Independent American News

“Officer Pogan then arrested Long on charges of attempted assault, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, according to papers filed in Manhattan Criminal Court. Pogan reported that Long was weaving in traffic, “forcing multiple vehicles to stop abruptly or change their direction” to avoid a collision.”

But of course this bicyclist with guilty because he was accused. He must not have been obeying the law. Cops never lie. The IRS never breaks the law. EVERYONE has to have a Social Secuirty Number. YOU have to have a license to drive or get married or have a business. Right?!

Any and all of you folks that believe we are not preparing for a Police State are in for a rude awaken. But then again, maybe you will never wake up. Maybe you will just get on the trains like others have. After all if you were awake you would know that no law requires you to file a Tax Return. So go back to sleep and get on the train to slavery.

Watch it happen and then pay your income taxes knowing you are a good person that just obeys the law so nothing will happen to you because YOU are innocent and not a criminal bike rider.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70887

What is the Real Reason Behind the Gay Marriage Controversy?

Aaron Russo, producer of America from Freedom to Fascism, told me personally, just a few months before he died, that he was shocked to learn the truth about the women’s rights movement form one of the Rockefellers. Aaron was telling Mr. Rockefeller, a friend of his, about how wonderful the women’s rights movement was and how women now had more rights and protections than before. Rockefeller laughed and said: Didn’t you know we were behind that movement. We wanted women out of the house, working to pay income taxes so we could collect them. After all we weren’t making any on them while they were at home.

That knowledge made me look behind the curtain to see who was pulling the strings on the marriage license issue, especially the question and never ending controversy concerning Gay marriage. Then I received my epiphany in the words Massachusetts Representative John A. Lepper, (Republican) concerning the repeal of their 1913 marriage law.

“Any marriage has three willing partners: the two willing [spouses] and an approving state.”

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/07/house_expected.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3

This just confirmed my belief on exactly why we have any marriage licenses at all. It is why I have opposed ALL marriage licenses for over a decade. Marriage is or originated, as a religious act. When government licenses it the marriage becomes a three way, or menage et trios if you will, with the State being an intimate partner in your marriage. Yes, I will say it. They want to screw you.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” So when did marrying become illegal without the State’s permission? In Nevada that occurred in 1942 AD. What ever happened to the separation of Church and State? In Nevada you even have to get a license if you are the person performing the marriage ceremony? What a total establishment of religion by the State. Licensing ministers to perform a religious act? What is next? A license to baptize or preach? (You can count on it.)

What would happen if you demanded a marriage license and the State said no? That happened to the founder of the Independent American Party, Danny Hansen. And what kept Danny from getting a license? Well you see he refused to give the County Clerk a Social Security Number. And what law required that he give the State a Social Security Number? 42 U.S.C. section 666(a)(13)(A). YEP! 666. And it’s a Federal law!

So now back to the main question. Why all the controversy over Gay marriage? Why are some states allowing it and others are not? It has become clear to this Free Man. The Federal government wants control of marriage. So how do they get control of it when that has always been the jurisdiction of the States? Well, THAT’S EASY. If enough States have Gay marriage and others, like Nevada, refuse, then our ever kind and benevolent Federal owners will need to step in and ensure everyone is treated fairly. Naturally they will get their all important financial cut. We will see a whole new department in the White House. Just think of it. Secretary of Family Values or Marriage Czar or some other name approved by the Christian Reich and the Rainbow Coalition. Marriage licenses will have to become federally issued, instead of State issued. Family court and divorce court will become Federal. Just think of the income stream! And the FBI will be able to raid the homes of accused child neglectors or put delinquent dad’s in GITMO. Why the Federal regulations on marriage alone could keep government attorneys busy writing for years. Think of jobs that can be handed out by elected officials to the families of the people that contributed to their campaigns.

So remember that when we fight over these intentionally created squabbles and slight of hand emotional issues created by the Rockefellers and other such financial tyrants, to divert attention from the fact that most Americans are tax slaves to the IRS and Federal Reserve Bankers, that you are, in reality, contributing to your own slavery and the slavery of your children and grandchildren.

Until we cut off the head of the snake all we are doing is sowing the seeds of our own slavery. Until we rid ourselves of the IRS and the Federal Reserve NO OTHER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT! because they are all just creations of our slave masters used to divert attention away from the real issue and maintain your slavery. “The spice (FRNs) must flow.”

