The Importance, And Meaning, Of "Knowing The Law"

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams

The Importance, And Meaning, Of "Knowing The Law"

By Peter Hendrickson

Author, “Cracking the Code”

A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

-Thomas Jefferson

TODAY, OCTOBER 26, IS THE DAY G. W. BUSH signed the breathtakingly mis-named USA PATRIOT Act into practice 11 years ago.

This anniversary of the formal pretense of authorization for a host of unauthorizable practices (short of a few Constitutional amendments, anyway) sets the stage nicely for a conclusion of my series of articles over the last several weeks concerning bad behavior by certain actors in the executive and judicial branches of the federal government when faced with educated Americans seeking to exercise their rights to speak.

The articles have focused on studied evasions that have occurred in a couple of recent judicial contests and in executive efforts to thwart an unfortunate selection of educated refund-claimants that have gone on for a number of years now, all of which involve the pretense that the claims are made by way of legally-defective affidavits which can therefore be lawfully disregarded. The reason for my focus on these sordid affairs is to highlight the flirtation of the "ignorance tax" schemers, who recognize in CtC's revelations a uniquely fatal threat to their usurpations of power, with a hugely dangerous, never-before-seen effort to suppress and control speech-- and testimonial speech, at that.

This venture into deep corruption is about as unambiguous an acknowledgement of the pinpoint accuracy and significance of CtC as can be imagined. After all, you don't have to try to stop people from saying something unless what those people are saying, and how they're saying it, DOES inescapably secure THEIR ownership of their property and thwarts YOUR effort to improperly claim it for yourself.

This corrupt venture is also a clarion-call to all true Americans to wake up both to the peril represented by this new push on the envelope, and to recognition of the liberty-restoring, Leviathan-restraining power of acting on the truth about the "income" tax. The enemies of individual liberty know that power full well, as is evidenced by their step into this darkness. But many more Americans need to learn about and act on this power as soon as possible, before the corrupt "push on the envelope" effort to neutralize this liberating power matures into an entrenched and defended practice.

The threat here is real, and imminent. Indeed, it is not a threat, it is a happening, and it will either be opposed hard, immediately and ceaselessly, or it will successfully metastasize into a new chapter of nightmare for all of us.

HAPPILY (IN A MANNER OF SPEAKING), the worsening behavior of the law-defiers offers ever-better opportunities for communicating the truth against which they act. Further, like pain alerting someone to an injury, it emphasizes the importance of attention to this subject. This latest offense to which the misapplication-beneficiaries are resorting is no exception. However dumbed-down a great portion of the American population has allowed itself to become, most people's response to being told of government efforts to suppress, control and punish inconvenient speech-- especially testimonial speech-- is, "That's unconstitutional!"

Some folks require a bit of help because they suffer under the delusion that the normal principles of law don't apply where taxes are concerned. This is brought on by the effort to make sense of the misapplication of the tax while not understanding that it IS a misapplication, coupled with the childlike tendency to more readily embrace the proposition of one's own ignorance (in this case as to how or why tax laws should for some reason be exempt from the usual rules) than that "authorities" could possibly be misbehaving (or might themselves not understand the law).

But even these confused folks recognize the impropriety of controlled speech when it is pointed out to them that tax return contents are not an accounting of one's economic activity, but are rather a statement of the signer's beliefs as to what, if any, economic activity was conducted in which the federal government has an ownership interest (and what deductions and exemptions and credits the signer believes are available to be claimed, if any are desired). At worst, even in these cases, the initial reaction is, "I don't see how they can do that..."

Because, of course, they can't. Such a thing IS unconstitutional-- a plain violation of the prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech.

It is also plainly wrong. The Constitution secures the right to speak as one will (and not speak) not only because the free exercise of that right is critical to a legitimate structure of self-government (which is to say, a legitimate government, period); but also because no one has, or can have, legitimate authority to impose control, suppression or subordination of anyone else's words under any circumstances, and especially not words over their own sworn signature.

UNDERSTANDING SIMPLE TRUTHS LIKE THIS is what "knowing the law" is all about. Misunderstanding them (or failing to give them their proper significance) is what serfdom is all about.

Nothing is more important for Americans at this point in our history than clarity on these points.

