Monthly Archives: September 2011

One Massachusetts Copperhead’s Views on the Civil Rights Record and Legacy of the Sixteenth President (Please Note: as a matter of family history more “Lincolns” fought for the CSA than the USA in 1861-65)

Once before I sent a letter to Bill O'Reilly...
Valerie Protopapas 2:51pm Sep 25
Once before I sent a letter to Bill O’Reilly (he had compared the Confederacy with Nazi Germany). The other night he held up Lincoln as the type of leader we need in this country. Since he won’t read anything I send him and since this letter applies to other neo-cons like Mark Lavin and Glenn Beci, I figured I would “send it out into the ether and see how far it went. Here is my open letter to Bill O’Reilly:

<An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly

Dear Sir:

Obviously, you are not a stupid man but sadly, your intellect seems non-existent when it comes to your judgment about American leaders. You have stood foursquare against the current socialist trends in the federal government. You have condemned the excesses of Congress and the Administration and the ever growing centralization of power in Washington as well as the trashing of the Constitution. You have mentioned time and again that such excesses are diametric to the founding principles of the nation, flying in the face of that same document—and I have applauded you for your public defense of those republican (with a lower-case “r”) principles and the men (and women) who have championed them.

Yet, the other evening, I heard you—yet again—claim that the “gold standard” of American leadership was none other than President Abraham Lincoln. I actually became so enraged I turned off the TV! I could not bear to listen any longer. All that we currently endure we do so because of Abraham Lincoln! It was Lincoln who embraced the movement of power away from the Sovereign States and the People as envisioned by the Founders. It was Lincoln who adopted the socialist/communist ideologies brought into the United States from Europe with the arrival of the so-called “48ers,” the mostly German followers of Marx fleeing their failed revolutions in Europe. However, it is also true that Lincoln had adopted those same policies independently before he was influenced by Europe’s socialist upheaval. Did you know that Marx adored Lincoln for the very reason that he worked to centralize power in the federal government? And did you know that Lincoln’s government and military was filled with Marxists and socialists? It was Lincoln who abandoned all constitutionally imposed restrictions on the federal government and the presidency when he planned and initiated war against states performing an act guaranteed to them in the Constitution—that of secession from a union that was no longer in the best interest of their people. It was Lincoln who deliberately and with malice brought that war to fruition—a war that cost over a million lives both military and civilian and destroyed an entire section of what had been the united (lower-case “u”) States for a century or more. And the list goes on and on. There is no more infamous lie in the annals of American history than Lincoln’s analysis of the causes of the so-called “Civil War”—“…and war came.” War didn’t “come,” Lincoln brought it into existence in what proved to be a successful attempt to prevent the loss of eleven Southern states and the 75% of the federal revenues paid by those States. Indeed, the South, by Lincoln’s time, had become nothing more than a politically impotent economic colony supplying endless revenues to the rest of the Union while being driven ever deeper into poverty.

It was Lincoln who embraced—and profited from—Hamilton’s “American System,” which today we call “crony capitalism” and which is really nothing other than the enemy of free enterprise, fascism. Lincoln was supported for the presidency by the economic interests of states such as Pennsylvania to which he promised a high tariff to protect their manufactured goods and a continuation of the flow of capital from the South to the North. Lincoln had been a lawyer with one of the railroads supported by such tax-funded largesse and was so successful that he was allowed to choose the eastern terminus for the contemplated trans-continental railroad. It is interesting—and revealing—to note that the property he chose for that site just happened to be owned by him! Lincoln’s sobriquet at that time—Honest Abe—was bestowed by his contemporaries for the same reason that the sobriquet “Little John” was bestowed upon Robin Hood’s very large lieutenant. In other words, it was a reference to behavior diametric to the appellation and therefore not a complement.

Finally, if you think that we had election fraud in 2008, Lincoln made use of the military to assure his re-election, something that was by no means guaranteed in November of 1864. General Benjamin (Beast) Butler was sent to New York from which he triumphantly informed Lincoln that no Democrats had been permitted to vote. The same happened in other states such as Ohio where both Lincoln and Lincoln’s war were not popular. Soldiers were permitted to vote in areas in which they did not live to assure his re-election. Meanwhile, their presence at the polls was a warning to those who might vote Democrat. In fact, in many instances the ballots were color-coded so that the party chosen by the voter was immediately obvious to those partisan “poll watchers” and many Americas were “discouraged” from voting if a wrong color ballot was observed.

There is so much more on Lincoln’s illegal, unconstitutional and immoral actions that is a part of the public record and yet, he continues to be revered, even worshipped, by people who despise and reject the things for which he stood and on which he acted. Even the popular belief that Lincoln “freed the slaves” or, in fact, had any feeling for them individually or as a group is nonsense, proven over and over by his own words and actions. He cared nothing for slavery and even less for “the African” and was willing to put slavery into the Constitution in the original 13th Amendment (Corwin) if it would keep the Southern states compliant.

Even the claim so often made that he fought the war to “preserve the union” is a lie though many Northerners were deceived and indeed fought for that stated purpose. First, a union is by its nature voluntary. Coercion at the point of a bayonet is nothing but conquest and occupation, not “union.” Then, Lincoln, his government and all of the states who fought ostensibly to preserve the Union were traitors according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Indeed, the only act defined as treason in that document is the waging of war against any of the signatory states and aiding and abetting in that war. If there was ever an act more worthy of the taint of treason and the openly guilty parties more exposed to public view, it has to be America’s “Civil War” in which the federal government—or should I say, the President—declared war on seven (later eleven) signatory states and initiated total war against them. Of course, all of those who supported or permitted this war were themselves traitors to a greater or lesser degree. It is ironic that the taint of treason was spread so liberally—and so successfully—on states that had acted constitutionally in attempting to remove themselves from a hostile and eventually murderous “union” while the actual traitors have been lauded to the skies historically as heroes and “true Americans.”

No, Mr. O’Reilly, your “stand” against those attempting to make of what remains of this nation another “Peoples’ Republic” cannot be believed so long as you refuse to acknowledge where America started to leave the path of Aristotle, Locke and the Founding Fathers and embrace the governing theories and actions of Hobbes and Marx. Actually, you have only two choices: understand and admit that “the nation’s greatest president” was a traitor and a murderer (over a million dead) and repudiate his “vision” for the nation—a federal tyranny—or cling to delusion, deception and myth and, by doing so, render your own message null and void and yourself foolish at best and dishonest at worst. You cannot have Lincoln and liberty.

