of all the historical and legal references that date back to the revolution. Leo Donofrio gives an excellent run down  of how McCain is a citizen by statute and according the most current version of the US Foreign Affairs Manual, it has yet to be determined whether children born abroad are eligible for President.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

In one of Leo’s latest articles  on McCain he wrote:

“According to the birth certificate  and COLB  of John McCain, McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama.  While the BC states at the top that it is from the “Canal Zone”, the document also states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon.  The city of Colon and the hospital were not in the Canal Zone.

The common story you hear is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but these documents posted online do not testify to that.  Furthermore, there is no official document that has ever surfaced which states that McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

There is a birth announcement in the Panama American newspaper  which states that McCain was born in the “submarine base hospital”.  I don’t know what the submarine base hospital is.”  

Permit me to dispel  that Panama newspaper birth bit, Leo. It would seem that there is NO record of John McCain in the August 1936 birth registry of the Canal Zone.

panama records of birth for Coco Solo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, no index record there, but I’ll bet you can find it in the August birth registry of the Republic of Panama since McCain was actually born off base in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama. The media propaganda machine also covered for McCain by claiming that it was a clerical mistake that McCain is not listed in the August 1936 Canal Zone index registry. And as if that wasn’t enough, they tried to claim a different doctor than the one that signed the birth certificate, actually delivered McCain. Thanks to the lame stream propaganda media who stepped right up and said the visible, certified official records are wrong, the general public was kept in the dark as to the truth.

This also goes to show that it doesn’t matter how decorated you are and how many years your family has served honorably, eventually those who spend too much time in politics will fall to the intrigue and corruption of power.

So what does this all have to do with Obama?

Olson & Tribe conclude their analysis by reiterating their delusional rhetoric and false reporting of Kansas & Arizona as just territories. Kansas & Arizona were Sovereign Territories that had been operating under the complete law of the U. S. Constitution and jurisdiction of the United States and thus their citizens were under complete jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States and were considered for all legal and political purposes to be the same as that of statehood citizens.

“Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”

Olson & Tribe consistently refer back to the 14th Amendment & its interpretation that a citizen born to an immigrant is none the less a citizen and therefore under English common law, the founders considered them to be same as a ‘natural born’ citizen in all sense of the words. They did this purposely to confuse the issue knowing that Congress never really reads anything, anyways. However, I think I can confidently claim that I, along with the help of some great patriots out there, have blown that smoke filled theory right back where it came from…right up the ‘you know what’ of the liberal progressive ideologues who believe we are Subjects to some all powerful central government.

We are NOT Subjects, Nothing could be further from the TRUTH and the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS!

Thus it was not surprising to find this recent review  of Laurence Tribe’s most current thesis ’The Invisible Constitution’

“Tribe’s legal philosophy is antithecal to the original intent of the Constitution’s Framers and is insufficient as a legitimate theory of Constitutional Law. At its foundation, Tribe’s ideology is secular, Marxist, socialist legal philosophy.”

Then put Theodore Olson next to Tribe in a Senate Judiciary hearing and what you have is the ultimate ‘white-wash’ of political corruption.

Therefore, with all the above evidence, I conclusively report that:

‘Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or ANY Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving their country’s President; (emphasis added)

Sorry, busted.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;

Again, busted.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

Also BUSTED by McCain’s own original vital records and the index birth records kept by the Canal Zone.

Was it a coincidence that Obama quickly signed onto S. 2678? I think NOT!

Was it also a coincidence that Tribe gave that political persuasive talk on Jan. 31, 2008? I think NOT!

And it certainly was no coincidence that Tribe was selected to co-write the analysis that would sanitize McCain & Obama’s ineligibility. After all, persuasive speeches seem to be his forte’. You had just better make sure you are wearing pretty high boots if you ever attend one.

And as if all this is not enough to prove that our government and our election process is totally corrupt to the core, Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party) was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, MN, NJ, NY & VT.

There are 535 members of Congress who know the truth. Will they step up to the Constitution and hold themselves accountable by returning the election to the people so that we may have a legitimate presidential election in which we have eligible candidates to vote for?

I’m not holding my breath for that to happen because I do not think there is a true Patriotic spine in the lot.

 What I will do is make a guarantee to keep researching and expose every speck of corruption I dig up.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Brave Service men & women who serve honorably and are NOT afraid to uphold their oath of office and defend this great nation from enemies foreign & DOMESTIC.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

Hear Our Prayer, Oh Lord: UPDATED

Action Item, Educational Material, Media Blackout, Youth Educational Material September 29, 2009 Comments: 2

obamamoses The Obama cult is finally come ‘out of the closet’. WOW, that only took 8 months.

As I originally reported back in February, I have had an ill feeling since last summer and Obama’s world ‘presidential’ campaign where he gave his ‘global citizen’ speech in Germany.

His constant spewing, that we all must become “global citizens” in his agenda to “re-make America” and save the world, sent shivers down my spine and into full throttle mode digging for information on this enigma that had swept so many citizens off their feet like they were at a “Jim Jones revival”.

 As I watched the following video I wondered, is this a sign from God of his return? A prominent sign that it is time to get our house/country in order? Is this a message to us, like it was to the Israelites, after Moses descended from Mt. Sinai to find that many of God’s chosen people had fallen to the prey of false prophets? God’s chosen people worshipping false gods & idols?