So spend your time and effort fighting Gay marriage and filing those 1040s while using that Social Security Number. You must know that stopping Gay marriage is all important. After all:

Can’t you see the fire and smoke billowing up? Can’t you hear the screaming voice commanding you to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain?

New IRS Bounty Programs Pays CPAs Even If They Deliberately Cause Their Clients to Owe Tax, Penalties & Interest & Lie to the Clients

Today in a Los Angeles Superior Court, Joe Francis, a man facing criminal allegations from the IRS began a frontal assault on a little known IRS bounty program that rewards tax return preparers if they make mistakes that cause their clients to owe taxes, penalty and interest to the IRS, even if the CPA planned and initiated the actions that led to the tax problems and even if the client was never told there was any problem with the tax conduct of the client. Welcome to the new IRS: liars & rats welcome.

Rats are usually reserved for snacking on garbage. Now the IRS is giving them a big chunk of cheese to plague us with them, bubonic style. According to the IRS own website, a rat can collect. According to the IRS’s own informant rules, causing your clients to be accused of fraud can ”make a big difference” for the rat, with added bonuses, and a longer period of time to collect, especially if you get them placed in jail. And, as the website explains, it’s okay if the rat “planned and initiated the actions” that “led to the violation of the law,” still allowing a reward.
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=181290,00.html
It’s a rat trap where the rats write the rules, the rats get the cheese, and their clients get trapped.

“IRS informant rules permit a CPA who actually plans and initiates the tax return mistakes to still collect the tax rat reward, which can be as high as $10,000,000,” noted Robert Bernhoft, the attorney for a businessman challenging the program and suing his former CPA who sought to do precisely that. “If the case makes the client an accused criminal, the tax rat gets even more. Outraged American taxpayers should demand an immediate end to this IRS-Gone Wild program,” Bernhoft noted.

Where a good exterminator when you need one?

By Chuck Baldwin

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.” She was responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however, if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once great republic.

Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United States by our civil magistrates is that we are a “democracy.” That’s odd; someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically rejected the concept of creating a “democracy” in favor of creating a constitutional republic.

Has anyone quoted the Pledge of Allegiance lately? Does it say, “And to the democracy for which it stands”? Or does it say, “And to the republic for which it stands”? Of course it says “republic.”

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got–a republic or monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic–if you can keep it.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the sixty-four million dollar question: Can we keep our republic? Can we keep our constitutional form of government? Can we keep our constitutionally protected liberties?

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison (”The Father of the U.S. Constitution”) said, “[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is what prompted Madison and the rest of America’s founders to labor so hard to create what they did: a constitutional republic.

Under God, it is allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties, our peace and happiness, our security, and our very way of life. Furthermore, it is the repudiation and rejection of constitutional government that is responsible for the manner in which these very same blessings are currently being lost.

Someone needs to remind Rep. Pelosi that it is not her duty (nor does she have the power) to “save the planet.” And by the same token, someone needs to remind Senators Barack Obama and John McCain that they are not campaigning to be President of the World, but President of the United States.

What every elected officeholder is expected and required to do is very simple: they are required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. End of story.

Our public servants are not charged with saving the snail darter or the Spotted Owl, or saving the profits of the international bankers, or saving Wall Street in general, or saving the perks of corporate lobbyists, or saving Freddie and Fannie, or saving the peoples of the world from all the bogeymen, or even saving humankind or the planet itself. What our public servants are charged with, however, is preserving (saving) our constitutional republic.

Of course, the problem is, the people who are charged with the preservation of our republic are the ones who are the most responsible for its destruction. The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary, because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the principles of constitutional government. They have no compunction about eviscerating the protection of our freedoms, or about abolishing the vanguard of our liberties. They are Machiavellian, making King George of old look like a mere amateur.

No, I take that back. It is not our civil magistrates who are most responsible for the destruction of our republican form of government: it is “We the people.”

At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to govern themselves. We must be willing to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the contract they made with us, which is to uphold constitutional government. It is our duty to “throw off” any system of government that does not secure our liberties and protect our constitution. And this we have not done.