Valerie Protopapas >

Historical Trajectories: the Middle Class & Communism—is the U.S. today Headed for where Russia Started in 1917? When less than 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth and property—Communism looks more attractive—that is why Obama, the Congress, the Federal & State Courts, and the Welfare System is destroying the Middle Class….

 Sunday September 25, 2011 (Originally on Facebook)

Had an interesting conversation with a young lady named Elena born in Russia today. She said how nostalgic many people still are for “the Good Old Days” under Communism. It turns out that, at least according to her story, under Communism, no one could ever lose their home because you could not sell or mortgage a home or even lose it in a divorce. That surprised me. Exploring it a little further, she explained how in Russia, when you see someone driving a Mercedes-Benz, you know it is a very wealthy person, while when you see someone driving a Mercedes-Benz in the U.S., it really doesn’t mean much at all…

On reflection, you know, what she’s really saying is that Private Property was more “private” and secure under the Soviet government than it is in the United States today, and that money is more “real” because people can’t buy luxuries like expensive cars unless they have real money… really saved up. In other words, the evil that has destroyed and continues to destroy so much of the American dream today is the Devil in the Disguise of False Money Credit—and whatever the evils of the Soviet Union were, the failure of Communism in that Country meant that it was (and still is) a more successful capitalist country than the U.S. today—whatever the labels

    • Sashka Aliaksandra Zheldakova Interesting. That “young” lady must be in her 40ies? ))) Bullshit about Mersedes stories. If you saw a person driving such a car at that time this meant not wealthiness, it would mean crime and stealing and money laundering. PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE USSR??? WOOOW!
      8 hours ago · Like
    • Gerard Bechard Under communism, the apartment complex was created to house the sheeple. In Nazi Germany, Hitler wanted every family to have a house with a garden.

      8 hours ago · Like
    • Sashka Aliaksandra Zheldakova indeed, if the apartment complex means a 3×4 sq m room per person, then I can tell that dogs live better, sorry! NO ONE COULD SAVE, WAKE UP CHARLES!

      8 hours ago · Like
    • Charles E. Lincoln Look, what I was saying is that I found Elena’s (FWIW her age is 32) comments very interesting because they did not fit with my understanding of life the Soviet Union at all. (She was talking about what other people say about the old days, more than her own direct memories). Now, Elena says her father was some sort of decorated Soviet Military officer, and they even had (and still have) a separate “dacha” of some sort in the Country, so perhaps they were members of the Soviet Elite and that may have had something to do with her distinctive perspective. But whenever you meet someone who has a perspective that wildly differs from what you believe you know, it’s interesting. What I REALLY think may be at the back of all this is a bit of historical trajectory: from the perspective of SOME people, Soviet Russia may have been an improvement over Tsarist Russia. In Tsarist Russia the Emperor and Nobility might have constituted 5-10% of the population but they owned 90& of the property and wealth of the Empire. If there was some improvement in life for some percentage of the population between 1917 and say, 1930, or even between 1950 and 1960, then these are historical facts worth noting.

      26 minutes ago · Like
    • Charles E. Lincoln To the best of my knowledge, there was no “middle class” to speak of in Pre-Revolutionary Russia, or if there was it was not nearly so well-developed or evolved as in Great Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. Russia and Eastern Europe, like Spain and most of Latin America at the time, were relatively under-developed in both technological and economic progress–is this not correct? I had a fantastic Professor of Comparative Law and Constitutional Theory from Poland in Law School (Wiktor Osiatynski) who explained in some detail a theory for why it was that Communism: Formulated by a German Jew living in the bourgeois comfort of London, whose work was wildly popular, primarily among the bourgeois and literate working classes of England, France, and Germany, never took root in the West, but was adopted in the East. Wiktor’s theory was that the barriers to the adoption of Communism in the West were the strong Middle Class and their individualistic aspirations, while in the East, a more primitive, “Peasant” society which was extremely suspicious of individual gain fostered a notion of “primitive communistic altruism” in the community. So that, what Sasha is saying “an apartment w 3 x 4 meter room per person” would have seemed an acceptable improvement over pre-revolutionary dwellings so long as EVERYBODY lived in one. And so, Communism: which gave everyone a LITTLE bit but not much, was acceptable for a while—EXCEPT that people like Elena’s relatives may have done quite well by comparison, so that there was STILL an Elite and no real equality. In that sense, I totally agree that life in Nazi Germany was probably better and more “normal” from the Western perspective than life in Soviet Russia: except for the whole War and being wiped out, bombed to smithereens and occupied legacy of the 12 year Reich…. which is what Germany and Europe have had to deal with. If Hitler had avoided war, Nazi Germany might have seemed a much more viable alternative than it does right now. But as it is, F. von Hayek’s (the Austrian economics view generally) evaluation of Naziism and just a failed variant on the Collectivist movement will probably stand, even with the greater emphasis on a more “substantial” private property….

      13 minutes ago · Like
    • Charles E. Lincoln And here is the major point that concerns me in considering the alternative economic paths: the reality is that the false money/debt crisis in the United States (created by some of the same financial interests/international bankers/Federal Reserve-World Bank types who backed BOTH Hitler AND Roosevelt-Churchill AND the Soviet Union) is doing something interesting. Here in the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”, the middle class, which existed in Germany and supported Hitler but did not exist in Russia to oppose Communism, is being wiped out by mortgage foreclosures and the abuses of the common law and constitution by the Federal and State Courts (especially the Family/Domestic Relations Courts and other Courts of “limited jurisdiction”).

      6 minutes ago · Like
    • Charles E. Lincoln The Threat to the Middle Class in America, Great Britain, and the West generally is such that soon, just as in pre-Communist Tsarist Russia, we may have a situation in the USA where less than 5% of the population own 90-95%% of the wealth and property of the Nation—some say we are there already. And when that happens… When 90-95% of the people own NOTHING—then we, in the United States, will be open to the imposition of TRUE COMMUNISM—perhaps in even a purer form than ever existed in the Soviet Union—and that is what I dread the most….the perfection of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in which all American Heritage is subjugated under the heal of a ruthless and soulless bureaucracy which will assign to each person perhaps a room 3 x 4 meters, and we will all be living like dog-slaves? Is that not the “change” to which Obama is leading us?