  • 1st ascension: The next Sunday is Pentecost and Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (1st) and returns with the first installment of the law (Ex 19:3-6). He returns to the camp and asks the people if they will keep the law. The people reply yes. This is not the ten commandments, but other Laws of God. It must be disheartening for Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbath keepers, to learn that the Ten Commandments were not even given to Moses until after he had ascended the mountain the 6th time and after spending 40 days after the 6th ascension. Apparently the statues of the law were more important than the 10 commandments. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week (Saturday). The first time in history anyone kept the Sabbath is in the Wilderness of Sin. The word Sabbath is not even found in the Book of Genesis. The weekly Sabbath was abolished and nailed to the cross. Col 2:14-16 On Monday, Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (2nd) to give God the people’s “yes” answer. God says to be ready on the third day (Wednesday) when he will descend on the Mountain in fire: Ex 19:7-14. The people are told to walk to the base of the mountain from their camp and be ready for God’s coming. God tells Moses to set up boundaries around the mountain so the people cannot break through, climb the mountain and die.
  • 2nd ascension: On Monday, Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (2nd) to give God the people’s “yes” answer. God says to be ready on the third day (Wednesday) when he will descend on the Mountain in fire: Ex 19:7-14. The people are told to walk to the base of the mountain from their camp and be ready for God’s coming. God tells Moses to set up boundaries around the mountain so the people cannot break through, climb the mountain and die.
  • As the Israelites waited as instructed the third day, for God to descend on Mt. Sinai, they suddenly looked due north 100 km and saw God in the wilderness of Paran. God “dawns from Seir” like a sunrise in its glory, until He is hovering directly over Mt. Sinai. The Israelites watched in wonder and were amazed at the beauty and splendor of God as He came closer and closer to them where they stood. One of the most interesting facts about the Wilderness of Paran, is its connection with God’s appearing at Mt. Sinai. When Israel was encamped at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Mt. Al-Lawz), God thundered, in a volcanic level display that terrified the Israelites. But three verses explicitly tell us that God dawned from the north like a sunrise, or like Elijah’s small cloud the size of a man’s fist in the distance that became a storm (1 Kings 18:44). God dawned from Mt. Seir until he came to Mt. Sinai and made the mountain turn to fire before Israel. They were terrified. The four key verses that describe “dawning from the north” are: Deut 33:2; Isa 63:1-2; Judg 5:4; Hab 3:3-7. 40 years later, when Israel was at Mt. Seir, God gave the “go ahead” to finally start their way to the promised land by the command, “Now turn North”. In fact Mount Seir is absolute due south of Jerusalem and absolute due north of Mt. Sinai in modern Saudi Arabia. There are several passages that repeat this pattern of God coming “from the North”. Most notably is Ezekiel’s vision where God came from a distant storm in the North finally to overshadow him. (Ezekiel 1:4) Job describes God as coming from the North in golden splendor. (Job 37:22-23) Lucifer, the king of Babylon describes God’s throne as being in the far north. (Isaiah 14:13-14) Psalm 48:1-2 describes Jerusalem as being located in the “far north”. Further detailed study. After God descends on Mt. Sinai and calls Moses to climb the mountain (3rd). Ex 19:20 God tells Moses to go back down and warn the people again to stay away from the mountain so they will not die, then come up again (4th) with Aaron. Ex 19:21
  • 3rd ascension: After God descends on Mt. Sinai and calls Moses to climb the mountain (3rd). Ex 19:20
  • 4th ascension: God tells Moses to go back down and warn the people again to stay away from the mountain so they will not die, then come up again (4th) with Aaron. Ex 19:21
  • Moses and Aaron hear the Ten Commandments andvarious other laws. God tells Moses to descend andreturn with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. Moses goes back down and tells the people what God has said. Deut 24:1-3
  • Moses writes down the words in the book of the law, which will eventually be placed on the side of the ark. Ex 24:4
  • Moses builds an alter with 12 pillars at the foot of the mountain for the twelve tribes. He then sprinkles the alter with blood. Ex 24:4-6
  • Moses read the book of the law to the people and after they agreed, he sprinkled the people with blood of the covenant. Ex 24:8 Moses now returns to the mountain (5th) with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. After seeing God andeating the group descend to the foot of the mountain. Ex 24:9-11
  • 5th ascension: Moses now returns to the mountain (5th) with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. After seeing God andeating the group descend to the foot of the mountain. Ex 24:9-11
  • God then calls Moses up with Joshua to the mountain to receive the two tablets of stone with the ten commandments written by the finger of God. Ex 24:12 Moses spends 40 days on the mountain (6th) where God reveals the plan for the tabernacle. Ex 24:18.
  • 6th ascension: Moses spends 40 days on the mountain (6th) where God reveals the plan for the tabernacle. Ex 24:18.
  • After 40 days, Aaron makes the golden calf as Moses was on the mountain for 40 days. In one of the most fascinating interaction between a man and God in the Bible, God tells Moses He will kill all the Hebrews who sinned and make Moses into a great nation. Moses pleads for the people. Then God changes his mind and says he won’t kill them. Moses goes down and rebukes Aaron and grinds up the golden calf and makes them drink the gold dust. Then Moses command the Levites to kill about 3000 of the idol worshippers. Ex 32:7-29 The next day, Moses climb Mt. Sinai (7th). God tells Moses is to take them into the promised land with God’s angel as protection, but God himself will not go with them. Moses goes down the mountain. God strikes down a number of the Hebrews who sinned. Ex 32:30-35
  • 7th ascension: The next day, Moses climb Mt. Sinai (7th). God tells Moses is to take them into the promised land with God’s angel as protection, but God himself will not go with them. Moses goes down the mountain. God strikes down a number of the Hebrews who sinned. Ex 32:30-35
  • When the people hear that God’s angel will lead them but God himself will not go with them, the people get sad and they remove all their jewelry. Ex 33:2-6
  • Moses continues to plead with God for the people and says, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” God says He will show Moses his Glory on the Mountain. Ex 33:18-23 God tells Moses to cut out two replacement tablets and God calls Moses back up to Mt. Sinai (8th), where God passes by while Moses was in the cleft of the rock. Again Moses asks God to join them on the journey to the promised land. God changes his mind finally and tells Moses he will lead them to the promised land. Moses spends forty more days on the mountain, then returns. God said he would perform new miracles and Moses face is shining in view of the people so he puts a veil over his face. Ex 34:1-9; 2 Cor 3.
  • 8th ascension: God tells Moses to cut out two replacement tablets and God calls Moses back up to Mt. Sinai (8th), where God passes by while Moses was in the cleft of the rock. Again Moses asks God to join them on the journey to the promised land. God changes his mind finally and tells Moses he will lead them to the promised land. Moses spends forty more days on the mountain, then returns. God said he would perform new miracles and Moses face is shining in view of the people so he puts a veil over his face. Ex 34:1-9; 2 Cor 3.

    • Our blessed America that was founded by men who revered the word of God. These men knew of the tyranny of false prophets. They knew of the history of a nation falling into the prey of these false prophets and the immorality that they preached.

