via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)
Readers will be impressed, if not astounded, by the remarkably well-informed and extraordinarily articulate commentary in these articles. We don’t speak and write the English language like they used to. Nor are most Americans nearly as well informed about the facts of the war as these nineteenth-century European writers were. Several generations of American court historians have seen to that.
The idea for this book is quite innovative: Since the Northern press was heavily censored by the Lincoln regime, and the Southern press, regardless of how factual it may have been, is not believed by most Americans, the European journals are perhaps the only credible source of popular opinion on the war during the 1856—1865 period.
There were prominent European supporters of both North and South, as Adams shows, although they all strongly opposed slavery. Quite a few of the European writers altered their opinions and became Southern sympathizers after observing the actions of Lincoln and his regime in the first months of the war.
Many British writers “saw the separation of North and South as a good thing” and believed that “slavery had no significant part in the conflict,” writes Adams. In fact, many of the articles presented here make the argument that, thanks to secession, Southern slavery was doomed because secession eliminated the protection (for slave owners) of the Fugitive Slave Act. (The same argument is one of the major points of Jeffrey Hummel’s book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, which I suppose would qualify him, along with these nineteenth-century European writers, as a Confederate sympathizer).
via European views of the War to Prevent Southern Independence | Southern Nationalist Network.
via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)
One Sure Thing in Life
The constitution will not save you from death or taxes
by J. H. Huebert
by J. H. Huebert
I have a message for every liberty lover out there who knows that the federal income tax is a moral outrage, nothing more than legalized theft, and something many of our country’s founders would have found unconscionable.
The message is, “Pay it anyway.”
No, I didn’t sell out to the feds during my recently completed clerkship with the U.S. Court of Appeals. But that experience did hit me with a dose of reality that made me more certain than ever that you can’t beat the federal government at its own game, on its own turf, so you must be careful to choose your battles wisely and well.
If you try to beat the feds at their own game, you will lose.
Many people know, or know of, someone who thinks he doesn’t have to pay federal income taxes. It’s not that this person doesn’t earn any income, or has a lot of deductions, or keeps his money offshore. Instead, this person thinks he has discovered the ultimate loophole in the tax code and the income tax just doesn’t apply to him, period.
Often, people like this believe some combination of the following:
* The tax code doesn’t actually tax income, therefore I don’t owe any federal income taxes.
* The Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, therefore I don’t owe any federal income taxes.
* I am a citizen of my state, and not the United States, therefore I don’t owe any federal income taxes.
* I was a U.S. citizen, but now I have become a “non-resident alien,” therefore I don’t owe any federal income taxes.
* The Social Security Act established a constructive trust in my name upon my birth, and I don’t earn any income myself — my salary is actually paid to the trust, which happens to share my name — and therefore I don’t owe any federal income taxes.
Those of you who have never met these people may want to check out Brian Doherty‘s excellent article going inside the movement for more details.
The tax protesters may have some interesting legal, historical, or philosophical points. Maybe, for example, the Sixteenth Amendment wasn’t properly ratified. I don’t know, and I don’t care, because I know the only thing that matters: If you don’t pay your taxes, you will be forced to pay them, and then you will go to jail. And what if you resist, physically? Then, if they deem it necessary, the feds will kill you. It’s just that simple.
No judge is going to listen to your stories about the Sixteenth Amendment, sovereignty, or constructive trusts for one minute. Why? First and foremost, because when the federal government takes anyone to court, it’s a rigged game, because agents of the federal government are both prosecutor and judge. We have “separation of powers” on paper, but the reality is that no judge is going to declare the taxes that support his paycheck unconstitutional. Consider also that every federal judge is appointed by the President of the United States. Can you think of any president during your lifetime who would appoint such a judge?
Another point to keep in mind is that the courts have heard it all before, more than once, and have summarily rejected these arguments. The IRS has helpfully cataloged some of these cases for you here. I can assure you that the legal knowledge you acquire in your self-study on this matter will not stun any of these courts such that they will suddenly change their minds. The constitution is a mere document, and not very good to begin with, so despite any false impressions your government-school civics class may have given you, the constitution is powerless to save you from the feds.
Of course, I don’t doubt that there are people out there who have gotten away with these tax schemes, and who will encourage you to do the same. And I’m sure they will come up with clever new legal theories, too. But after you read their testimonials, and hear their sophisticated-sounding arguments, look at the case law, and you will see that person after person has tried it and gone to jail. Every one of them thought the law was somehow on their side when they stopped paying taxes, and every one of them was wrong.