California Penal Code Sections 278 & 278.5: Judicial Slavery Transforming the Natural into the Unnatural?

Nothing in the world is more natural than parental procreation and child rearing, and nothing in the world is significantly more unnatural than slavery. (The unnatural nature of slavery was recognized even by Ancient Roman Philosophers such as Lucretius and relatively modern commentators such as Grotius who lived in times when slavery was widespread throughout the world and entirely legal). 

The definition of the unnatural condition of slavery, however, is as controversial and difficult at the margins as the definition of the natural condition of liberty.  The “Free On-Line Legal Dictionary” defines Slavery very generally as “A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another,” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slavery).  The noted American student of modern global slavery, Kevin Bales, qualifies his definition by writing “As long as people are controlled by violence and exploited for economic purposes, they are slaves, regardless of whether or not a country’s laws recognize the legal ownership of human beings.”  Wikipedia expounds in some detail, “Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Conditions that can be considered slavery include debt bondageindentured servitudeserfdomdomestic servants kept in captivity, adoption in which children are effectively forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.”

I rather like the Free Dictionary’s simple statement quoted above: “A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.”  I think it is in this sense that the United States Constitution’s 13th Amendment, adopted and ratified in 1865, meant to abolish slavery: 

 Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
  Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

  See, inter alia,  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt13.html

I have repeatedly commented on the pages of this Blog and elsewhere about the curious coincidence that the abolition of chattel slavery has led to the rapid expansion of prison populations in the United States.  In 1860 the U.S. Census showed a total slave population of 3,953,760, out of a total population of 31,443,321.  In 1860, that same census showed a incarcerated population of 19,086 (607 prisoners per million).   Intermediate “half-way” houses and other conditions such as probation and parole were not even remotely so well-developed then as now, and I have not found any relevant statistics.  By 1890 the U.S. Prison Population had more than quadrupled to 82,329 (1,315 per million). (Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1132761).

Today, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have incarcerated more than 2.4 million of our fellow Americans (Source: http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/193137.html).   This figure does not come close to reflecting the ugly penal reality of life in the United States of America, however, as the same article shows:

At year end 2010, America’s prison population topped 2.4 million, including federal and state facilities, local jails, Indian, juvenile, and military ones, U.S. territories, and numbers held by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In addition, over seven million more are under correctional supervision, and over 13 million pass through U.S. prisons and jails annually. About 70% are for nonviolent offenses. Veteranstoday.com

HIGHLIGHTS: Most vulnerable are poor Blacks, Latinos, and Native Indians (people of color) for America’s insatiable prison-industrial complex appetite, commoditizing human beings for profit in both public and privately run prisons. Fogcityjournal.com

Beginning in the 1980s, rapid prison population growth attracted private investment. As a result, states began selling correctional facilities to private operators, then contracting with them to warehouse prisoners. Fogcityjournal.com

Despite no evidence showing business operates better than government, prisons for profit grew at a faster rate than incarceration over the past 15 years. As a result, companies like CCA and GEO Group have seen explosive growth, benefitting greatly by filling more beds. Thepeoplesvoice.org

Currently the private prison industry is in a growth period at nearly 4 billion in current annual sales. Blue-point-trading.com

With good government lobbying, they can convince government bodies to give them their prisoners and get the incarceration rates up even higher – all being potentially self funded through these prisoner work programs. blue-point-trading.com 

FACTS & FIGURES: America’s population behind bars has gone up 1,000 percent in the last three decades. Get-tough-on-crime legislation and minimum sentencing laws are blamed for the explosion of inmates. Thereishopepm.com

The U.S. incarcerates more people on a per capita basis than any other country in the world – nearly two to three times more than our European counterparts. Blue-point-trading.com

Roughly one-third of U.S. prisoners were unemployed before imprisonment. Another third had annual incomes of less than $5,000. Blue-point-trading.com

The number of female inmates is increasing almost twice as fast as the men’s incarceration rate, tripling in the last decade. At least 40 percent of jailed women have minor children. Thereishopepm.com

Rape and other sexual abuse are considered to be major problems because of the power imbalance between inmates and guards, exacerbated when they’re poorly trained. Thepeoplesvoice.org

SOURCE: PRESS TV, TUESDAY AUGUST 9, 2011, presstv URL cited above).

Just to repeat the premise at the beginning of this essay: Nothing in the world is more natural than parental procreation and child rearing, and nothing in the world is significantly more unnatural than slavery. 

The State of California, I have concluded, has either been designated by God, the Fates, or, just perhaps, the Bilderberg Group to lead the Nation and the World into the Brave New World  described by Aldous Huxley in 1931-32.  (While it is at least theoretically possible that California’s leadership results from cultural or political choices, factors, or forces originating from the people of California themselves, I honestly don’t believe that such choices would ever have been voluntarily made for even ten seconds.)

So now, California Penal Code Sections 278 & 278.5-278.7 has come to my attention as a threat to the life and liberty of two present or recent Orange County women who come from such different backgrounds that their existence in the same sentence is itself a testament to the “diversity” of the California population.   

Judge Clay M. Smith of the Orange County Superior Court, Lamoreaux Center, has threatened these two women with incarceration for contempt (in one case) and criminal prosecution (in the other) of the California Statutes which criminalize “interference with child custody” even as between individuals otherwise lawfully entitled to some exercise of custody.  The basic statutes provide as follows, first California Penal Code Section 278: 

278.  Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals any child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.

And California Penal Code Section 278.5 somewhat redundantly, but expansively, mandates: 

278.5 (a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.  (b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court’s contempt power.  (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.