    Oh, Hear Our Prayer, Oh Lord

    UPDATE: WND has reported some interesting bacground information of the Chicago-based community organizing group called the Gamaliel Foundation :

    Officials with the Gamaliel Foundation did not return a message left by WND requesting a comment.

    But according to the organization’s website, its type of community organizing began in Chicago in 1938.

    “Saul Alinsky created the ‘Back of the Yards Community Council,'” the site says. “The organization operated in the shadow of Chicago’s stock yards. The community was beset with poverty, political corruption, gangs, disease, deteriorating housing and inadequate schools; but most of all it was beset with a sense of powerlessness. The organization successfully engaged people to change the conditions of the community.”

    The foundation says it was set up in 1968 to support “an African American organization fighting to protect homeowners on Chicago’s Westside who had been discriminated against by banks and saving and loan institutions.”

    It was relaunched in 1986 “as an organizing institute.”

    Others, such as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, also have been clear in their nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, “the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

    CLICK for the entire articel at WND.

    Senator Johnson says: “Newsweek & Bill Ayer’s Annenberg Foundation” Not “The Supreme Court” Are Now The Official Sources For Constitutional Interpretation Of Our Laws

    Corruption, Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, Youth Educational Material September 25, 2009

    Leo, this one is for you, we can now add “Newsweek” to the list of sources our elected officials use for interpreting the law of our land and presidential qualifications.

    According to South Dakota’s senior Senator, Tim Johnson, court rulings and historical documentation no longer have ‘Standing” to interpret our laws, the lame steam media & liberal leftist internet sites are charge of these duties now.

    Yep, you read that right and I am just beside myself at this point after reading the latest correspondence/political rhetoric from Johnson’s office. No where did they even attempt to address/refute the historical references I provided them with proper corresponding historical/factual findings.

    Nope, Na Da, go away sucker because we are ABOVE the rule of law and you can’t touch us.

    Well, sorry to burst their bubble, as I did in an immediate phone call to his office, but they can not continue to make claims without factual, historical references to back their claims and they have been called on their ineptness in upholding the Constitution & the Rule of Law.

    In ALL of my correspondence, I supplied Sen. Johnson & his staff with congressional records & numerous hitoricaldocuments along with Supreme Court Justice opinions and commentaryand this is what they come back at me with:

    “Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet rumors, I appreciate hearing from you.”

    after I sent him this:

    But, even if he had renounced those citizenships when he came of age in 1979, under the definition, he could have never held any other US citizenship, other than that of, “citizen by way of birth on the soil only” under the 14th Amendment which we will get to shortly.

    Citizenship at birth can never be changed. History and research are very clear on this point. However, the actions of the person once they become of age, come into play as to qualifications for any elected office, thus the reason for the 14 year requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause V.

    Thus we are back to: “Why BHO aka BHS cannot be a “natural born” citizen under the 14th Amendment”.

    Historical Fact #6: According to the US Legislature, the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else”. Therefore, that rule prevents us from interpreting “natural born” under the 14thAmendment because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. Remember, BHO aka BHS held dual allegiances at birth. He, himself has publically acknowledged the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of BHO’s birth, therefore he, himself was also a British subject at birth.

    The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, it was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons naturalized or born to citizens of the United States as citizens.

    The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Kinsley S. Bingham; reelected in 1865 and served from January 17, 1862, to March 3, 1871), said during the drafting:

    “The word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the Executive, or by the Judicial Department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States.”

    In 1866, under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]

    Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

                    “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

    Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:

    “It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

     

    Then, Sen. Johnson & his staff conveniently leave out the fact that just last year, the Senate voted unanimously that it took 2 American parents for a citizen to be natural born. Atleast, that is what they said when that determined McCain eligible when they passed Senate Resolution 511. And they also did not go to the DOJ as many Senators & Congressmen have claimed. Read the Senate committee minutes for yourself. They went to director of Homeland Security, Chertoff for their interpretation as to NBC:

    Mr Leahy speaking: Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge…

    I ask, what was their problem in going to the current DOJ? Why would they use a Homeland Security director to interpret the law?

    But more importantly, why now, all of a sudden when it comes to interpreting Obama’s eligibility one only needs 1 parent to be American? Geez, will they make up their minds already!

    They also cast aside that pesky ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ clause of American citizenship under the 14th Amendment which would require birth to be on US soil.

    Senator Johnson & his staff have a lot of explaining to do to try and dig their way out of this one and I will be waiting patiently for their reply to my many questions that are now in their hands.

    Also, I am confident that I can now conclude that to Senator Johnson, our blessed Constitution is nothing more than an Internet rumor to be cast aside and having no relevance to our laws today. He obviously sides with Bush’s interpretation of it a few years back when he called it:

    “Just a GD piece of paper”

     Here is Johnson letter in it’s original form as I recieved it. I will report all further correspondence from him as it comes in. It should be getting very interesting, especially in the light of Leo’s lastest litigation.

    scan0099 

    Just A Quick Note UPDATED

    Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 23, 2009

    Update in ‘striked out red’

    I listened to Sen Thune speak on the Senate floor this morning and waited with baited breath for just two little words to come out of his mouth regarding the GOP’s plan for health care reform:

    “NO MANDATES”

    As usual..”NOPE, NA DA sorry sucker, ain’t going to stick my political neck out that far” is all I got. Just more political rhetoric, same ole speech that he regurgitated from an earlier floor speech.

    Now, don’t take this wrong. I do think Sen Thune is trying, but he has yet to step completely into the “Conservative Ring” and whole heartedly promote limited government as it should be under the Constitution.

    And that is why he still has not secured ny vote for 2010!

    I’ll post link to the video of Sen Thunes floor speech later when it becomes available. Click here: Thune floor address begins at 1:26:10

    Sure he brings up the aspect of government control and how it makes us uncomfortable, but it would have been more appropriate to call it what it is: “a fascist government take-over of the most personal aspect of our lives that is totally and unequivocally UNCONSTITUTIONAL“!

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then call it what it is…a ‘duck’! And with that I say: ‘Quit DUCKING the issue & speak the TRUTH”

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    1 Peter 5: 1-3   ~   To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

     

    2 Peter 2: 2-3 ~ Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

     
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)
     
    Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
    Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)
     
    The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.

    Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)

     

     

     

     

     

    Social Darwinism and the American Constitution

    Educational Material, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 19, 2009

    The Undoing of American Constitutionalism

    How a political revolution begun more than a century ago led to Sonia Sotomayor.

    By Richard M. Reinsch

     

    Those who were desperately confused, if not enraged, by candidate Barack Obama’s contention that the ideal federal judge should fashion his opinion in empathy with the more downtrodden and oppressed party in a case should consult Bradley Watson’s Living Constitution, Dying Faith: Progressivism and the New Science of Jurisprudence to understand how the man who has become president could assert the primacy of personal opinion over law. Watson’s book daringly asks what social Darwinism and pragmatism have to do with the progressivist evolution in American politics and jurisprudence during the 20th and 21st centuries. Together they were, Watson argues, akin to an intellectual tsunami that shaped, developed, and still informs, albeit in evolved modalities, the dominant understanding of the American constitutional order (or lack thereof) held by the judicial, academic, and political classes. Strange as it might seem, Watson convincingly shows how these philosophical schools flowed into the main currents of American political and judicial thinking.

    The social-Darwinist ingredient in progressive jurisprudence is the notion of the state as an organic principle, informed by the general will of society and by the particular facts, circumstances, and history of a people. Subject to no fixed limits, eschewing belief in objective justice, the state follows a path of incessant growth and flexibility, limited only by the ever-changing needs of society. As dictated by the laws of progress and evolution, the state moves society along an inevitable ascent. By application of “scientific” expertise and rationalizing administration, government directs this growth. Expressly left behind is Madisonian constitutionalism and its notions of natural rights, limited government, the rule of law, prevention of faction, and vigilance against the possibility of overly centralized and unaccountable government.

    Watson marshals the speeches and writings of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and the jurisprudence of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, among others, as evidence for his claim of the pervasive influence of social Darwinism in the intellectual cocktail that is progressivism. As Wilson demonstrates, the progressives sought to move the energy of government from the democratic branches to the bureaucracy. Insulated from politics and popular opinion, federal bureaucrats would engage in the scientific administration of government — the overriding ethos of progressivism. The expert and, in time, the judge would supply regulations and orders to fill the multiplying and unruly (i.e., unregulated) gaps of modern industrialized society. Thus, the real purpose of politics under progressivism informed by social Darwinism is not justice, or the preservation of personal and economic liberty — those worthless dregs of past history — but the infusion into federal and state governments of the substantive powers needed to achieve the perfection of government administration. 

    There was, however, that second element informing progressive thought. Almost seamlessly interwoven with the evolutionary ideal of social-Darwinian ideology, pragmatism equally challenged the fixed understanding of America’s constitutional order. William James — the pragmatist par excellence — brilliantly summarized this school of thought with his statement that ideas “become true just in so far as they help us to get into a satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience.” More succinctly, “The reason why we call things true is the reason that they are true.” Virtually synonymous with the idea that state and society are to be subjected to ongoing experimentalism, pragmatism, like social Darwinism, embraced the idea of ceaseless adaptation and change. It presented the state as the entity most capable of selecting the optimal arrangements for meeting the challenges of new social, political, economic, and technological circumstances. Devastatingly absent was any consideration of the ends or purposes of democratic deliberation. For the pragmatist, the Constitution and its express limits on democratic energy must be negated lest necessary and positive change be wrongly arrested.

    For the pragmatist, the importance of democratic thought and choice is not in the considerations of justice or law, not with final causes or transcendent purpose, which informs past understandings and meanings, but pure practicality. Moving with the inherent flux of the times determines the emphasis for law and politics. The truth of ideas and the validity of political and economic movements are now to be found in the actual successes these movements have in achieving practical operations. As Justice Holmes articulated the rationale for the protection of free speech, “If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.” In response to Justice Holmes’s constitutional nominalism, Watson deftly notes, “If the Constitution — or the presently established constitutional order — is itself neutral or indifferent on this question [i.e., legitimate government], what is the basis for a constitutional ruling in favor of a First Amendment claim?” Indeed, progressivism’s pervasive skepticism ends in denying the philosophical grounding of constitutionalism and its animating principle — the rule of law. This, Watson argues throughout the book, is the damage rendered to American constitutionalism by progressivism and its twinned social-Darwinian and pragmatist components.

    Against these apostles of ceaseless adaptation, progress, and organic growth of the state loom the men who framed America’s constitutional order and its underlying philosophy. Watson synthesizes the varying rationales for liberty held by the Founders under the overarching understanding they held of man’s natural rights in his property and person, and the corollary that government must secure these rights and, in turn, defend citizens from the government itself. However, this conception of government as necessary to the protection of man’s natural rights, but also preternaturally dangerous because of man’s vice-ridden passions and propensity to form factions, is simply incompatible with progressivism. Under the latter’s dispensation, the citizen now joins in an undulating partnership with the government, under the administration of experts whose intervention actualizes the liberty and self-development of persons and groups. From this perspective, natural rights are seen more as the negation rather than the fulfillment of freedom. James Madison has been thrown into the dock.

    Abraham Lincoln also stands athwart progressive ideology in his attempts to reground American politics on a firmer understanding of the singular dignity of the person. Through the spoken word and through his statesmanship, Lincoln rearticulated the natural basis of republican government, and the goods it must secure and the evils it must crush if it is to endure. Noteworthy is Watson’s contention that after the victory over the slaveholding South, Lincoln’s recovery of the political justice of the Declaration of Independence was rejected by the rising tide of progressivism in the decades following his presidency. The denatured person seen by progressivism requires an unlimited government to deploy the operations and powers necessary to unlock social progress.

    The spillover to our time can be seen in Justice Sotomayor’s statement to a group of law clerks that the appellate courts are where policy is made. Justice Sotomayor was merely following her progressive teachers, who have risen to dominance in American law schools and courts. Their continuing attempt to replace constitutionalism now finds its purest and most honest expression with those federal judges who openly equate judicial power with politics and policy. Watson’s scholarship exposes the intellectual stair-stepping that has taken us to the brink of this dangerous precipice.

    — Richard M. Reinsch is a program officer at Liberty Fund, and author of the forthcoming Whittaker Chambers: The Spirit of a Counter-Revolutionary, to be published by ISI Books. 