During the time of the revolution in the 18th century, British politician Edmund Burke recognized the significance of these points, and made an observation that speaks to us today. Addressing the British Parliament and opining that all efforts to resist the revolution were doomed to failure due to the intractable spirit of the Americans, Burke observed:

“Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use.”

Now, understand this, please: Burke did NOT mean that "all who read" were studied in the intricacies of British statutes and regulations or even common-law. Nor did he mean that the average American was a master, or even passing familiar, with procedural nuances and peculiarities of the British courts. That's the kind of "law" Jefferson scorned when he said,

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

What Burke meant was that Americans in huge numbers were reading the works of people like John Locke, who provided many of the core elements concerning the limits and nature of rightful government that would shortly appear in the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense', which still holds the record for the greatest depth of penetration (circulation as a percentage of the overall population) in American publishing history. These works cut straight past, and properly relegate to irrelevance, "precedence", "procedure" and "interpretation" and all the other B.S. by which those who would impose their will without proper authority browbeat and confuse their victims into overlooking the actual core issues in any contest over who gets to exercise power over what.

Americans in Burke's day, in other words, widely and deeply understood the concept, "They can't do that!" Their understanding, as Burke recognized, translated into an irrevocable commitment to not LET them "do that".

MODERN AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED to a sustained, broad and deep effort to condition them away from knowing the law. The "childlike tendency to more readily embrace the proposition of one's own ignorance than that "authorities" could possibly be misbehaving (or might themselves not understand the law)" has been nurtured through 75 years of intense "consent engineering" designed and intended to produce a compliant, unquestioning and unresisting population of strong backs and weak minds whose conclusions as to whether "they can do that" are arrived at by... asking "them".

For some, the conditioning has worked, and "asking them" is where the inquiry stops. There was a time when this might have been ok, because even "they" respected the limits laid down in the law, and no one in even the darkest corners of Mordor-on-the-Potomac would dream of trying to control speech for the preservation of a state scheme. I do not believe that it is ok any more.

Today it falls to us to know the law in the way our forefathers did-- to know the simple truths about power and ownership and rights that all statutes and regulations and procedures are meant (if properly enacted and practiced) to uphold and enforce. It falls to us to know "they can't do that", and to say so, and to mean it.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.

-Edward R. Murrow

The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.

-Thomas Paine

Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

-Mahatma Gandhi

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageOne

Info on Romney (Money)

Subject: Fwd: Money - In case you missed this one

 Money:

It just occurred to me; with all the noise the media is making about
Romney's wealth, I don't recall such bluster and hand-wringing over the Kennedy

fortune (nor the original family source of income).
Or, for that matter, John Kerry.
Or the fact that John Kerry gave virtually nothing to charity while Romney
gave something on the order of $4 million, in addition to his entire
inheritance from his father.

Biden gave less than 1.5% of his income to charity.
And Obama pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.  Buffett Rule?

Oh. wait, I just remembered.  Romney is Republican.  Kerry and the Kennedys are Democrats.
Also, Romney worked for his money.
Kennedy inherited his.
Kerry married his.
And Obama spends yours on vacations.

Never mind.  Nothing to see here folks.  Move along.

Ready for takeoff 

This cutting-edge airplane is being built in a Kalispell garage

by Erika Fredrickson

• email
• print
• share
• save to instapaper
• favorite
• add to custom list
• comments

John McGinnis always dreamed he’d fly. He was five years old in 1969 when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and that made him want to be an astronaut more than anything. He saw in the “The Jetsons” the promise of a flying car and a colorful Orbit City built for a flying population. Like most of us, he marveled at the galaxy far, far away in the 1977 Star Wars: A New Hope filled with swift TIE fighters and X-wings.

Lots of people dream of flying, but besides boarding a jumbo plane now and then, the dream goes no further. McGinnis is different. He’s building an aircraft in a garage in Kalispell. It’s a small plane called Synergy, a cutting-edge, original design that he’s creating with the intention of it becoming the minivan of the skies. It’s an aircraft meant to be assembled with relative ease, flown in the same way one drives an automatic car, and affordable enough to be attained by the average household. It could be the minivan of the skies, except it would have better fuel efficiency and an engine that’s as quiet as the clouds.

John says the whole project will cost $1.5 million.