Christian pastors and ministers have failed us. The “Religious Right” has failed us. College professors have failed us. High School teachers have failed us. Newspaper editors and publishers have failed us. TV news anchors and reporters have failed us. Parents have failed. Friends have failed. The two major political parties have failed. As a whole, no one is talking about, or even thinking about, the loss of constitutional government, national independence, and sovereignty. Few seem even conscious that this is taking place.

Worrying about which major party wins a general election is like worrying about whether Coke or Pepsi sold more soft drinks last month. Pick your poison. One is just as bad as the other. Neither has any fidelity to the Constitution or to the principles of liberty, which it represents. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are enemies to constitutional government. Both are in the process of sacrificing our national sovereignty to global entities. Both men lied when they took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. So, why should we care which impostor wins the election?

It is up to the American people to enforce constitutional government. From a Christian perspective, it is “We the people” who are the “powers that be” in Romans chapter 13. Under our form of government, the source of authority and the source of legitimacy reside with “We the people.” We are not the slaves of any king or despot. Our elected leaders are public servants, not private masters. In a nutshell, they work for us. They are contracted to preserve our liberties and our way of life. When they fail, they must answer to us.

So, when will the American people pick themselves up by the bootstraps and start acting like free citizens and stop groveling before these imbecilic political parties? When will we set this political house in order?

Of course, all of this demands that each of us understands constitutional government and the principles upon which liberty rests. It also demands that each of us be prepared to do whatever is our personal duty to preserve this republic.

Patriotism is more than waving a flag on July 4th, or singing The National Anthem at a ball game, or wearing a flag lapel pin on Flag Day. For an American, real patriotism means that we are willing to preserve and protect our constitutional republic. Remember, Franklin’s answer: “A republic–if you can keep it.”

Nancy Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that is also the job of every single American citizen. Unfortunately, most of us are no better at doing our job than Pelosi is at doing hers.

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080730.html

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

This is a must see for anyone in the freedom movement. Watch Harry Reid try to explain why our system is a voluntary system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg&feature=related

Then read (Reid?) this:

There was a stipulation in the District Court that attendance at graduation and promotional ceremonies is voluntary. Agreed Statement of Facts…. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary,” for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years.

Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577, 594-595, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 2659 (U.S.R.I.,1992)

Use the word voluntary to stop school pray then use it to enforce the second plank of the Communist Manifesto “graduated income tax.”

It is the establishment of the Religion of Marxism while, at the same time, destroys any semblance of what was once a Christian Nation.

“What would [Engels] have said, had he lived to see it, about a school of Marxists who after succeeding in capturing the state power proceeded to make a state religion of Marxism, a religion whose articles of faith and their interpretation are watched over by the government, a religion, the criticism of which, nay, the slightest deviation from which, is sternly punished by the State; a Marxism ruling by the methods of the Spanish Inquisition, propagated with fire and sword, practicing a theatrical ritual, as illustrated by the embalmed body of Lenin: a Marxism reduced to the status not only of a state religion but of a medieval or oriental faith? Such a Marxism may indeed be called a doctrinaire fanaticism.

Socialism, Fascism, Communism, by Professor Karl Kautsky, Joseph Shaplen and David Shub (eds.), first published by American League for Democratic Socialism, 1934. Transcribed by Ted Crawford for marxists.org, September, 2002.

Does anyone out there honestly believe that the IRS and the Spanish Inquisition cannot be favorably compared?

Nick Juliano

Kucinich, Barr, Bugliosi among those testifying

The House Judiciary Committee has released a witness list for its hearing to examine “the imperial presidency” of George W. Bush.

Testifying Friday morning will be Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced several resolutions calling for President Bush’s and Vice President Dick Cheney’s impeachment; former Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian presidential candidate who led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998; Vincent Bugliosi, author of the just-released book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder; and 10 other current and former members of Congress, constitutional experts and human rights activists.

“Americans have been waiting for Congress to hold the President accountable for his long list of misdeeds and misrepresentations. This hearing is a long overdue first step,” Kucinich said. “Congress enacted legislation authorizing the use of force against Iraq based on representations made by the White House. We now know that these representations were false and that the White House knew them to be false.”

The hearing, which was announced last week, seems to be the one Judiciary Chairman John Conyers promised to Kucinich after he introduced his second impeachment resolution aimed at Bush earlier this month. Any action on Kucinich’s articles of impeachment still seems unlikely, but the Ohio Democrat has previously said he just wants to be able to present his case.

Late Thursday afternoon, the committee released the full witness list, broken down into two panels.