    “We Are Taking Our Country Back”

    Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Economy, Educational Material, Honoring Their Sacrifice, Honoring Their Service, In The News, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 12, 2009

    A 9~12 message from Glenn Beck

    Patrick Henry’s Peaceful Dissent

    Those who were once united by the “Spirit of ’76,” or the Revolutionary generation, were not necessarily united in supporting the Constitution in 1787-88. We need only look to the state ratification debates to see the diversity of opinions regarding the new plan of government among faithful and once-united patriots. Acceptance of the Constitution was anything but a foregone conclusion.

    Virginia patriot Patrick Henry, famous for his “give me liberty or give me death” speech which prompted Virginia (and eventually her sister states) to join besieged Massachusetts in the cause of independence, was one such devout Anti-Federalists, or one who opposed the new Constitution. His voice was often heard (and feared by Federalists) during the Virginia ratification debates.

    Patrick Henry’s objections were not unfounded. After fighting off a British superpower, he feared a large national government with no declaration of rights to limit its power. He warned that if Virginia ratified, “the Republic may be lost forever,” and subsequently demanded to know “what right had [the delegates at Philadelphia] to say, We, the People.”

    As the Virginia convention drew near a final vote on ratification, Henry stood to deliver his most impassioned soliloquy against the Constitution. He condemned an affirmative vote by saying it would negatively impact not just the fledging United States, but countries and even generations yet unborn but nonetheless present in the convention hall with the delegates in ethereal form.

    “When I see beyond the horrison [sic.] that binds human eyes,” Henry began, “and look at the final consummation of all human things…I am led to believe that much of the account on one side or the other, will depend on what we now decide. Our own happiness alone is not affected by the event-All nations are interested in the determination. We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race. Its adoption may involve the misery of the other hemispheres…”

    Just as Henry finished his speech, a storm suddenly arose which combined with Henry’s rhetorical weaponry to have an eerie affect on his listeners. His final words were punctuated by thunder and lightning which “shook the whole building.”

    Without calling for adjournment, the delegates—including such distinguished figures as George Washington, Governor Edmund Randolph, George Mason, James Monroe and James Madison—fled the convention hall. One listener explained why: “the spirits whom [Henry] had called, seemed to have come at his bidding.” Moreover, “[Henry] seemed to mix in the fight of his aetherial auxiliaries, and ‘rising on the wings of the tempest, to seize upon the artillery of Heaven, and direct its fiercest thunders against the heads of his adversaries.’”

    Yet in spite of his vehement opposition, Patrick Henry demonstrated his commitment to the democratic process. Shortly after the Virginia Ratification Convention, he was approached by his Anti-Federalist colleagues to head a guerilla war against the ratified Constitution. Instead of continuing to oppose the Constitution outright, he declared “I will be a peaceable citizen.”

    And he was. While Henry disagreed with some aspects of the new government, he also recognized that the Constitution left his head, hand, and heart free to advocate change “in a constitutional way.” He accepted the choice made by the American people and advocated for change within the system they had chosen. As a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, he ensured Virginia’s two U.S. Senators were Anti-Federalists, paving the way for the passage of the Bill of Rights.

    ConSource logo

    Obama to Appoint Former Lobbyist for ‘Slip & Fall” Lawyers to Study TORT Reform

    Corruption, Educational Material, In The News, Media Blackout, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 12, 2009

    In last night’s speech, Obama said that he would appoint Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary to look into TORT reform legislation. The problem with that idea:

    Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius’s resume includes eight years as director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association

    YEP, we now will have more ‘SLIP & FALL’ legislation you can believe in. Legislation written by the ones who wrote the original US Codified laws and have written every corrupt law in this land ever since. A lawyers guild that was deemed to be a Communist Organization in 1950.

    The National Lawyers Guild, affiliated with the American Bar ( British Accredited Registry) Association with state lawyers guilds as branches operates much like ACORN and it’s many entities.

    81st Congressional Record, National Lawyers Guild (the bulwark of the Communist Party)begins on page 23 of the congressional record (page 29 of the PDF file):

     

    Within moments of me posting this, my document on SCRIBD suddenly became unavailable, however a good blogger always has back-up:

    annualreportfory1950unit_bwcommunistlawyersguid

     ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    THE LAWYERS GUILD CONNECTION

    Here is what happens. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain. The American Bar Association is not connected primarily with what happens in any case on the local level. However, when a case leaves the local level, by that is meant, the state court, city court or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court; and goes to the appeal’s court, it would appear that the American Bar Association takes notice of the case. It would seem that the American Bar Association must have an agreement that any action brought on appeal, must be reviewed by the American Bar Association. If this is true, it would make sense. How else would the American Bar Association, a branch of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal arm of the Rothschild’s Dynasty, be able to monitor and administer the corporate bankruptcy. It would appear that the American Bar Association would be compelled to review all appeal cases and to make certain any case brought under common law or the constitutional law that would expose the bankruptcy, would be immediately stamped on the back that “this case is not to be cited or published.” I believe that this is the stamp origin and purpose of the stamp message in such cases. The justice department may be able to do that in Washington D.C.. I can’t see where any judge or lawyer could have the authority to stamp or label the case as one not to be cited for future cases. I think that is an official stamp from the American Bar Association.

    100 YEARS OF UNIFORM LAWS: An Abridged Chronology

    1890 – New York state legislature passes first state act authorizing governor to appoint three commissioners. The American Bar Association (ABA)recommends that other states follow New York’s lead.

    1891 – Connecticut’s Lyman D. Brewster named to chair newly-created ABA committee on uniform law. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Delaware appoint commissioners.

    1892 – First conference held in Saratoga Springs New York. Above states plus Georgia attend formal meeting.

    1893 – Committees appointed on such subjects as wills, marriage and divorce, commercial law, descent and distribution.

    1895 – Conference requests committee on commercial law be formed. Drafts, Negotiable Instrument Law, precursor to Article 3 of Uniform Commercial Code.

    1896 – Negotiable Instrument Law approved by Conference. First time that a uniform act is adopted in every state and the District of Columbia.

    1897 – For the first time, Commissioners urged to work toward enactment of uniform legislation in their states.

    1898/1899 – Sessions devoted to the consideration of proposed divorce legislation.