There are many, many troubling things about these two statutory provisions (and the related, qualifying, provisions of Penal Code Sections 277 and 278.6-278.7).   To begin with, I am at a loss to understand how these statutes can each both define punishments for both misdemeanor and felony level offenses without describing any gradations or variations of conduct which would determine how and whether a judge could or should sentence “every person” either to “a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both, or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or both that fine and and imprisonment.”  Furthermore, the provisions of Penal Code Sections 277 and 278.6-278.7 which qualify 278 and 278.5 both seem to so byzantine and multifarious in their complexity that the results must be declared “VOID FOR VAGUENESS” under every construction of that doctrine I have ever seen.   In the alternative, these statutory definitions, qualifications, limitations, and expansions simply provide too much judicial discretion.  No reasonable person could possibly understand in advance which part of the law would apply to him or her.

The definitions in California Penal Code Section 277 start the problem:  

277.   The following definitions apply for the purposes of this chapter:  (a) “Child” means a person under the age of 18 years. (b) “Court order” or “custody order” means a custody determination decree, judgment, or order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether permanent or temporary, initial or modified, that affects the custody or visitation of a child, issued in the context of a custody proceeding. An order, once made, shall continue in effect until it expires, is modified, is rescinded, or terminates by operation of law. (c) “Custody proceeding” means a proceeding in which a custody determination is an issue, including, but not limited to, an action for dissolution or separation, dependency, guardianship, termination of parental rights, adoption, paternity, except actions under Section 11350 or 11350.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or protection from domestic violence proceedings, including an emergency protective order pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code. (d) “Lawful custodian” means a person, guardian, or public agency having a right to custody of a child. (e) A “right to custody” means the right to the physical care, custody, and control of a child pursuant to a custody order as defined in subdivision (b) or, in the absence of a court order, by operation of law, or pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act contained in Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code.  Whenever a public agency takes protective custody or jurisdiction of the care, custody, control, or conduct of a child by statutory authority or court order, that agency is a lawful custodian of the child and has a right to physical custody of the child. In any subsequent placement of the child, the public agency continues to be a lawful custodian with a right to physical custody of the child until the public agency’s right of custody is terminated by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of law.  (f) In the absence of a court order to the contrary, a parent loses his or her right to custody of the child to the other parent if the parent having the right to custody is dead, is unable or refuses to take the custody, or has abandoned his or her family. A natural parent whose parental rights have been terminated by court order is no longer a lawful custodian and no longer has a right to physical custody. (g) “Keeps” or “withholds” means retains physical possession of a child whether or not the child resists or objects. (h) “Visitation” means the time for access to the child allotted to any person by court order. (i) “Person” includes, but is not limited to, a parent or an agent of a parent. (j) “Domestic violence” means domestic violence as defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code.  (k) “Abduct” means take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal.

Section 277, however, is a model of clarity when compared with the aggravating and mitigating factors provided in the sentencing and “applicability” Penal Code Sections 278.6-278.7: 

278.7  (a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child. (b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child. “Emotional harm” includes having a parent who has committed domestic violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing the child. (c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following: (1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action. The report shall include the name of the person, the current address and telephone number of the child and the person, and the reasons the child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or

concealed. (2) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, commence a custody proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction consistent with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (Section 1738A, Title 28, United States Code) or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 3400) of Division 8 of the Family Code). (3) Inform the district attorney’s office of any change of address

or telephone number of the person and the child. (d) For the purposes of this article, a reasonable time within which to make a report to the district attorney’s office is at least 10 days and a reasonable time to commence a custody proceeding is at least 30 days. This section shall not preclude a person from making a report to the district attorney’s office or commencing a custody proceeding earlier than those specified times. (e) The address and telephone number of the person and the child provided pursuant to this section shall remain confidential unless released pursuant to state law or by a court order that contains appropriate safeguards to ensure the safety of the person and the child.

The bottom line is that the sections of the law are SO convoluted, so jumbled and poorly organized and classified that there is no rational boundary placed on any judge’s power to apply the law.  Thus, any California Superior Court judge can utilize the punitive provisions of California Penal Code §§278-278.5 to IMPRISON AT WILL any party who comes before him or her against whom relevant allegations are made.  (If the Judge does not believe the evidence is sufficient for a jury to convict “beyond reasonable doubt”—the statute reserves to that judge the power to impose exactly the same penalties under the Court’s unlimited contempt power—and the availability of juries in contempt proceedings is subject to massive, again almost unlimited, judicial manipulation).  In short, the potential for abuse of this statutory scheme by a willful judge such as Clay M. Smith is all but totally unlimited.  A California Superior Court Judge can adjust his findings regarding the applicability of section 278.7 and the “aggravating and mitigating” circumstances of 278.6 together with the definitions of 277 to “cook the books” to whatever result he wishes. 

The end result is simple: California Penal Code §§278-278.5 authorize, enable, and permit with carte blanche a Superior Court Judge to make a parent a slave, in the “Free Dictionary” sense of the term, anyhow, that is the Judge can create with either or both parents of any child: “A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.”

Given the vague and contradictory provisions of the many provisions of §§277, 278.6 & 278.7, is pointless to argue that a defendant may bring affirmative defenses to these charges—the conduct described and descriptive terms are so vague that a reasonable person simply could not adjust his conduct, she could only throw herself on the mercy of the Court, and beg.  

That is the ultimate kind of slavery, of course, the subjugation of the individual to the status of a begger for his or her basic human rights to be a parent.  The only possible cure for this horrible dilemma would be the complete repeal of judicial immunity, so that a judge would be liable for all unconstitutional acts against any parent made or taken in excess of his or her CONSTITUTIONAL authority to apply or interpret the law.

FAMILY COURT: THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION MACHINE and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 666: “The Mark of the Beast”

I have previously written on this blog that the de facto aim of the present de facto government of the United States is the de facto destruction of the Family, Private Property, and the Constitutional State, whether these aims are ever adopted as a complete de jure repeal of the Constitution or not.  

Ever since 1995, I have become increasingly aware that the customs, practices, and policies of Family Court jurisdiction all tend towards the complete abrogation of the Constitution and the Common Law. The mortgage foreclosure crisis is bad.  In fact, it is a tragedy, and it is sapping America’s vitality and transforming this nation, populated and settled on the concept of the family farm and homestead, into a nation of tenants whose control over their own destinies is nil.  A mediaeval serf or tenant farmer could at least sustain himself and his family, feudal levies and rents notwithstanding.  But the modern tenant in an apartment in the Urban or Suburban setting of America has no power or autonomy whatsoever: he is a slave to the Corporate-Governmental oligarchy.