It sounds far-fetched, and maybe it is, but McGinnis says that defeatist line of thinking is part of the problem. Airplane technology hasn’t come very far over the years because there’s little incentive to make better aircrafts. The Federal Aviation Administration deserves some of the blame for its cumbersome rules and regulations; aviation enthusiasts like to poke fun at the agency with a fake slogan that reads, “FAA Mission: We’re not happy until you’re not happy.”

click to enlarge

The average age for most planes is about 35 years old. The designs are 50 years old and based on 1930s technology and 1950s aerodynamics. Planes haven’t changed, McGinnis says, they’ve just quadrupled in relative cost.

“There has been a vacuum for the innovation—the necessary breakthrough innovation that would change the paradigm and bring money to the process of producing and selling airplanes,” he says. “I know why. It’s a very difficult market to enter. It’s highly regulated, it’s full of risk.”

With so few breakthroughs, aerospace investment is hard to secure. With such little investment, change can only happen through nontraditional measures and extreme ingenuity.

Building a plane in a garage in northwestern Montana just may be the perfect plan to changing an entire industry—and how we live.

Pat McGinnis, John’s father, lives on a pastoral piece of land in Kalispell. Bird houses nestle in the trees and a blind squirrel, which Pat rescued, scurries around in the home Pat built for it. A rustic wooden shop on stilts hosts a gallery of tools Pat has carefully refurbished. All this countryside beauty doesn’t prepare you for the futuristic vision inside the large garage next to the shop. The pod-shaped body of the Synergy aircraft sits partially constructed in the center of the room. The front canopy curves across the cockpit and five minivan seats act as placeholders on the craft’s floor before new seats are made. The landing wheel props up one end. On the smooth side of the plane, a small hatch that looks like the fuel compartment door on a car opens to reveal the aircraft’s door handle. Next to the craft is a CAD/CAM machine, a computer-controlled milling machine, which John uses to precisely cut the parts that he’s designed with high-end engineering software.

On any day of the week you might glimpse John and Pat—plus John’s wife, four kids and a myriad of volunteers—working on parts of the aircraft. Pieces of it in various stages—from its early stage in aerospace foam to the later stage of carbon fiber—cover the table tops. The walls are cloaked in ear protection gear and masks, the benches to the side of the room colonized by several laptops, the screens lit up by data testing his aeronautical ideas. Pictures of classic aircraft like Hellcats, Sky Raiders, Hopper Hurricanes and Spitfire wallpaper one side of the room. Above the plane-in-progress is a fully-developed one-fourth scale version of Synergy attached to the ceiling, its nose pushing up into the air like it’s about to bust out of its chains and take off.

scene may evoke Doc Brown’s mad scientist shop from Back to the Future, but it’s a mistake to dismiss the engineer as merely an eccentric chasing a dream in a garage. John, who also runs his own three-dimensional modeling company, MC Squared Designs, started building Synergy in 2009. Since then, his ideas have generated buzz from articles in Wired, Popular Science and AeroPunk magazine. NASA has a profile page for the Synergy company on its website. John gets calls daily from people wanting to order planes—orders he can’t fulfill until his original is completed. Designers from large companies inquire constantly as to his design, which remains largely under wraps. Curious professional engineers and engineering students from MIT and Stanford have traveled on their own dime to work on the aircraft with him in Kalispell.

click to enlarge

• PHOTO BY CHAD HARDER

Here’s what the buzz is about: all airplanes encounter turbulence during flight, which can cause friction and makes the plane less efficient. Every part of Synergy—the body, wings, engine, etc.—is designed to reduce drag. In fact, with the help of its low-powered propeller, Synergy actually reduces drag to the point of producing “negative drag.” John says the plane has 10 times the fuel efficiency of a small jet.

Many of the particular design features that make Synergy so efficient are hidden in its core or revealed only through complex equations, except for one: its sci-fi-looking double box tail wings. They look like rectangles and are made to glide in a way that keeps the plane from ever stalling.

“When we describe how much power it takes to move something through fluid, like a ship through a canal, we talk in terms of horsepower,” says John. “If you use some of that horsepower differently—not just to make thrust but to overcome drag—you only need half the horsepower. So, on 200 horsepower we’re going to set world records. In fact we’re going to set world records every time we fly.”

Pat McGinnis has a word to describe his son: “Tenacious.”

“He always had a really inquisitive mind,” Pat says. “Even as a very young child he was looking for ways to do something better. He wasn’t really satisfied with the way things [were made].” He recalls that when John was just barely four, he bought him a train set with cars that hooked together. John, who had already learned a little about magnets, suggested that the train set would do well to use magnetic coupling rather than latches.