    1899 – At the end of the 1890s, 33 of the existing 45 states and two territories had appointed uniform law commissioners and eight uniform acts had been drafted, each enacted in at least one state. All these acts were subsequently superseded or declared obsolete.

    1900 – Uniform Divorce Procedure Act adopted. Louis B. Brandeis begins five years of service as member of Massachusetts commission.

    1901 – Woodrow Wilson begins tenure (until 1908) as commissioner from New Jersey.

    1903 – ABA makes first appropriation in support of work of Conference. James Barr Ames of Harvard Law School commissioned to draft the Uniform Partnership Act.

    1905 – Samuel W. Pennypacker, Pennsylvania Governor, invites other governors to send delegation to a national divorce conference–meets twice in 1906; three acts endorsed.

    1906 – First roll call by states as Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act is approved. Legal scholar Roscoe Pound serves for one year as a commissioner from Nebraska.

    1907 – Uniform Desertion Act and Non-Support Act and Uniform Marriage Act authorized. Act Regulating Annulment of Marriage of Divorce adopted. Also, Act Providing for the Return of Marriage Statistics, Act Providing for the Return of Divorce Statistics.

    1908 – Work begins on Uniform Corporation Act.

    1910 – Twenty uniform acts approved in decade of the teens. The Uniform Partnership Act, begun in 1906, was completed by William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

    1911 – Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and Uniform Child Labor Act approved.

    1912 – Uniform Marriage Evasion Act adopted. Woodrow Wilson, commissioner from New Jersey from 1901 to 1908 elected U.S. President in a landslide.

    1914 – Uniform Partnership Act completed. Will be adopted by all the states. Also Foreign Acknowledgement Act, Cold Storage Act, Workmens’s Compensation Act.

    1915 – Name changed to National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Constitution and by-laws completely revised. Each act now must be considered section by section during at least two annual meetings.

    1916 – Uniform Limited Partnership Act as well as Extradition of Persons of Unsound Minds Act approved, also Land Registration Act.

    1917 – Uniform Flag Act approved.

    1918 – Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act approved.

    1920 – Certain Acts withdrawn; others declared obsolete. After pruning, 26 acts remain as recommended for passage in state legislatures.

    1930 – During the 30s, Conference adopts 31 acts.

    1935 – Conference entered into agreement with American Law Institute for cooperative drafting of acts in area of common interest.

    1936 – After revisions, withdrawals and acts declared obsolete, 53 uniform acts remained as recommended for approval.

    On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning “COMMON LAW” in the federal government.

    “THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS.” (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

    The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. The members and associates of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws “to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives”, including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as “One Form of Action.” [See: Constitution and By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, see also Colorado Methods of Practice, West Publishing, Vol. 4, pages 2-3, Authors Comments.]

    1939 – ABA gets more involved in approval of uniform law products. Thirty-nine acts are presented to the Board of Governors of the ABA for consideration and approval. During the same year, all acts on aeronautics and motor vehicles are eliminated as well as the Land Registration Act, Child Labor Act of 1930, Uniform Divorce Jurisdiction Act, Firearms Act, Marriage Act and more. Six acts are reclassified as Model acts.

    1940 – At start of decade, after deletions, etc., 53 acts out of 93 which had been approved since the group’s founding remain on the books. Drafting committee for the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) approved.

    1941 – Speaking of the Commercial Code project, the Conference president states: “….this is the most important and the most far reaching project on which the conference has ever embarked.” It would take the major part of the next 10 tear period to complete.

    1942 – UCC effort begins in earnest with completion of work on the revised Uniform Sales Act.

    1943 – Members of the conference participate in drafting committee in Washington, D.C. to work on legislation which the government might desire in connection with the war effort. No new acts.

    1944 – Conference receives $150,000 grant from the Falk Foundation of Pittsburgh to support work on the UCC.

    1945 – No annual meeting for the first time due to difficulties of civilian transport during the war.

    1946 – Falk Foundation increases its support of the UCC with an additional $100,000.

    1947 – Uniform Law Conference (ULC) and American Law Institute join in partnership to put all the components together for the UCC. Uniform Divorce Recognition Act approved.

    1950 – Approval of the Uniform Marriage License Application Act, Uniform Adoption Act and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The latter has been one of the most successful ULC products.

    1951 – On May 18, during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the UCC was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC’s signature product.

    One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions), The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction.

    America as a bankrupt nation is owned completely by its creditors.

    The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments. Do you have a Birth Certificate? They own you too.

    1952 – Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure approved—first venture of the Conference into this area of the law.

    1953 – Pennsylvania the first state to enact the UCC. Uniform Rules of Evidence adopted.

    1954 – Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act approved.

    1956 – Gift to Minors Act approved. Will be adopted in every state. For the first time, ULC enters the field of international law.

    1957 – Massachusetts becomes second state to enact the UCC, after revisions by the Editorial Board.

    1958 – Uniform Securities Act approved.

    1960 – Uniform Paternity Act passed. by 1960, UCC enacted in Kentucky, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

    1961 – Permanent Editorial Board on the UCC formed—8 more states pass UCC. Constitution amended to provide that all members of Conference must be members of the bar.

    1962 – Four more states adopt UCC, including New York. Probate Code project approved.

    1963 – Third comprehensive law project approved, on retail installment sales, consumer credit, small loans and usury. Eleven more UCC states. William H. Renquist begins term as commissioner from Arizona; serves until 1968.

    1964 – Special Committee of Uniform Divorce and Marriage laws recommends that a study of divorce law be authorized and that funds be sought. One more UCC state.

    1965 – Divorce and Marriage Law committee instructed to commence drafting if funds can be obtained for the project. Thirteen more UCC states.

    1966 – Five more UCC states.

    1968 – Much of annual meeting devoted to the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Uniform Probate Code —two projects nearing completion. By 1968, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted the UCC—only exception being Louisiana. A big year. Other developments in 1968: the Consumer Credit Code is approved as well as revisions to the Anatomical Gift Act, Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and revisions to URESA.

    1969 – Probate Code approved. Preliminary analysis of the uniform marriage and divorce legislation distributed.

    1970 – Controlled Substances Act and Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act approved.

    1971 – Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Act approved.