So let us summarize: No legal argument will magically exempt you from income taxes. Period. If it were possible, entrepreneurs would have jumped on top of it and made a killing on books explaining how to do it, and then the government would have closed the loophole.
via One Sure Thing in Life by J.H. Huebert.
Republicans who mostly goose-stepped behind Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq are now up in arms against Obama‘s illegal adventure, while Democrats who opposed Bush’s muscular foreign policy are now mostly in lockstep behind their man — a pathetically political Jekyll-and-Hyde dance.
There are, however, a few pols with principles beyond knee-jerk party loyalty: Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Walter Jones (R-NC, who opposed Bush’s foreign policy) have filed a joint complaint in the U.S. District Court of Columbia challenging the legality of Obama’s Libyan intervention.
via The business of America: Endless War.
Obama’s ineligibility: It is time to create a genuine opposition
Obama’s ineligibility: It is time to create a genuine opposition: “Durbin thinks that it is acceptable for an illegal immigrant to become President.
If you recall, it was also Durbin who compared American soldiers to Nazis.
To the untrained eye Durbin may seem like he is either an idiot or insane. He is not.
You see, like his other pals in Congress, Durbin expects to be Senator-for-life along the lines of Haiti’s Baby Doc Duvalier.
Durbin and the Democrats don’t really care about illegal immigrants as future professionals, but as future voters.
By giving illegal immigrants amnesty before the 2012 election, the Democrats believe that they can guarantee an election victory for Obama and regain control of Congress.
Their aim is permanent political power, a one-party state like Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
And the feeble and impotent Republicans will acquiesce in the hope that they will be the last ones eaten by the crocodile.
Dodgy Diane Feinstein intentionally uses “citizen” and “natural borne citizen” interchangeably in willful deception
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) continues the Congressional charade regarding Obama’s eligibility to be President by providing the following misleading response to a constituent’s inquiry:”
Posted by Gunny G at Saturday, July 02, 2011
via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984(+): Obama’s ineligibility: It is time to create a genuine opposition.
Never expected the day will come when an American, albeit a Republican and a Tea Party member to call on a foreign country, Israel, to take out and kill Americans while the entire government agencies remain in total silence. I always thought or at least we all have been told that advocacy and calls for murder are illegal and in violation of American penal codes.
But it seems this is not the case when Israeli is a party, then all American laws goes out of the window and no one within this great country dare to speak out, not even the President of the United States who promised to protect the American people. Question will President Obama dares to take on Israel when it kills Americans? I doubt it.
President Obama will not be the first nor the last president who will succumb to the local political pressure and dare not take any actions when the lives of Americans are put in harm way, even killed by Israel. President Lyndon Johnson did just that when he failed to muster the courage as Commander in Chief and failed to order a commission of inquiry into the cold blooded murder of American sailors on board the USS Liberty in June of 67
via It’s “Cool” for Israel to Kill Americans | Veterans Today.
Pima County Republican Party leaders voted late Thursday to take party chairman Brian Miller’s keys to the GOP headquarters away and call a special meeting to try to remove him from his post.
Miller has been under fire from party stalwarts for the past month, with multiple meetings called in recent weeks after he criticized a SWAT raid in May that resulted in the shooting death of a man law enforcement officers said they suspected of involvement in drug dealing.
Several elected officials and party leaders have complained that his comments pitted the party against law enforcement at a time when city elections are looming and candidates are gearing up for bigger 2012 races.
After questions were raised about the amount of police force used in serving a search warrant Miller said he hoped the incident would foster community discussion of “the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights.”
After Miller refused to resign, the executive committee voted 10-2 to order Miller to cease and desist from acting as an agent of the county committee and return his keys.
Barney Brenner, a member of the committee who voted to seek Miller’s removal, said he wished Miller had resigned to help heal the party.
Brenner said the action doesn’t reflect a rift between more libertarian-leaning Republicans, like Miller, and other more traditional party members.
“This is solely about the best interests of the Pima County Republican Party,” Brenner said, adding regardless of whether Miller meant it to happen, his words damaged the party and the ability of its candidates to raise money and support.
Miller said it is the executive committee that has kept the controversy in the forefront, by continuing to call these meetings to complain about his leadership.
He said he’s been consistent in defending the constitution.
“This is a political witch hunt,” he said, adding, “If they wanted it dropped, they would have dropped it three weeks ago.”
The meeting has yet to be scheduled. A two-thirds vote of the elected precinct committeemen will be required to remove him from office.