Panel One

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio
The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York
The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina
The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina

Panel Two

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
Bruce Fein Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Conyers (D-MI) previously laid out six areas the hearing would explore:

(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;

(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;

(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;

(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;

(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and

(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday on Capitol Hill.

“Tell a lie loud and long enough and people will believe it.” Adolph Hitler’s campaign of propaganda, conspiracies, crimes for power and control of the people is a commonly known fact.

Most of the government or religious leaders and especially the major newspapers, radio, TV stations and networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and others on cable or satellite TV, also known as the main stream media, which is controlled by The Secret Rulers of the World, usually will not inform your acquaintances, neighbors, associates, friends, family, you or the other people in the world about the whole truth, if any, of important issues/events that have happened/will, which has/will harm us/most of the people in the world so after you are enlightened via discernment its your duty as a watchman & messenger to inform those who will listen, about the truth! (HOSEA 4:6) My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

(Ezekiel 33:6) But if the watchman sees the sword coming, and does not give a note on the horn, and the people have no word of the danger, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them; he will be taken away in his sin, but I will make the watchman responsible for his blood.

The Watchman & Messenger

Mukasey to Congress: Defy the Rule of Law - by Stephen LendmanAlong with other past and present administration officials, Attorney General Michael Mukasey supports lawlessness and police state justice. Weeks after the Supreme Court’s landmark (June 12) Boumediene ruling, he addressed the conservative, pro-war American Enterprise Institute (on July 21) and asked Congress to overrule the High Court - for the third time. His proposal:

– subvert constitutional and international law;

– authorize indefinite detentions of Guantanamo and other “war on terror” prisoners (including US citizens designated “enemy combatants”); and

– deny them habeas rights, due process, and any hope for judicial fairness.

Since June 2004, the (conservative) High Court made three landmark rulings. Twice Congress intervened, and Mukasey wants a third time. In Rasul v. Bush (June 2004), the Court granted Guantanamo detainees habeas rights to challenge their detentions in civil court. Congress responded with the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 subverting the ruling.

In June 2006, the Supreme Court reacted. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it held that federal courts retain jurisdiction over habeas cases and that Guantanamo Bay military commissions lack “the power to proceed because (their) structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions (of) 1949.”

In October 2006, Congress responded a second time. It enacted the Military Commissions Act (MCA) - subverting the High Court ruling in more extreme form. In its menu of illegal provisions, it grants the administration extraordinary unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, torture and prosecute alleged terrorist suspects, enemy combatants, or anyone claimed to support them. It lets the President designate anyone anywhere in the world (including US citizens) an “unlawful enemy combatant” and empowers him to arrest and detain them indefinitely in military prisons. The law states: “no (civil) court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever….relating to the prosecution, trial or judgment of….military commission(s)….including challenges to (their) lawfulness….”

On June 12, 2008, the High Court again disagreed. In Boumediene v. Bush, it held that Guantanamo detainees retain habeas rights. MCA unconstitutionally subverts them, and the administration has no legal authority to deny them due process in civil courts or act as accuser, trial judge and executioner with no right of appeal or chance for judicial fairness.

On July 21, Mukasey responded, and immediately the ACLU reacted in a same day press release headlined: “Attorney General Wants New Declaration of War Allowing Indefinite Detention and Concealment of Torture.” It called Mukasey’s speech “an enormous executive branch power grab….authoriz(ing) indefinite detention(s) through a new declaration of armed conflict.” He asked Congress to redefine habeas through legislation “that will hide the Bush administration’s past wrongdoing - an action that would undermine the constitutional guarantee of due process and conceal systematic (lawless) torture and abuse of detainees.”

Like his two predecessors, Mukasey mocks the rule of law and supports harsh police state justice. He wants Congress to “expand and extend the ‘war on terror’ forever” and let the president detain anyone indefinitely without charge or trial. ACLU’s Washington Legislative Director, Caroline Fredrickson, called this “the last gasp of an administration desperate to rationalize what is a failed legal scheme” - that the Supreme Court thunderously rejected three times.

Mukasey proposes lawlessness and cover-up, “but there is no reason to think that Congress will assist him.” It “won’t fall for this latest (scheme) to (suppress) its wrongdoing.” Besides, the House Judiciary Committee is now investigating whether high-level administration officials authorized torture and abuse. Mukasey wants to hide it and is asking Congress to “bury the evidence.”