    1972 – Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Disposition of Community Property Rights At Death Act and UMVARA, the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act approved.

    1973 – Uniform Parentage Act supersedes Paternity Act. Uniform Crime Victims Reparations Act approved.

    1974 – Conference approves Rules of Criminal Procedure and Eminent Domain Code. Louisiana, the only state not to adopt the Uniform Commercial Code due to difficulties in reconciling its provisions with those of the Civil Code, adopts Articles 1,3,4,5,7, and 8.

    1975 – Uniform Land Transactions Act approved.

    1976 – Major revision of the Uniform Partnership Act approved; also Uniform Simplification of Land Transfers and Uniform Class Action Acts.

    1978 – Uniform Brain Death and Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act approved.

    1979 – Uniform Trade Secrets and Durable Power of Attorney acts among those approved.

    1980 – Determination of Death Act supersedes 1978 Brain Death Act. Uniform Planned Community Act, Model Real Estate Time-Share Act and Model Periodic Payment of Judgments Act also adopted.

    1981 – Two important updated acts approved: new Model State Administration Procedure and Unclaimed Property Acts. Also two new acts: the Model Real Estate Cooperative Act and the Uniform Conservation Easement Act.

    1982 – Uniform Condominium and Planned Community Acts and Model Real Estate Cooperative Act combined into the Uniform Common Interest Ownership act.

    The enumerated, specified, and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland. This was the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between Actions At Law and Suits in Equity, this CHANGE WOULD ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY.” (See: Federal Rules of Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17. Also see Federalist Papers, No. 83, Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress, Oct. 14th, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms, July 16, 1775, Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669)

    1983 – Uniform Marital Property Act and Uniform Premarital agreement Act approved. Uniform Transfers to Minors Act replaces the uniformly enacted Uniform Gifts to Minors Act.

    1984 – Uniform Statutory Will Act approved; new Uniform fraudulent Transfer Act supersedes Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1918.

    1985 – Uniform Health-Care Information Act, Uniform Land Security Interest act, Uniform Personal Property Leasing Act and Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act approved.

    1986 – New drafting effort to revise Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC and draft new provisions begins.

    1987 – Approval of the revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act approved as well as new Uniform Custodial Trust Act, Uniform Construction Lien Act and Uniform Franchise and Business Opportunities Act. Also revision of Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    1988 – Final approval of amendments to the Uniform Securities Act and amendments to Article 6 of the UCC dealing with bulk sales. Conference also approves Uniform Statutory Form Power of Attorney Act and Uniform Punitive and Unknown Fathers Act and takes on the controversial issue of surrogate mother contracts with Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act.

    1989 – Article 4A of the UCC, dealing with electronic funds transfers, approved. Also approved: amendments to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, authorizing withdrawal of life support by a surrogate decision maker; the Uniform Pretrial Detention Act, confining violent criminals before trial; the Uniform Non-probate Transfers on Death Act and amendments to Article VI of the Uniform Probate Code.

    1990 – Major revision of 1970 Uniform Controlled Substances Act– the law in 46 jurisdictions– approved. Substantial revision of UCC Article 3 also approved, as well as an updated Article II of the Uniform Probate Code, to keep pace with current thinking on marital property.

    This private corruption of the law has occurred despite the Constitutional responsibility conferred on Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution which states that it is Congress that “makes all Laws.”

     

    What does that have to do with anything? Uniform Laws seem to be a good Idea.

     

    Well now, that is a good question. Let us continue…..

     

    An Expose On The Legal Fraud Perpetrated On All Americans

    THE COURTS RECOGNIZE ONLY TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY: DEBTORS AND CREDITORS

    The concept of DEBTORS and CREDITORS is very important to understand.

    Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else government might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court. It is an equity court, administrating commercial law having a debtor-creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as defined by the Constitution of the United States or any other legal documents before 1938.

    All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in ERIE V. THOMPKINS. I’ll give you background which led to this decision. There is a terrible FRAUD being perpetrated on all Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud. This fraud is constantly upon you all your life. It doesn’t just happen once in a while. This fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family.

     

    U.S. INC. GOES TO GENEVA 1930’s

    In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its inception.

    It goes like this: From 1928 -1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don’t publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

    Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt’s job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now. this doesn’t mean the bankruptcy wasn’t implemented before 1938 with the Erie vs. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as ‘The Banking Holiday,” and proceeded in pulling the gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.. Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260 “Trading With The Enemy Act.”

     

    ROOSEVELT STACKS SUPREME COURT

    It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937 – 1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme court with a bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the slant of the justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem.

    There was resistance to Roosevelt’s court stacking efforts. Some of the justices tried to warn us that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land. See also The UCC Connection

     

    THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES GOES BANKRUPT

    A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington D.C, (the headquarters of the corporation called “The United States”).

    Since the United States Corporation, having established its headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn’t have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of the Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: the liberty of using the term “Mother Corporation” to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States has been taken.

    It is Historical knowledge that the original Union States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal government has taken control of her “Creators”, the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: “United States”, “U.S.”, “U.S.A.”, “United States of America”, Washington D.C., District of Columbia, Feds. and Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office etc. etc. etc. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she steals from the Americans via the IRS. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt. The UN and the International Bankers use this money and services for various world wide projects, including war.

    War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for controlling people in her new world order.

     

    THE U.S. INC. DECLARES BANKRUPTCY

    The corporate U.S. then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate representatives of the corporate several states were in attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented. Consequently, whatever Washington D.C. agreed to at Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member; they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only needed a representative at Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington D.C. The delegates of the corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well as for the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto, BANKRUPTCY was declared for all!

    From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states could then rely on the Federal decision and use this decision within the states as justification for the bankruptcy process within the states.

     

    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE EMERGES AS LAW OF THE LAND
    Ah, Ha, are you beginning to get the picture?

    By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be upheld and administered. That’s why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedent, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie vs. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th Edition:

    “The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952, and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed desirable in light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966”

    The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1938 and 1940, I don’t recall, but by the early 40’s and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and getting it ready to go on the market. The UCC is the Law Merchant’s code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts, and the whole mess under the UCC. That’s where the “Uniform” word comes from. It means it was uniform from state to state as well as being uniform with the District of Columbia.