Miller said if he survives, he will then call a special meeting of his own to ask the precinct committeemen to vote on the performance of each member of the executive committee.
via Leader of Pima County’s GOP faces removal effort (Criticizing botched SWAT raid that killed Guerena).
via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)
Bookmark and Share Printer Friendly
Commentary
Should Patriots Love the Pledge of Allegiance?
July 1, 2011
Anthony Gregory
A controversy in Eugene, Oregon, over whether to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before city council meetings has revived this tired culture-war issue once again. Liberals have long criticized the Pledge, especially its phrase, “under God.” Conservatives treat the pledge as sacred and condemn any attempts to alter the practice.
Most forget the Pledge’s origins. Leftists might take pride in the pledge, and many do, but those who cherish individual liberty should be much more skeptical. It was a socialist, Francis Bellamy, who authored the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892. The goal was to inculcate immigrants and children in the civic religion of nationalism, to unify the classes, and to promote the state above the individual.
Bellamy was also behind the push to put flags in every school. His cousin, Edward Bellamy, wrote the utopian socialist novel Looking Backwards. They both believed the state should redistribute wealth equally among workers. Francis originally wanted the pledge to echo the French Revolution principles of “equality” and “fraternity,” but ultimately decided it would not catch on in America.
Bellamy’s revolution has mostly succeeded, although not always peacefully. In the 1940s, mobs lashed out at Jehovah’s Witnesses who dissented from the Pledge, seeing it as idolatrous. At first, the Supreme Court even upheld involuntary recitations in America’s classrooms, before reversing itself in 1943, finding that forced renditions amount to an unconstitutional “compulsory unification of opinion.”
The collectivist, un-American legacy of the Pledge has been sugarcoated through modifications of the original practice. The United States abandoned the “Bellamy salute”—the gesture devised by Bellamy to accompany the pledge. It involved stretching one’s arm upward toward the flag. School kids across America used to perform this ritual before its similarities to the Nazi salute in the 1940s rendered the gesture untenable. So it was replaced with the simple hand on the heart.
During the Cold War, fear of atheistic Communism inspired the Eisenhower administration inserted “Under God” into the. Much of the controversy since has been over these two words, but whether the U.S. government is seen, as some liberals see it, as a replacement for God, or, as some conservatives see it, as an extension of God’s will, it is the general meaning of the rest of the Pledge that is most troubling.
The Pledge is, after all, a promise of loyalty to
via Should Patriots Love the Pledge of Allegiance?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute.
‘The news media appears not to have asked a single question’
‘The news media appears not to have asked a single question’:
“WND Exclusive
CERTIFIGATE
‘The news media appears not to have asked a single question’
Here’s Part 5 of Washington news conference
Posted: June 30, 2011
9:18 am Eastern
� 2011 WND
Here’s Part 5 of the Washington news conference regarding the Obama eligibility issue and the lawsuit against Esquire for its faked report that ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President‘ had been pulled from shelves and recalled.
See Part 1 of the news conference here.
See Part 2 of the news conference here.
See Part 3 of the news conference here.
See Part 4 of the news conference here.
See Part 5 of the news conference here.”
Posted by Gunny G at Saturday, July 02, 2011
via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984(+): ‘The news media appears not to have asked a single question’.
via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)
Two members of Congress have begun to express doubts about Barack Obama’s eligibility in statements that constituents have forwarded to WND, including one from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who said, “Any circumvention of these constitutional requirements would be a slap in the face to the rule of law and our very democracy.”
The second comment came from Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, who told a constituent that it appears the courts should be resolving the issue, not Congress, but he wonders what claims can be brought to Obama’s doorstep.
The comments suggest that members of Congress are breaking away from recommendations from the Congressional Research Service on how to dismiss such questions.
Get the New York Times best-seller “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President,” autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
WND reported earlier how Jerry W. Mansfield, an information research specialist in the Knowledge Services Group of the CRS, issued a memo to prepare members of Congress to rebut and defuse questions constituents were asking regarding Obama’s presidential eligibility under the natural-born citizen requirement of the Constitution.
(Story continues below)
via Statements suggest doubt about Obama growing.
Obama signed Executive Order 13575 earlier this month, establishing a “White House Rural Council” prescribed by Agenda 21. The amount of government Obama has directed to administer this is staggering. Obama committed thousands of federal employees in 25 federal agencies to promote sustainability in rural areas, completely bypassing Congressional approval. Some of these agencies are unrelated to rural areas. The agencies will entice local communities into adopting Agenda 21 programs by providing them millions of dollars in grants. Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh writing for Canada Free Press analyzed the order and wrote, “it establishes unchecked federal control into rural America in education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy, and the lives of 16% of the U.S. population.”