Periodically I have tried to move into other fields of advocacy for legal reform and forget or at least ignore for a while the pain and agony that family court inflicts on the people of the modern world, but time-and-time again, I return to this conclusion: the engine destroying the family and private property is the same engine destroying the Constitutional State.  But while the American People might conceivably recover from an Economic Crisis which wiped them out of their homes like a tidal waive or earthquake all over the continent, there will be no recovery from the destruction of the family.   In South Central and Eastern LA and similar neighborhoods nationwide the combined institutions of poverty-prolonging and dependence-perpetuating welfare together with endless parallel cycles of poverty-prolonging and dependence-perpetuating crime, probation, and incarceration have led to a situation where the only families are those built around grandparents.  

Once the grandparents of the current generation are gone, I suspect that all traces of the nuclear family will be gone and that the lower and lower middle classes will be ripe for permanent harvesting into state institutions.  These observations are all new to me in that I have been collecting them first hand through interviews and participant observations throughout Los Angeles, but they are hardly new to those who have been living this way for going on two-three generations already.  See, e.g., San Clemente, California, writer Star Parker’s “Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation” (and her earlier book on the same theme): http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/40710.  (Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can do About It.).  

Without any doubt, welfare and the welfare state are the worst things ever to happen to the American Constitution and to freedom and honest government in general.  The worst thing about the welfare state is not the particular, individual frauds, even outrageous $13.8 trillion frauds such as the non-existence of the Social Security Trust fund and the complete failure of Congress to honestly account for the receipt and distribution of Social Securities taxes.  

No, the worst thing about socialism the welfare state is the Satanically dishonest promise of good things, benefits, for those who are so weak and unfortunate and marginal that they cannot defend themselves.  And the very worst and most dishonest welfare-state promise is that on which the Family/Domestic Jurisdiction Courts rest their license to destroy the Constitution: these Courts, their officers and “clients” premise their authority and invocations of power on the introit that they work for “the Best Interests of the Child.”  

Vagueness is always the enemy of judicial fairness, genuine equal protection of the laws, and due process in any meaningful or substantive way.  Nothing could possibly be more appealing than the idea that a Court must do whatever “is in the best interests of the child” or of “the children.”  And yet you will find it hard to locate two people on the planet who will ever agree what that might be.

So, in the aftermath of “No Fault” Divorce and the integration of Child Welfare and Family Protective Services under Title 42 of the United States Code (see especially Title 42 U.S.C. Section 666—yes, believe it or not, that “Mark of the Beast” REALLY is the code number—under the Title “Public Health & Welfare”).  

You know, who could possibly oppose anything that promotes Public Health & Welfare?????

Well, in fact, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of modern European history should remember that the Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France was Presided over by (and in large part conducted by) “The Committee on Public Health”–“Comité de Salut Public.”  It is odd to think that a Committee on Public Health would have been responsible for the execution of 20,000-40,000 citizens without (for the most part) keeping records of trials, evidence, or verdicts, or even of the number of executions aside from those of extremely famous people such as the Bourbon King Louis XVI & his fabled Queen Marie Antoinette, plus the Duke of Orleans, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier, Madam Roland and the Girondists. But whether appropriately or merely ironically or sarcastically named, the Comité de Salut Public operated as the highest governmental [merged legislative, executive, & judicial] power in France from April 1793-through the execution of Maximilien Robespierre, on July 28, 1794 although it continued to exist until the Constitution of August 22, 1795 with diminished power under the name “Committee on Public General Security & Public Health” (“Salut” normally means “Health” but is often translated in this historical context as “Safety”).   My personal opinion is that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a cover and quiet combination [non-standardized] IQ/History test for the American People.  And the American people, in allowing the Department of Homeland Security to be created, obviously totally and completely failed to see the parallels between Maximilien Robespierre’s and George W. Bush’s Reigns of Terror separated by just 210 years.  My further opinion and prejudice is that anyone who advocates curtailing the Constitution or Freedom in any way in the name of Safety, Health, or Security should be, in the immortal words of the Honorable Judge Michael Paul Jergins of the 395th Judicial District of Williamson County, Texas, be required to walk down the streets naked (or in barest underwear) if it were judicially determined and ordered that such conduct would be “in the best interests of the children”.

And yes, it was in fact the Honorable Michael Paul Jergins, together with Laurie J. Nowlin, J. Randall Grimes, & Michael P. Davis of Cedar Park, Round Rock & Georgetown in Williamson County, Texas, who first persuaded me that the abolition of the Family Codes and Courts of the United States was the only meaningful path to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of liberty and freedom in the United States of America.  I had suspected as much from encounters with Travis County Judges Lora Livingston and Jeanne Meurer in Austin, but it was Judge Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, and J. Randall Grimes who turned me into a crusader (Mike Davis was mostly good for laughs, especially when he once confused Geometric & Algebraic Pi with Culinary Pie, but generally every time he spoke).  And today, as I have done several times before, I rededicate my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to attacking and undoing the harm that Federally Sponsored State Judges do every day in the Courts of Family & Domestic Relations Jurisdictions throughout the United States in the name of “the best interests of the child.”

But the focus of my thoughts today is not the evils of the exercise of Family Court Jurisdiction over Cedar Park, Georgetown,  or Round Rock in Williamson County, but the exercise of such jurisdiction over Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, where tonight there is one woman hiding in a shelter (threatened with illegal arrest) and another crying for her children in her Beverly Hills apartment on Los Angeles’ Westside because of a monster equal to Judge Jergins: the Honorable Clay M. Smith, a 1974 graduate of Brigham Young University and a 1977 Juris Doctor from the University of Utah Law School, who has served as a Judge since 1997 and as a Superior Court Judge since 1998.  This Judge Clay M. Smith, a Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) has a horrible reputation among women for favoring even the most abusive fathers over the most worthy mothers. (See,e.g. http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/view.php?id=1070903).  There is a long-term pattern here that has been observed over and over again: Family/Domestic Relations practice is always to award custody to the worst parent, in hopes and expectations that the better of any two parents is more likely to contest the assignment by the Court of custody to the least fit of two parents, so that lawyers’ wallets and judicial power and bureaucratic child protective “services” will continue forever to be a major “growth industry” in the world of No Fault “Easy” Divorce, where the cost of divorces and the regularity of divorce litigation as a “tax” or redistributive burden on the population is now over 500 times as great as it was in the “bad old days” of “difficult” divorce.

