to Beth!

NC Sez:  Shhh!  Mums the word, you’re not suppose to know that America experienced a 9-11 bank run! But was it the Citizens who made the 500 billion  plus dollar withdrawals? Or was it George Soros?  Saudi Princes?  ben Laden?  

by Crusader

With the recession, and President Obama’s subsequent stimulus debacle, dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us “informed” citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment Act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth…

On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically. 

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts. – Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania

In an interview broadcast on C-Span’s Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued…

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. 

Read the rest of this entry »

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Hamil R. Harris, Washington Post

D.C. Voting Measure Clears The Senate

Liberals Want D.C. Senators, Too.

The Senate passed a bill yesterday that would give the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives, but lawmakers attached language strongly opposed by city leaders that strips most local gun-control laws.

The gun amendment complicates the D.C. vote bill’s passage into law, because the legislation will have to be reconciled with a companion bill in the House with no gun provisions that is expected to be approved next week. Some D.C. officials said it was ironic that the Senate bill granted the city full representation in the House while also overruling the District’s decisions on a key local issue.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the city’s nonvoting House delegate, said she was overjoyed at the passage of the voting-rights bill. She has fought an uphill battle for years for District residents to have a greater voice in Congress.

“I stand in the shoes of residents of the city who have lived without the vote and died without the vote,” she said after emerging from the Senate floor, where she anxiously watched the vote. The bill squeaked past the 60-vote threshold it needed to pass, under a bipartisan agreement that sped up the process. Six Republicans voted “aye” to produce a 61 to 37 result.

Norton predicted that the bill would clear the House easily, setting up a closed-door meeting between negotiators from both chambers who will have to decide what to do about the gun language.

The Maryland and Virginia senators voted for the measure.

Norton and D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) were tight-lipped about potential problems raised by the gun issue, apparently seeking to avoid antagonizing senators over an amendment that won wide support.

Proponents of the bill differed on how much of an obstacle the gun amendment would be.

“I personally believe that’s not going to be an overwhelming issue,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a co-sponsor of the bill. But Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, an advocacy group, said, “It’s going to cause problems.”

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), another co-sponsor who is expected to be involved in the negotiations over the bill’s outcome, said it was too early to know how the issue would play out.

The D.C. vote bill is a political compromise that would permanently expand the House by two seats. One would be for the overwhelmingly Democratic District, while the other would go in the short term to Republican-leaning Utah. After 2011, that seat would go to whichever state is next in line to pick up a representative based on the Census.

The gun amendment cast a cloud of uncertainty over what voting-rights supporters had hoped would be a major triumph. A similar bill had died two years ago after falling three votes short in the Senate.

This time, the bill has more backers in the Senate and House, as well as a new president, Barack Obama, who is likely to sign it. Even if it becomes law, though, the bill probably will face a legal challenge that could go to the Supreme Court.

While mindful of the obstacles ahead, Fenty was optimistic. “This day represents great momentum toward full voting rights,” he said.

Read the rest of this entry »

NC Sez: Although, I do not believe islam can be reformed because it is inherently evil and violent and violence against the kaffirs is commanded in the koran, I do support any attempt by truly peaceful Muslims who stand up for the natural born right to freedom and self-determination!

Bin laden stated that what he did in Russia he will do to America 100 times worse.  Are your children safe?

Watch this video and be warned

by Alec Rawls

For two years, Tom Burnett Sr. has been speaking out against the crescent-shaped memorial to Flight 93. This week Beverly Burnett (mother of Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr.) stepped into the public eye to support her husband, and to make her own appeal for a full investigation:

Today, I am adding my voice for a full and transparent review of the National Park Service and Flight 93 design selection process that produced Crescent of Embrace. Does it have Islamic symbols or doesn’t it? Let’s settle this once and for all.Why do you think Tom Sr. opposed this design? It is pretty simple; Tom Sr. saw the Islamic symbols and knew those symbols did not belong at the crash site of Flight 93.

Tom Burnett Sr. traveled to Pennsylvania last August to attend the Task Force Meeting to voice his opposition to the memorial design. A Family Board member as well as a commissioner accused Tom Sr. being “just like the Islamic terrorists” that killed our son.

Why didn’t someone speak up and defend Tom Sr.’s right to voice his opinion?

Thanks to The Somerset Daily American for publishing Mrs. Burnett’s complete statement, which she also entered into the record of the most recent Memorial Project meeting. Read the whole thing.

Read the rest of this entry »

By A Military Plaintiff

Real Men Honor Their Oaths

There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath of office.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

Enlisted Oath

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer Oath -

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).

Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constiution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.