“He amazed me later on, too,” Pat says. “I knew he was always driven—especially in science and physics—to look at new ideas. He never let the latest publications get off the shelf before he had read them. He knew all the big names in science.”

When John was a boy, Pat bought him a styrofoam aircraft carrier with a motored helicopter for Christmas. John would fly the helicopter off the ship and zip it around to rescue pretend astronauts that had just returned from space, and bring them back to the ship. “That was a multi-educational toy for me,” John says. “It taught me how things fly. It taught me about controlling those things that fly—hand-eye coordination, that sort of thing.”

click to enlarge

• PHOTO BY CHAD HARDER
• Pat McGinnis’ wooden shop next to the garage

Pat, an electrical power lineman, built a tire swing in the McGinnis’ yard in Kalispell with a pulley hooked through it so John, or any other little kid, could be raised up to the top of a large pine tree. When the swing was released, the pulley would send it sailing through the yard and to another set of tall trees where their feet would touch the highest limbs. It was like flying. “Kids came from miles around for it,” says Pat.

By junior high, John was flying control line airplanes (“Or smashing up control line planes, I should say,” he says, laughing). When he got his own job in high school he could afford radio control planes. He worked at a hobby shop and started building model planes. He often dreamed up his own designs.

“I knew I was going to be an aeronautical engineer and I was going to go design airplanes for a living [and] fly fighter jets,” he says.

A couple of things veered John away from that path. The cost of becoming a pilot varies, but it’s somewhere between $40,000 and $100,000, depending where you get training. John started his training at 16 and earned 200 student pilot hours before he realized he could no longer afford it. Private jets are for the rich. High-end planes built from a kit are also expensive. All of them require significant amounts of money to fly and maintain. It bothered him, he says, that it was called “general” aviation when it was really an elite pursuit.

“I had some questions that weren’t getting good answers,” he says. “I think the main one that was bothering me was, ‘How come we can’t make an airplane that has an engine as efficient as an airplane that doesn’t [have an engine]? And that question was always there, bumping around in my brain.”

John seemed destined to pursue his dream by attending some institute of technology and working his way through the aerospace industry, but he had a problem: school left him “bored to tears.” Although he graduated high school with honors, college never appealed to him. Instead, he continued to build models of unmanned aircraft and read books on design. In 1997, he founded MC Squared Designs, making three-dimensional designs, including a concrete Japanese garden, a Star Trek-inspired staircase, a golf bag caddy and a fireplace screen “for a biker” that resembles the sprocket and chain of a bicycle. He also started working on composite manufacturing, designing and making snowboards.

In 2003, John and Pat started up Garage Snowboards in Pat’s garage.

“It was going like gangbusters,” says John, “but we knew [to keep it moving] we would have to respond to demand, raise capital, have a business plan, the whole enchilada.”

Snowboarding companies often rely on stylized ad campaigns to make a name, but John preferred something that was both more interesting and, in his mind, a smarter use of money. Instead of an ad campaign he decided to return to his childhood dream and build a plane. He figured the thousands of dollars he was about to spend on marketing could go toward a $75,000 plane kit. John imagined flying to conventions and ski hills, transporting snowboards and snowboarders, and standing out from the competition. “The message was clear,” John says. “If we can build [an] airplane, we can build your snowboard.”

They picked an airplane kit from a company called Velocity. It looked like something Luke Skywalker would have flown. “We didn’t want to do it with a Cessna 172,” says Pat. “We wanted a really sexy airplane that would really grab attention and get these young snowboarders all excited.”

But trying to build the plane was frustrating. The Velocity was up to par for any modern model, but it didn’t matter. All the parts and the overall design didn’t inspire John. In fact, none of the planes he found were all that exciting. He told Velocity if they gave him the kit, he’d help them improve it. They agreed before eventually telling him, as John recalls, that if he was going to go through all that trouble, he may as well design his own.

It had been a long time since John had worked on aircraft design in the mid-’90s. He was responsible for his own business and the world had changed. For one thing, the internet had come along. He told Velocity he’d think about it, and he started doing research, comparing published papers written by designers and scientists about flight from every decade he could find—the 1930s, the 1970s, the 1990s—detailing the work of aviation luminaries such as August Raspet, Fabio Goldschmied and Burt Rutan. He was amazed by the work that had been done and also the gaps where aeronautics had fizzled, particularly with private aircraft that travel between 110 and 450 mph.