Judge Smith has come to my attention because he has entered orders in State Court during periods of removal in violation of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, and has thereby acted in the COMPLETE absence of jurisdiction as he goes forward enforcing and imposing his own (strange for a Mormon) Secular Humanist Standards of education and religious family orientation on a Jewish Family, and simultaneously making up statutory provisions by which to coerce transfers of custody and threats of imprisonment from a fit and non-violent mother to an unfit and child-abusing father.

To remove the “money machine” behind all this, it is now high time to wipe-out all Federal guidelines and redistributive subsidies for the Family Law Codes and Family Court Systems and all Child Welfare and Protective Services Nationwide.  That is a matter of merely holding the Federal Government to the clear letter of the Constitution—there is no room for such statutes anywhere under the Original Constitution or any of the 27 subsequent (ratified) Amendments.  

To abolish the State Statutes creating Family Courts and general Domestic Relations Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of 14th Amendment “Incorporation” of the Bill of Rights to the States would have to be evenly applied to each of the first ten amendments.

The Supreme Court-approved ability of the States to limit trials-by-jury is one major exception to incorporation which has had a disastrous effect on both the Constitution and the Common Law in the Civil Courts of Law & Equity in the United States. 

On the whole, however, the abolition of the Family Courts and Domestic Relations jurisdictions in the several states requires only the even-handed enforcement of the Supreme Court’s already regularly reaffirmed incorporation of each clause of the First Amendment to the States, possibly combined with the Ninth Amendment reservation of rights to the people.  

As I have repeatedly argued, as (ironically enough) as Mormon Judge Clay M. Smith has recently reaffirmed, State Family Courts and Domestic Relations Jurisdictions exist primarily to take the place of religion in governing family life.  State Family Courts and Family Codes and Domestic Relations legislative constitute a complete invasion of the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Marriage (three of the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church which, when re-established by Parliament in England as Protestant rites under the rule of Kings Henry, Edward & Queen Elizabeth Tudor, were clearly within the exclusive purview of the Ecclesiastical Authorities).  

The United States Supreme Court has so often stated since the 1930s that no fundamental right can ever be licensed, especially no religious or expressive right under the First Amendment, that the mere enactment of 42 U.S.C. Section 666 and all related provisions is/are blatantly unconstitutional.  

In essence, State Family Codes and Domestic Relations Laws REPLACE the English Book of Common Prayer and related Jewish and Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian Legal Codes with A SECULAR HUMANIST ESTABLISHMENT OF SACRAMENTS which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  To maintain that famous “Wall” separating Church and State in this Country, we must GET THE STATES and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOREVER OUT OF THE MARITAL AND FAMILY REGULATION BUSINESSES!

State mandated Marriage Licenses must be abolished, and individual responsibility to enter into marital contracts reestablished.  Any individuals incapable of entering into a written marital (or “partnership”) agreement should be penalized for their carelessness and lack of caution by a flat denial of governmental assistance in resolving their disputes.  The Statute of Frauds would continue to exclude judicial enforcement of “oral” contracts of marriage or domestic partnership.  Together with the abolition of marriage licenses, all statutes creating the state regulation of marriage must be abolished.  

In the future, the Civil Courts of the United States (state or Federal) should only adjudicate any marital dispute to the degree that a marital contract required interpretation, clarification, modification, or enforcement.   And Couples should never be given only one option for Courts to which to address their marital problems.  The Jewish People of the United States have led the way by the continued existence of Jewish Courts (Beth Din/Beit Din)—and these courts could (based on contractual consent) be given full authority to adjudicate all Jewish Marriages.  Christian Ecclesiastical or Parochial Courts have all but vanished, but there is no reason not to resurrect them—or, more properly stated—allow the people, under the Ninth Amendment, to resurrect or create any courts they wish pursuant to any contracts they might wish to resolve any disputes into whose hands the people might voluntarily choose to create as pluralistic paths of authority.  “One size fits all” is communism at its worst and extremely impractical.  Large Industry Guilds (for example in the Motion Picture, Radio, and Television Industries) and other Labor Unions already have internal courts conferred by contract with great power to resolve contractual disputes.  Every enforceable marital contract should have a “choice of jurisdiction” for any dispute arising during marriage.  And Churches (or Temples or….although I shudder to think about the possible consequences of allowing Sharia Law any operative force in the United States … Mosques) could have as many possible remedies as they could devise.  Many would doubtlessly favor reconciliation over mandatory divorce such as is “pushed” in the State System, but others—I imagine the Unitarians and Universalists, would allow extremely easy marital dissolution.  And this would then be a choice a couple would have to think of before signing their marital contract: what SYSTEM of marital regulation do they like the best?

Aside from Beth Din/Beit Din and Sharia law, other local non-Secular Humanist State “Sacramental” versions of marital law already exist within the United States: namely Eskimo, Hawaiian Native, and other Title 25 Indian Tribal Courts.

Numbers 23:9 “People who shall Dwell Alone”—Reflections on the Individual, Family, and Group-Collection Right to Chose and Articulate Identity—On the [personal and collective] Freedom to be Alone, and be Left Alone, and the Greatest Freedom of All: to define yourself alone and in your own terms

Normally a man might not be too happy to be thinking very much of being alone on the day that should have marked his 25th Anniversary with his wife, but the reality of existence is that sometimes, as Billy Joel hath taught us, we are (sometimes) bold enough to say:

First they tell you you can’t sleep alone in your own place,
then they’ll tell you you can’t sleep with somebody else.
Aw, but sooner or later you sleep in your own space
either way its ok you wake up with yourself.

I don’t need you to worry for me cause I’m alright
I don’t want you to tell me it’s time to come home
I dont care what you say anymore this is my life
go ahead with your own life leave me alone…..