Let’s see if SCOTUS runs and hides again. They failed to live up to their oaths by ignoring the prior cases. I pray they will wise up very soon and honor their oath to defend the Constituion.

==================================================================

By Fred Stephens

Dear Sir [critic of Lt. Easterling's protest],

I commend Lt. Easterling for stepping forward as a United States citizen and soldier who has standing in Federal Court to initiate a Federal Complaint against Barack Hussein Obama.

In your letter to Dr. Orly Taitz you state the following:

“to prove he is a legal U.S. citizen, and therefore able to legally serve as the commander in chief.”

Obama fails the eligibility test of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution which states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”

This constitutional provision means anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born” citizen. No one born on American soil with only one parent a citizen can be “natural born” and that provision may not be changed without a Constitutional Amendment.
Obama admits on his web site that his father was Kenyan, therefore Obama was born a “dual citizen”. Even if Obama had been born in the Oval Office in the White House, he would not meet the constitutional requirements.

All natural born citizens are born in the United States, but not all citizens born in the United States are natural born.

Suppose that Obama’s father was Osama Bin Laden, and that his father had taken him from Hawaii to what ever cave he is living in until he was 20 years old. During that time he was schooled at the knee of the worst terrorist the world has ever known. Then sent him to the United States where he would be accepted as a citizen. Following 14 years of residency, and at age 35, he would be eligible for the Presidency if the Constitution was ignored. The natural born clause in the Constitution was placed there by our Framers of the Constitution as the best protection they could think of that would not allow a President to serve that may have allegiance to a foreign power. No President in our 221 year history has failed to provide documentation that he was a “natural born” citizen until Obama.

Obama’s ineligibility is not curable by Congress or any court. The provision can only be changed by an amendment to the Constitution. There have been 26 attempts, all rejected.

Obama knows that he is not a natural born citizen, yet he has signed official Presidential candicacy papers declaring that he is.

Nancy Pelosi and the Secretary of the DNC signed an official DNC form, provided to the Secretaries of State of all the states, that Obama met all the provisions of the United States Constitution.

I have copies of those forms.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee knows that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Leahy had a statement read into the Senate record during the passage of Senate Resolution 511 stating the requirements to be natural born. Senate Resolution 511 passed unamiously so every Senator knows that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

This is fraud on a grand scale and resulted in corruption of the election held on November 4, 2008.

Since Obama has sealed all his records, no one knows for sure if he is even a citizen. It does not matter how many votes Obama garnered with his fraudulent candidacy. The United States is a Constitutional Republic; it is not a constitutional democracy and the word democracy is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. We are, at least we used to be, under the rule of law, not the rule of men.

At this writing, there are some 25 states that have passed, or preparing to pass, notifications to the Federal Government that they have overstepped the boundaries between the Federal Government and the States and the States are drawing a line in the sand.

There are now, due to the strength of the internet, millions of Americans that now understand the intent of the Constitution outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.

Lt. Scott R. Easterling is to be admired for his courage to stand up for what he knows to be right and just. I joined the Army during the Korean War. Lt. Easterling joined recently. Both of us signed a blank check to the citizens of the United States payable in an amount up to and including our life. I would sign it again and I know Lt. Easterling would also.

Lt. Easterling is only asking that if that payment is claimed that the claim on his life was done by a legitimate President. That President is not Barack Hussein Obama!

Fred Stephens
Georgetown, Texas

By Stephen Moore, WSJ

Author of Masterpiece 'Atlas Shrugged'

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read “Atlas Shrugged” a “virgin.” Being conversant in Ayn Rand’s classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only “Atlas” were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that “Atlas Shrugged” parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated “Atlas” as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as “the looters and their laws.” Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the “Anti-Greed Act” to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act,” aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.” Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion — in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of “Atlas Shrugged”: The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That’s the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies — while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to “calm the markets,” another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as “Atlas” grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate “windfalls.”

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated — always in the public interest — into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to “Atlas,” a Wall Street Journal headline blared: “Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices.”

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal — stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in “the public good.” The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in “the public interest.”

Ultimately, “Atlas Shrugged” is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear — leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in “Atlas” occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: “You want me to be Economic Dictator?”

Mr. Thompson: “Yes!”

“And you’ll obey any order I give?”

“Implicitly!”

“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”

“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn’t do that . . . How would we pay government employees?”

“Fire your government employees.”

“Oh, no!”

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax “for purposes of fairness” as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand’s ideas, explains that “the older the book gets, the more timely its message.” He tells me that there are plans to make “Atlas Shrugged” into a major motion picture — it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. “We don’t need to make a movie out of the book,” Mr. Kelley jokes. “We are living it right now.”