The ACLU is righteously outraged by this latest attempted power grab. It rejects Mukasey’s lawlessness and states there is “no need to invent yet another set of legal rules to govern the detention and trial of prisoners held on national security grounds, and the rules that (Mukasey) is proposing are fundamentally inconsistent with” constitutional and international law.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Responds

After Mukasey’s September 17, 2007 nomination for Attorney General, CCR issued the following November 1, 2007 statement:

“Michael Mukasey is not fit to be Attorney General because he supports torture, illegal spying on Americans, and limitless powers for the Executive Branch.” As the “country’s highest law enforcement official,” he’s obligated “to enforce the law” - not make excuses for the government when it’s in violation. CCR stands “firmly against Mukasey’s nomination….Our country cannot afford to make compromises to our laws, our morals, and our humanity any longer.” The Senate must reject Attorney General candidates who’ll “undermine American justice and shred the Constitution.”

CCR expressed equal outrage on July 21. Its Executive Director, Vincent Warren, denounced Mukasey’s proposal in the following excerpted statement:

“What Mukasey is doing is a shocking attempt to drag us into years of further legal challenges and delays. The Supreme Court has definitively spoken” in Boumediene v. Bush and its two prior rulings. “For six and a half years,” the administration and Congress “have done their best to (deny due process) and prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the detention of the men in Guantanamo. Congress should be a part of the solution this time by letting the courts do their job.”

For the past six years, CCR litigated for Guantanamo detainee rights and continues to do it. It organized and coordinated over 500 pro bono lawyers for everyone held there illegally. Most recently, it represented plaintiffs in the landmark Boumediene v. Bush case - argued on December 5, 2007 and ruled on June 12, 2008.

The Wall Street Journal Reports and Editorializes

Its July 22 article states: “Mukasey Seeks Law on Detainees - Congress Is Urged to Limit Rights of Terror Suspects….in light of a rebuke by the Supreme Court.” It quotes Mukasey wanting:

– legislative “principles” for “practical” limits on the right of detainees to challenge their incarceration;

– Congress to give the administration freedom to detain combatants “for the duration of the (’war on terror’) conflict;”

– a “reaffirmation of something that was enacted in legislation after September 11, 2001″ (a menu of harsh repressive laws);

– no “enemy combatants” released in (or brought to) the US (even to appear in civil court);

– no intelligence (or harsh interrogation) methods revealed (so evidence of torture and abuse is suppressed), and

– military officers (and intelligence officials) to be excused from testifying (because what they know is damning).

On its editorial page, the Journal is supportive. It called Mukasey’s proposal “modest” on a “difficult” issue over which “different judges even on the same court will disagree.” Mukasey wants congressional “guidance” because there’s risk of “inconsistent rulings and considerable uncertainty.”

According to the Journal, Mukasey “was right in stepping forward to say that someone has to take responsibility for the consequences of the Supreme Court’s 5 - 4″ Boumediene ruling. It wants “Congress (to) give one court jurisdiction over (all detainee) cases” and not let the process “bog down into a Babel of conflicting procedural and legal rulings.” Mukasey is “right” to ask Congress to settle the issue, (regardless of three landmark High Court rulings). In other words:

– constitutional and international laws don’t apply;

– judicial fairness is a dead letter;

– presidential power is supreme; and

– Congress must support the executive and overrule the highest court in the land….A “modest (police state) proposal” according to the Journal and one it clearly supports.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9609

JD writes:

A book was recently published, titled “WHO KILLED THE CONSTITUTION”.  Book praised by Judge Andrew Napolitano, and is guaranteed to rile one up. This book points out the unconstitutional acts of the President and federal government since WW I.  Supports the fact that both the Democratic and Republican parties are hell-bent on the destruction of this country.

In great news for all Independent Americans: The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously upheld  term limits.

“This is amazing,” said: Joshua Hansen, co-host of American Sovereign TV show. “The will of the people to limit politicians tenure in office with the recently passed Constitutional Amendment was upheld. It is a great day for liberty and for the little guy. No more can the same man or woman buy his office by selling the power he obtains with seniority. Nevada will become a State of We the People again and not a State of Power by the few.”

The Las Vegas Review Journal has posted its review of the Courts’s ruling at:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/25935444.html