    It doesn’t mean you didn’t have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960’s, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the Law of the Land. The states fully understood they had to administrate Bankruptcy. Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks after President John F. Kennedy was killed.

     

    YOUR LAWYER’S SECRET OATH???

    What was the effect and the significance of Erie vs. Thompkins case decision of 1938? The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers, who are members of the American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer’s guild of Great Britain, created, formed, and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain.

    Since the Erie vs. Thompkins case was decided, the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same. It has been reported, that every lawyer in existence, and every lawyer coming up has to take a “secret” oath to support bankruptcy(Article 61 of the UN Constitution). As Officers of the Court they have sworn to uphold the law as it exists, and as they have been taught. In so doing, not only do the lawyers promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges promise never to reveal who the true creditor/party is in the bankruptcy proceedings (if, indeed, many of them are even aware or know). In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principle of the proceedings. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, then there is no way the defendant is able to know the TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information.

    That’s why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will tell you “It’s not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can’t give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer.”

     

     

    A Commencement Address for All Generations Past, Present & Future

    Educational Material, Youth Educational Material September 11, 2009

    This is long but well worth reading.

    This Texas lawyer, himself recipient of an Honorary Degree, is obviously opinionated, but to say what he does, in a commencement address a couple of weeks ago (January, 2008), in front of a class of Texas A & M graduates, and especially the faculty, is amazing. I would have loved to have been there just to see the faculty reaction.

    This should be considered must-reading for every adult in North America . It is extremely rare that anyone speaks the truth like this at any College or High School Commencement Address.

    Neal Boortz is a Texan, a lawyer, a Texas AGGIE (Texas A&M), and now a nationally syndicated talk show host from Atlanta . His commencement address to the graduates of this year’s A&M class is far different from what either the students or the faculty expected. His views are thought provoking:

    “I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It’s about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you’ll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I’m not here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of what I have to say, and that’s fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

    This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You’ve heard the old saying that those who can – do. Those who can’t – teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.

    By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn’t mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot’s license many years ago, he said, ‘Here, this is your ticket to learn.’ The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.

    Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

    Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast… including your own assessment of just how much you really know.

    So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

    That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

    Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives and Libertarians, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.

    In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

    If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven’t developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.

    Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You’re going to actually get a full time job!

    You’re also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn’t going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn’t want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.

    Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can’t manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

    Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million-dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent’s for their personal enrichment and benefit.

    That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force to accomplish its goals.

    You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.

    Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I’m sorry, there just isn’t any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can’t decrease its share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.

    So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes … a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless … somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.

    Now let’s address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

    First is that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia: Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people – be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever – is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual’s abilities or character, but on a person’s identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it’s that liberal group identity thing again.

    Within the great diversity movement group identification – be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status – means more than the individual’s integrity, character or other qualifications.

    Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word “diversity” you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.

    We also need to address this thing you seem to have about “rights.” We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called “rights” in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.

    You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right – the right to a Beemer for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.

    Forget it. Forget those rights! I’ll tell you what your rights are! You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I’ll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.

    You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn’t she? But you cannot receive healthcare unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time – his life – to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that’s his choice. You have no “right” to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person’s life or to any portion thereof.

    You may also think you have some “right” to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be “homeless person” for those of you who don’t want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.

    The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs – the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn’t cost anyone else either property or time. It’s their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

    By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase “less fortunate” a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you’ll understand why.

    To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is “less fortunate” is to imply that a successful person – one with a job, a home and a future – is in that position because he or she was “fortunate.” The dictionary says that fortunate means “having derived good from an unexpected place.” There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.

    If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of “fortune” or “luck,” then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This “success equals luck” idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as “people who have won life’s lottery.” He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky. It’s not luck, my friends. It’s choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled “The Greatest Secret in the World.” The lesson? Very simple: “Use wisely your power of choice.”

    That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He’s there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other – victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, “Look! He did this to me!” than it is to look into a mirror and say, “You S. O. B.! You did this to me!”

    The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.

    Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.

    Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block – some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.

    The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

    Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

    Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it. The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more “fair.”

    You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government’s own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor … there’s an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

    Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor So, you need to know that under our government’s definition of “poor” you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $ million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as “living in poverty.” Now there’s something you haven’t seen on the evening news.

    How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is “living in poverty,” the government measures one thing — just one thing. Income. It doesn’t matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas , or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are ‘living in poverty.”

    This isn’t exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it? Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.

    Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of “poor” is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

    I’m about to be stoned by the faculty here. They’ve already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. That’s OK, though. I still have my PhD. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It’s a trap. Think about it – the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you’ll be unable to deal with life, or the truth So, get over it.

    Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.

       

    • You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again. 
    • When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there. 
    • Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the country. If someone can’t deal honestly with you, send them packing. 
    • Don’t bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it — to take their money by force for your own needs — then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you. 
    • Don’t look in other people’s pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone. 
    • Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don’t see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark. 
    • Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection. 

    Finally (and aren’t you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

       

    1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being. 
    2. Use wisely your power of choice. 
    3. Go the extra mile .. drive home in the dark.

     

    Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.

    Now, if you have any idea at all what’s good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.

    Class dismissed.

    In Loving Memory of the Victims of 9-11

    Educational Material, Honoring Their Sacrifice, Honoring Their Service, In Loving Memory, Youth Educational Material September 11, 2009

     Remembering Those We Lost

    A horrible tragedy occured at 8:46 Tuesday Morning September 11, 2001. There were 4 planes hijacked by terrorists. A senseless act of cowardness.

    American Airlines Flight 11, crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. There were 92 people aboard, including 9 flight attendants and 2 pilots.

    At 9:03 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, carrying 65 people, including 7 flight attendants and 2 pilots.

    At 9:38 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Va. There were 64 people aboard, including 4 flight attendants and 2 pilots.

    At 10:10 a.m., United Airlines Flight 93 crashed Southeast of Pittsburgh carrying 45 people, including 5 flight attendants and 2 pilots. It is believed that flight 93 was headed for the White House when some of the passengers rushed the terrorists, causing them to miss their intended target and crash into a field in Pittsburgh. We thank those aboard flight 93 for such a courageous act of selflessness and bravery for saving the many lives that would have been destroyed at the White House.

    May God Bless the victims, their families and the heroes who lost their lives in helping save the lives of others.