(This post is stuck here until tomorrow night after the show. Scroll down for new content)

Come join us for some belly laughs and giggles on No Compromise Comedy night.  We can’t always take Reality seriously right? 

Thursdays, 6 pm west coast time! Hit the Remind Me button!

Thursday night, Jefferson Paine and I will kick it around with Sid Bridge, a political satirist  of The Endive website.  In these tough times of Marxist trying to take over the rest of this country let’s pause and laugh at them for awhile too!  Come join us:  

Thursday, February 26, at 6 pm west coast time

Click here to listen

Call in Number is 646-200-4641

Don’t forget to hit the Remind Me button

NC Sez:  It’s about time states stood up for their sovereignty!  The states created the federal government not the other way around.  If the states gave life to the federal government, then the states can take life away from the feds!  Oh, I wish! 

by Jerome R. Corsi

Path set for other states seeking to reassert constitutional rights

NEW YORK – Oklahoma’s House of Representatives is the first legislative body to pass a state sovereignty resolution this year under the terms of the Tenth Amendment.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 1003 Feb. 18 by a wide margin, 83 to 13, resolving, “That the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

The language of HJR 1003 further serves notice to the federal government “to cease and desist, effectively immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon

The sponsor of the resolution, state Rep. Charles Key, told WND the measure was a ‘big step toward addressing the biggest problem we have in this country – the federal government violating the supreme law of the land.”

“The Constitution either means what it says, or it doesn’t mean anything at all,” Key said. “The federal government must honor and obey the Constitution, just like the states and this citizens of this country are obligated to do, or our system of government begins to fall apart.”

The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As WND reported, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution: Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect 12 additional states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

Key argued that whenever “we allow the federal government, or any other government entity, to violate the Constitution, we destroy the Constitution one piece at a time.”

“We have gone so far down that path that the Constitution is hanging by a thread right now,” he said.

Last year, the same resolution introduced by Key passed the Oklahoma House, but the floor leader in the Senate, Democrat Sen. Charles Lassiter, used his authority to block consideration of the measure on the Senate floor.

But state Sen. Randy Brogdon has sponsored comparable legislation, and he told WND the “chances are excellent” it “will be passed in the Senate this session.”

Brogdon said his bill, SJR 10, has made it out of committee and will be heard on the Senate floor in the next couple of weeks. The lawmaker said he will double-track HJR 1003 to increase the chances one of the sovereignty resolutions gets to the Senate floor.

“We going to work Rep. Charles Key’s bill through the committee,” Brogdon said, “and our goal in the Senate is to use HCR 1003 as the final bill.”

Brogdon told WND he feels confident Democrats in the Oklahoma Senate will not be able to block the sovereignty measure this year.

“Last year, the Democrats in the Senate were able to veto consideration of Rep. Key’s bill,” he said, “but this year the Republicans are in control of the Oklahoma House and the Oklahoma Senate, for the first time in Oklahoma’s history.”

Oklahoma was the only state in the 2008 election in which every county voted for the Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain.

“The Democratic leadership in the state legislature has been outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party for decades in Oklahoma,” Brogdon said. “We finally turned the corner in 2008, with Republican majorities in both House and Senate.

“We still have a Democratic governor in Oklahoma,” Brogdon said, “but we hope to change that in 2010.”

Brogdon is widely being mentioned as a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

Key crafted his resolution so it takes effect once the Oklahoma Senate passes the measure, even without the governor’s signature.

Asked whether Oklahoma’s Democratic Gov. Brad Henry would sign a sovereignty resolution, Brogdon said he was confident the governor would do so.

“I believe the governor will have to sign the sovereignty resolution the state legislature passes,” he said. “How do you turn down states rights? If you are the governor, how are you going to stand before the people of Oklahoma and say, ‘I don’t want to support your state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment?’”

Henry’s office did not immediately respond to WND’s request for comment.

Brogdon was not equally sure Henry would instruct Oklahoma’s attorney general to enforce the sovereignty resolution, in what might be interpreted as an act of defiance against the Obamaadministration.

“Phase Two will be to get a Republican governor in the state capital that understands the Constitution and respects the rule of law,” Brogdon said.

“We need an attorney general in Oklahoma that will enforce this sovereignty resolution once it is passed.”

Brogdon explained that Oklahoma is on track to receive about $900 million from the $787 billion economic stimulus deficit-spending bill Obama signed into law last week.

“Governor Henry has his hand out for the Obama stimulus money,” Brogdon said. “But there are a lot of us in the Oklahoma legislature that do not want the federal stimulus money because we fear the strings that are certainly going to be attached to the $900 million. We might end up in subsequent years with a $900 million entitlement program hole in our budget for years to come, just because we took the Obama economic stimulus money this time around.”