That was the space I found myself in tonight, 25 years after I began the longest-lived romance of my life among the ruins of Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, at a time when my girl (Elena) and I had the place to ourself all night long.  I celebrated in part by driving down Sunset Boulevard after midnight as we used to do together.  I was gratified to see that even in Los Angeles, for sometime after midnight I had about 22 minutes alone on that fabled road, basically from just past the construction interchange at the 405 to just before the PCH.  It was just me and the cool night air and the moonlight.  Not a single other car.  I drove slow.  I savored.  

It was an appropriate day to savor aloneness.  After my drive down Sunset I spent the next three hours by the beach—again, nearly the whole time alone, under a beautiful waxing moon and a still cool “Pacific” night.  And I remembered the poem “Music and Moonlight” that my grandmother used to recite to my grandfather:

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.

I miss my grandmother, Helen, and sometimes I even miss my mother, Alice….although she did have that lifelong nasty habit of going down rabbit holes (and taking other transdimensional “trips”) without me.  After my grandmother died, my mother decided she wanted, like Virginia Woolf, a room of her own I guess…. and she got her wish.  But that is an expression of her quest for the freedom she lacked most of her life under my extremely domineering grandmother, I guess…

So aloneness is important.  Very few people have “Catholic marriages” anymore, including very few Roman Catholics, but my Austrian professor of International Law used to say that International Wall existed because all the peoples of the world were trapped with each other in a “Catholic Marriage” from which there was simply no possible, imaginable escape…  

And yet, on this day I also had occasion to think about the collective desire to be alone as a people—of the need for group isolation to define identity.  Just as my mother decided ten years ago that she needed to be free of her family, to enjoy a “room of her own”, and just as I loved having Sunset Boulevard and then the Malibu beach to my own earlier this night, sometimes people need “their own space” to define themselves as they please.  

Sometimes the group is a family, perhaps a mother and her young children, sometimes the group is a nation or a race.  Which is why my meditations tonight began with Numbers 23:8-to-9—

 8 How shall I curse, whom God hath cursed not? (But how can I curse, whom God hath not cursed?) by what reason shall I loathe, whom God loatheth not?

 9 From the highest flints I shall see him, and from the little hills I shall behold him; the people shall dwell alone, and it shall not be reckoned among heathen men. (From the highest rocks I shall see them, and from the little hills I shall behold them; these people shall live alone, and they shall not be counted among the heathen.)

Some readers, conscious of modern controversies in socio-biology and evolutionary psychology, will no doubt recognize this passage as the origin for the title of Kevin MacDonald’s controversial book on the heritage and evolutionary, adaptive psychology of the Jewish people.  

I have had the honor, recently, to make the acquaintance of a remarkable and deeply religious young lady of the Jewish Faith by the name of Julia Gelb, born in the Soviet Socialist Republic of “White Russia” (Belarus) and admitted as a political and religious refugee to the United States in 1994.  Julia has, for the past several years now, been in the throes of a terrible divorce, in which her religious faith and right to define her ethnic identity, and that of her husband, has been placed at the center of the dispute and conflict, in question, and in jeopardy.  

Julia has “taken the path less traveled by” and I think she is to be deeply admired for her efforts in this connexion.  

Julia has taken several interesting stances: (1) that her children’s Jewish identity cannot be preserved in the heterogenous, “diverse”, integrated public schools of Orange County, (2) that her husband is placing her children’s souls in danger by seeking to repress their Jewish Identity, and (3) that the California Superior Courts in Domestic Relations cases promote the religion of Secular Humanism and integration to the utter obliteration of meaningful identity, thus homogenizing everyone into one distinctly “non-diverse” mass—what I call the “shake-and-bake” approach to cultural, ethnic, racial, social, and religious identity.  Oh yes, Julia also has endorsed the notion that the Jews are a racial and ethnic group, and that to try to integrate her children into society at large is to try to obliterate their souls. Julia Gelb’s 09-06-2011 Notice of Removal of Motion to Modify.  

So there we have it: this extraordinary and unique woman, stay-at-home mother of two, is seeking to invoke the Civil Rights Laws of the United States, and the international law known as the Genocide Treaty, against the forces of social integration and cultural homogenization which have achieved the status of “legally mandatory norms” in the socio-cultural scene, at the very least, of Southern California, always at the forefront of socio-cultural progress in the world.  

I for one totally applaud Julia Gelb’s efforts to keep her children separate from the forces of integration and homogenization in America.  I believe that Julia Gelb’s invocation of the Genocide Treaty against these forces which would effectively DESTROY the real socio-cultural, ethnic, and racial, diversity of the world is an example to be emulated by all who believe in the real values of freedom to choose identity.  

The Socialist World Path decrees that “we are one”—that there are no meaningful differences between people, and that we should all be “shaken and baked” until we are one homogeneous mass of indistinguishable ants in an ant hill—that we only exist as part of the social organism, and that we should surrender the rearing of our children to the homogenizing state.  

Julia has consulted with a number of her friends and acquaintances, even some public and radio personalities, and has discovered that the majority all believe that integration and homogenization are best, and that maintenance of separate identity is a bad thing.  The goal of the Socialist World Order is: “One World, One People, One Nation, One Common Set of Values for All.”

Julia has chosen the road less travelled by and I think we ought to call her a heroine in our times.   I would go so far as to submit that the right to define ourselves is the very essence of freedom, the right to choose to find a place in the desert where the “devil can’t get us” as the Mormons did by migrating to Utah in the 1840s, as so many other groups have done in North America—is in fact the very essence of America.  The right to be alone, to leave the enforced norms and social bonds that we do not like and voluntarily to create norms within boundaries of our own creation: THIS IS FREEDOM, THIS IS THE AMERICAN WAY.

I was becoming a teenager in the era of forced integration and forced bussing in the early 1970s.  I submit to you that forced integration destroyed education for everyone, black and white, in the South, as well as the North, and placed value on homogenization and obliteration of diversity above education.  Julia Gelb may now go the “home school route” with her children, if she can’t afford to place them in a private Hebrew Academy, and I say, “more power to her.”  Julia Gelb Notice of Notice of Removal to US District Court 09-06-2011 ; Julia Gelb FINAL DRAFT Motion to Modify 08-24-2011 

As my 9th grade class Salutatorian at Hollywood Professional School, a long, long time ago, in a Galaxy Far Away, I rather tritely and trivially quoted Robert Frost’s 1920 “Mountain Interval”—“The Road Not Taken”.  I mainly quote it now to congratulate Julia Gelb on her choice, and to endorse it and recommend her choice to others:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.