Tea party groups, talk show host Glenn Beck, and organizations like Freedom Advocates, Catholic Investigative Agency and Sovereignty International are working hard to expose Agenda 21, but there is only so much a few can do. Some local governments have become aware of what Agenda 21 is really about and dropped out of ICLEI this year. The Carroll County Board of Commissioners, Montgomery County in Pennsylvania and the city of Edmond, Oklahoma have all withdrawn their participation.
It will be difficult to defeat Agenda 21 because it requires changing the attitudes of over 600 separate localities across the U.S. Ideally, a conservative president could roll back the executive orders implementing it, but considering Republican President H.W. Bush was a disappointment in this area that may be too much to hope for. If Republicans take over Congress they could challenge the huge power grab Obama made with Executive Order 13575 and ban Agenda 21 in the U.S. For now, local activists must champion this issue, much like Texans for Accountable Government has done, educating local boards and commissions and serving on them. Agenda 21 is a tedious and overwhelming topic, and until
via Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat?.
As the debt ceiling debate rages in Washington, D.C., the possibility of an agreement not being reached by the August 2 deadline becomes more and more real. But what if that happens – does anyone benefit politically?
MSNBC host Cenk Uygur asked MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan about that possibility – in that it takes some of the power of Congress to appropriate away and would give President Barack Obama a de facto line-time veto. Should the government shut down, with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, would a shutdown give Obama the power to pick and choose his own priorities?
“Pat, look, you say the Republicans have the advantage,” Uygur said. “[Y]ou say Republicans have the advantage. But what if we don’t raise the debt ceiling but don’t go into default? Money comes into the Treasury all the time. We use it to pay our debt so there is no default. And then the president says, ‘OK, I have the biggest line-item veto in the history of mankind. I will only fund programs you are in favor of. You Republicans get nothing from now on.’ Then who’s got the advantage?”
Obama wouldn’t be able pick and choose “Republican programs” because he argued the bulk of government comes from social programs, Buchanan said.
“Well, you’re telling me that President of the United States — look, if the President of the United States – you’re right, the President of the United States would have to start chopping spending and programs like that. What are the big ones? They are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and the two wars.”
That led to this exchange between liberal radio host Bill Press and Buchanan. Press asserted that Obama isn’t afraid to take on the GOP and Congress should there be an agreement that he doesn’t like. Buchanan doubts Obama’s willingness to follow through on Press’ claim:
PRESS: We know, we know Pat – Pat, we know the president’s got the last word. The president has the advantage. He showed it yesterday. He is not going to accept a deal that doesn’t include some revenue expense.
UYGUR: Bill, we have to leave it there.
BUCHANAN: He doesn’t have the cajones and you know it.
PRESS: You watch, Pat. He will shut down the government if necessary. The Republicans will get blamed for it just like Newt Gingrich got blamed for it.
via Buchanan on Obama facing down GOP over debt ceiling: ‘He doesn’t have the cajones!’.
There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.
The video documentary was produced by Carl Gallups, the senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than 24 years with a long history of community and law enforcement involvement.
Gallups was a Florida law enforcement officer for 10 years, a youth minister before that and is a national and international youth evangelist with outreaches across the United States and in Canada since 1989. He’s also on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.
Get the New York Times best-seller “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President,” autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
Documentation for his video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.
The video:
He outlines the specifics:
* June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.”
* Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
* Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
* Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, “to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”
* Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.
* Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
* April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
* Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
(Story continues below)
via What did Congress know about ‘natural-born citizen’?.
*********
Hey, See the Reader Responses on each article,
they are gems in themselves!
**********
**********
Gunny G: BLOGGER 1984 +
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com
and…
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/
**********
**********
**********
CONTACT INFO:
GUNNYG@GMAIL.COM
*****
'FAIR USE' EXCERPTS
(BACK.LINKED TO SOURCE)
*****
THE "OTHER" GUNNY G BLOG!
(CLICK FLAG)
*****
*****
Stang: The GOP, Red From The Start....
*****
Thomas Dilorenzo...Our Republic Cannot Be Restored Until GOP Destroyed!
*****
COMMIE CHICAGO~ Al Benson
*****
THE NEW Gunny "G" SITE!:
Gunny "G" @ NETWORK54.com
GREAT SITE!
GREAT ARTICLES!
www.strike-the-root.com/
Click Button Above,Please
*****
MUST READ!
FOR THE THINKING MAN!
Please Click Button Above
*****
THE Gunny G BOOKMARKS/One-Click Posts/Articles--CLICK HERE!!!!! (Diigo)
Recent Comments