According to John, the paths that led up to modern aircraft design were fraught with technological and theoretical baggage. There were brilliant ideas, but somehow aeronautics had lost its way.

“We use representative equations that have kind of killed off a lot of promising aircraft developments,” John says. “People think we need super computers and CFD software and a genius NASA panel of engineers to design airplanes when the guys that designed every airplane flying used graph paper and a slide rule.”

John decided he would design and build his own plane—on his terms.

The upside of being a man building a plane in your garage is that you don’t answer to anyone. At a big company, you’re one of a hundred engineers—not designing a plane, but figuring out how ready-made parts fit together and don’t break. Even a plane designer at a big company is expected to stick to prescribed design language and the accepted science.

“So few individuals in the entire aerospace industry have the freedom that I have, which is to say I can work on anything I want to,” says John. “I was free to go down the rabbit hole quite a ways with this.”

There are downsides, too. In 2011, John unveiled a one-fourth size radio-powered version of Synergy at the Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency Foundation electric aircraft symposium in Windsor, Calif. He had hoped to finish the full-scale plane in time for CAFE’s 2011 Green Flight Challenge, which requires participants to fly 200 miles in under two hours on just one gallon of gasoline. But it wasn’t to be. Even with family and volunteers, the building process has been slow. Running his own business means time away from working on the plane. With such a small operation, there’s also no room for error or setbacks. During a lightning storm last summer, a tree fell onto the garage and broke his CAD/CAM machine. The damage suspended work for two months.

click to enlarge

• ILLUSTRATION BY PUMPERNICKEL STEWART

As with any project of this size, managing the money is a challenge. John says he’s on budget to finish Synergy, but he’s still regularly on the phone with potential long-term donors and investors. Pat McGinnis invested some of his retirement savings to keep things running early on. John launched a Kickstarter campaign earlier this year that earned him a modest $95,000, but it took considerable effort to run it. John admits that the financial side of the operation takes time that he’d prefer to spend finishing the plane.

While he hustles to finish the plane, John is also feeling pressure from other companies. He applied for multiple patents on his technology even before he started building, but knows of conceptual designs similar enough to his to make him sweat. Bauhaus Luftfahrt, an aeronautical think-tank in Germany, has been showing off a new wing design. It’s not a box-wing, but a c-wing located in the same spot as Synergy’s. Another company, Airbus, is even more aggressive with getting close to the Synergy design with a half-box wing.

Both designs have been ridiculed on online forums and the companies’ own websites. John says that’s because neither idea will work. “It’s an overture,” he says, pointing out that all you have to do is close the wings into a box shape and you’ve arrived at his plane’s most prominent feature.

“I guarantee you that tacked to that engineer’s wall, they’ve got the [Synergy] design and they’ve run it through the computer,” he says. “They know that’s the future.”

John knows time is of the essence. If he wants to see this project through, if he’s going to be the one to make his plane fly, he’s got to work fast and keep those who want his design at bay. “This is the kind of multi-trillion dollar opportunity that gets a guy like me beaten to a pulp, so we’re not going public with that right now,” he says.

For that reason, the image of an eccentric guy tinkering away in his garage serves him well. “If you’re just some crackpot they’ll leave you alone,” he says. “The big players don’t think we’re going to pull this together and be any kind of threat. That’s what we want them to think for the whole time.”

Synergy is a plane, but it’s also a demonstration of a better way to build any plane. It’s the smallest aircraft John could possibly build that would showcase his breakthrough technologies. But it’s the largest that he felt comfortable building on his own in his garage. As he sees it, his design could translate all the way up to Boeing scale.

But for John, bigger isn’t necessarily better. The size of plane he’s designing harkens back to his frustration with the aviation elite. He wonders what it would be like if everybody had access to a plane like his.

Once John finishes Synergy—if he finishes—he has a second dream: He wants to put together a team to make Synergy kit aircrafts. Kit aircrafts make up 50 percent of the aircraft economy—that’s where the market is, he says—and, down the line, production could even grow to the point where a Synergy airplane is as common as a Toyota Prius. One day, maybe even soon, John envisions ordinary people flying planes from Missoula to Spokane in 25 minutes, without a worry in the world.

click to enlarge

• PHOTOS BY CHAD HARDER

Of course, there are all kinds of questions that come with this vision. How do you manage a population of people navigating the skies?