Questions for the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11: what were they doing 10 years ago today on 9/06/01?

There are those who scoff at “paranoid conspiracy theories” and in particular ridicule “paranoid conspiracy theorists” as crackpot lunies who need to find a nice comfortable padded cell somewhere to live in.  Among those crackpot lunies are now included thousands of engineers, physical chemists, and architects who have come together to produce a new movie: http://www.ae911truth.org/.   I have not had the opportunity to do anything directly in commemoration of the attrocities of 9/11/01, so I will just take a few minutes to muse on the “State of Deception” in which we all still live.  

Our government has, apparently, been little more than a theatrical stage for many years now.  For no particular reason I have been reading up on and reviewing the lives and trials of the Japanese War Criminals, in particular Wartime Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, ultimately hanged for war crimes in 1948, and Prince Higashikuni Naruhiko, who lived to the ripe old age of 102 and died in 1990.  Apparently the entire saga of the U.S. Occupation of Japan and the war crimes trials was a staged event, and nobody with real knowledge ever thought even for a moment that Tojo was in any sense more culpable than the Prince, or for that matter, even the Emperor Showa (Hirohito) himself.  General MacArthur and the occupying forces just made their decisions about who should be the scapegoats and who should conveniently survive to lend legitimacy and continuity.  This is all apparently so well known that it is confirmed even in Wikipedia, but it is scandalous to anyone with any sense of fairness and equity.  Either all of the Japanese High Command were guilty and meritorious of punishment or none of them were.  Prince Higashikuni’s speech following the Emperor’s address to the Japanese Diet in August of 1945 was both noble and inspiring, as was the Emperor’s own, but the Prince made it clear that he felt no legitimacy attached to the charges of War Crimes.

Likewise in Nuremberg, 1945-46, there was a travesty of War Crimes Justice against the German High Command.  I have studied those trials throughout my life, and concluded that “all the world’s a stage” with some parts scripted and filmed worse than others.  But what I now wonder is what if anything can be done to make a more “just” end to the events of 9-11-01 before all the principles are dead or suffer from Alzheimer’s.

The bottom line on 9-11 is that if you believe Osama bin Laden and a team of poorly trained ideologues from Egypt and Saudi Arabia pulled it off, you would do better to go back to believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, because gifts are often real but Osama’s role in 9-11 (as other than the patsy/figurehead) was never even remotely real.

Without any doubt in the world, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and quite a few others in the “American High Command” on 9-11 deserve to hang, or even to be granted exemptions from the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, for the crimes of murder and deception perpetrated on the American people.   Few in the Western World have been so gullible.  

President Barack Obama’s continuing role in the 9-11 coverup earns him a place on the gallows right beside Bush and Cheney, even if nothing else he had done (like the invasion of Libya) did.  

When will the American people wakeup and demand that Justice be Done to the REAL perpetrators of 9-11?   I certainly do not pretend to know all the details, but the Theatre of 9-11 has been just as clumsily administered as the trial testimony of Tojo—who apparently started telling the truth about Imperial responsibility during his own testimony and had to be coached by the American prosecutors to go back and recant his unintended “veracity.”  As noted, you need look no further than Wikipedia for the manipulation of Tojo’s testimony, but no source I have encountered even questions the complete falsity of his testimony or trial.  It was a script, nothing more, just like what will be read at so many 9-11 memorials all over the United States and certain “cooperating” countries in Europe.  

I admire the French, who led the world, among nations, as 9-11 skeptics.  The French, perhaps, are (on account of their own history) less squeamish about beheading and torturing their formers leaders than others in Western Europe and North America, and it is time to follow the French Example…..

United States Suit the Ultimate Coverup? They are going to go after EVERYTHING except the real key problems, and that will become Res Judicata!

The following article is very depressing.  On the one hand, it shows that the U.S. Government is finally recognizing that there IS a mortgage crisis in which the government has a role to play.  We will have to watch this carefully, but from the spin in this Reuters article, I suspect the real purpose of the Government is to cover up the real constitutional and legal corruption implicit in the mortgage foreclosure crisis.  We will have to watch for the complaints as the Government files them and make the real judgment then, but this is apparently more about INVESTORS’ protection than homeowners’ protection, never mind redemption or stopping the land grab going on all over the country:

U.S. to sue big banks over mortgage securities: report

ReutersReuters – 1 hr 54 mins ago

RELATED CONTENT

  • A construction worker works on one of a number of new single family homes in a subdivision outside San Diego as building returns to San MarcosA construction worker works on one of a number of new single family homes in a subdivision …

WASHINGTON (Reuters) –The agency that oversees mortgage markets is preparing to file suit against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgages they packaged and sold during the housing bubble, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is expected to file suit against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among other banks, the Times reported, citing three unidentified individuals briefed on the matter.

The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks last year. They could be filed as early as Friday, the Times said, but if not filed Friday it said the suits would come on Tuesday.

The government will argue the banks, which pooled the mortgages and sold them as securities to investors, failed to perform due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were falsified or inflated, the Times reported.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost more than $30 billion, due partly to their purchases of mortgage-backed securities, when the housing bubble burst in late 2008. Those losses were covered mostly with taxpayers’ money.

The agency filed suit against UBS in July, seeking to recover at least $900 million for taxpayers, and the individuals told the Times the new suits would be similar in scope.

A spokesman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency was not immediately available for comment.

The Times said Bank of America, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs all declined comment. A Deutsche Bank spokesman told the Times, “We can’t comment on a suit that we haven’t seen and hasn’t been filed yet.”

The practice of subprime lending, wherein mortgage brokers lowered their standards to entice homebuyers to take out large mortgages to buy more expensive homes than they could afford, was a root cause of the mortgage market implosion.

News of the suit could have a negative impact on stocks of the banks in question on Friday. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, while Deutsche Bank is traded on the German exchange.

S&P 500 stocks index futures were trading down 0.6 percent in Asia. U.S. Treasury futures also ticked higher..

The Times report said investors fear that if banks are forced to pay out billions for mortgages that defaulted, the suit could sap earnings for years and contribute to further losses across the financial services industry.