“Come outside,” John says. He points up into a perfect bluebird day. A road is a two-dimensional surface, he says. The sky has layers of pathways—like a parking garage—“to the moon.”

Won’t we collide with each other?

“No,” he says. NASA research actually shows that mid-air collisions are rare.

Won’t we need more airports?

“No,” he says. There are small airports in every town that are totally unused. Plus, he adds that Synergy isn’t nearly as noisy as a standard airplane so increased air traffic won’t bother neighbors.

Flying is better than driving, he says. He recalls flying from Kalispell to the aviation center in Oshkosh, Wis., for an aeronautics conference. On the way he spotted just seven airplanes in the sky, “and those were around the busiest airspace in the universe,” he says. When he landed back in Kalispell he had to make a drive with his family to Kennewick, Wash.

“I started having heart palpitations,” he says. “I was stressed out. I thought, ‘Something is really wrong here, what’s up?’”

He realized that in the car he felt more consumed by the dangers around him—dangers that up in the plane he had forgotten.

“Here I’m driving inches by 150-miles-per-hour closing velocities, down the highway,” he says. “And we think nothing of it. That is crazy. Driving a car is insane when you have the perspective of flying.”

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/ready-for-takeoff/Content?oid=1686138&showFullText=true

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit

This about tells it all, like it actually is, in a short article. Subject: The "O" man Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative. He consults(Ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer. Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance. He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively. What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it. Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves; he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah. It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents rejects Christianity yet still believes in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white. Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed in Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd. Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

Cheney, Bush II and Rumsfeld all guilty of war crimes

Subject: Cheney, Bush II and Rumsfeld all guilty of war crimes

News Roundup - Oct 25th

U.S. Officials Guilty of War Crimes for Using 9/11 As a False Justification for the Iraq War

Posted on October 24, 2012 

by WashingtonsBlog    

U.S. Officials Created a False Link Between Iraq and 9/11

5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam”.

He also said “Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time”, is the statement “Hard to get a good case.” In other words, top officials knew that there wasn’t a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.

Moreover, “Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda”.

And a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.

And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed repeatedly for years that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Moreover, President Bush’s March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph:

    (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Therefore, the Bush administration expressly justified the Iraq war to Congress by representing that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reports that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this.

Suskind also revealed that “Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official ‘that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.’ ”

Cheney made the false linkage between Iraq and 9/11 on many occasions.

For example, according to Raw Story, Cheney was still alleging a connection between Iraq and the alleged lead 9/11 hijacker in September 2003 – a year after it had been widely debunked. When NBC’s Tim Russert asked him about a poll showing that 69% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11, Cheney replied:

    It’s not surprising that people make that connection.....

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/5-hours-after-the-911-attacks-donald-rumsfeld-said-my-interest-is-to-hit-saddam-he-also-said-go-massive-sweep-it-all-up-things-related-and-not-and-at-2.html

I WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED

Here is a grim reminder of what to expect if Mr. O is elected again!

But you know...I've been wondering where the heck Cindy Sheehan is hanging out these days!  Remember all the times she protested in Crawford, TX about "Bush's the war in Iraq?  Well, we're in Afghanistan... still there after ten years???

Subject: Fw: Get the pigs out of the creek!

.

I WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED An old West Virginia Hillbilly saying: “You cannot get the water to clear up until you get the pigs out of the creek.” *SOME OF YOU MAY APPRECIATE THIS AND SOME OF YOU MAY NOT.* *I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR SENDING THIS BECAUSE OF IT'S TRUTH.* *If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?* *If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head? * *If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on? * *If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot? * *If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed? * *If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him? * *If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? * *If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America ? * *If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? * *If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities? * *If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk. * *If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment? * *If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?* *If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? * *If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? * *If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have ever approved. * *If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? * *So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? * *Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 34 months – so you don’t have that much time to come up with an answer.* *Every statement and action in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable. * AND NOW-- HE ACTUALLY WANTS US TO RE-ELECT HIM. WAKE UP AMERICA 2012 IS UPON US. *I WONDER HOW MANY OF YOU WILL FORWARD THIS ? * I AM BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE A CHANCE ON THIS GUY FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS . . . *"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."