Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Trump and Huck out, now a new name looking to jump in
LOTS OF LUCK JUDGE :)
Billionaire Donald Trump is out of the 2012 GOP race, former Gov. Mike Huckabee is gone, but there's a new possible challenger.
Judge Roy Moore, a former state Supreme Court chief justice who twice has mounted gubernatorial campaigns in Alabama, has established an exploratory committee to consider a challenge to Barack Obama for the White House in 2012.
told WND that his campaign would be simple: telling people how he'd work on the problems facing America. And his administration, he said, would be simpler: just doing what he said.
"What most voters really are looking for is a candidate with the commitment to do what they'd said they would do," he told WND in an interview today. "The bottom line is they can believe I'll do what I say I'll do."
Moore, currently chief of the Foundation for Moral Law,drew national attention while serving as Alabama's state Supreme Court chief justice when he installed a monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the state's judicial building.
Activists including the Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued, and the dispute focused on whether a state is allowed to acknowledge God today. Moore argued it certainly was allowed earlier as all 50 state constitutions reference God.
Federal judge Myron Thompson ordered, "While the chief justice is free to keep whatever religious beliefs he chooses, the state (Alabama) cannot acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God or attribute to that God our religious freedom."
(Story continues below)
Moore stood fast, refusing to follow what he regarded as an unlawful order to remove the monument, explaining, according to his website, "Not only does every state constitution in some way acknowledge the sovereignty of God, but also the United States Constitution does so as well, in both the design of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in United States Supreme Court case law.
"History is replete with recognition of the sovereignty of God by all three branches of the American government."
Moore became known as the Ten Commandments judge and now, in addition to his work for the Foundation for Moral Law, is a speaker and author of legal briefs. He has scheduled speaking engagements in most of the states where early voter selections will influence the 2012 race, including Iowa, he confirmed.
He told WND his campaign is needed because the nation today is sinking into a morass of decadence.
"Obama's pushing his own immoral values without regard to what the people think or believe," he said.
He cited Obama's work to allow open homosexuality in the military, undermine traditional marriage and make abortion more accessible.
His positions on issues:
On the economy, he wants smaller government and less spending to cut the deficit and allow economic growth. Tax reform is due, and the nation's needs to rebuild its manufacturing base.
On the law of the land: "All actions of state and federal officials must conform to the Constitution, and it should only be changed by amendments by the people, not the decisions of activist judges."
On taxes, he says, "The present system is neither fair nor economically productive. … The truth is we are being taxed to death while our businesses are failing and our economy continues to suffer."
On immigration, he says the U.S. must stop the open borders policies of the last two administrations. "We must allow willing states (like Arizona) to do their own job of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens."
On health care, he says, "We do not need socialized medicine."
He said military strength needs to be restored through funding for a missile defense system as well as other modern technological advances.
On homosexuality in the military, he says such behavior should be against military policy.
He also says Washington needs a refresher course in the Constitution, because presidents aren't allowed to dispatch U.S. troops wherever they would like.
The nation needs to develop its own energy supplies.
"The federal government should not hamper the education systems of various states, as there is no authority for federal involvement under the Constitution.
And regarding foreign affairs, "America should serve as a good example to other nations, not as a police force to force our will upon others."
Judge Roy Moore
"Our country is in a moral, economic and constitutional crisis which threatens our future and that of our children and grandchildren," he said. "Basic institutions of family, faith and freedom are under assault, and our leadership is divided by petty party politics and a special interest agenda.
"People are tired of politicians who say one thing running for office and then do something else once elected. They deserve leaders dedicated to principle – not the power of incumbency," he said.
On his website, Moore said he is testing the waters, "because I believe in America and in the American people. We can again be one nation under God with liberty and justice for all and bring a real, positive change to our government."
He was a key speaker during the recent election in Iowa where voters fired three state Supreme Court judges who had imposed their plans for homosexual "marriage" on voters.
He's been addressing tea party rallies around the country and said he's learned voters appear to be tired of politicians who speak out on the campaign trail and "forget those moral issues when they are elected."
Washington's lack of knowledge about the nation and its Constitution, and Washington's deliberate disobedience, is alarming, he said. The military action in Libya, he said, isn't constitutional.
Congress can declare war, but the president can only direct such military strikes without that approval in the case of an emergency.
Also, the Obama administration's refusal to secure the U.S. borders, is "just unconscionable."
Following the laws of the land, he pointed out, isn't a choice, even for the president.
He told WND he has coming speaking engagements in Iowa, South Carolina, Idaho, Texas, Maryland and other states, and he will make a decision sometime this summer.
"I'm learning that what I stand for is exactly what the American people seem to want," he told WND. "Somebody who will take a stand against tyranny."
As WND reported, Moore lit a fire in the hearts of tea partiers at the first national convention in Nashville, inspiring four impassioned standing ovations with his reading of a "bill of particulars" against President Obama.
He also told the cheering crowd, "We're tired of liberal Republicans who don't hold the principles of their party."
Moore, a periodic WND columnist and author of the book "So Help Me God," also has condemned "senseless treaties" like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and the Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. He said the nation's borders have been opened to criminals and terrorists, the Constitution discarded, the federal government has grown in size and scope "far beyond anything our founders ever imagined," and the nation's debt is soaring.
Columnist, author and action film star Chuck Norris endorsed Moore's campaign for governor.
"More than just an amazing legal mind, he is first a true patriot and passionate family man," Norris wrote at the time.
He said Moore is one of the "constitutionally abiding legal eagles who walk in the legacy of our Founding Fathers and who we need serving in every state across our union."
Moore grew up the son of a jackhammer operator. He bagged groceries for 85 cents an hour at Piggly Wiggly to support his family and later attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Moore commanded an Army military police company in Vietnam from 1969 to 1974.
He graduated from the University of Alabama School of Law and worked as a deputy district attorney for Etowah County from 1977 to 1982.
After an unsuccessful bid for circuit judge in 1982, Moore worked on a ranch in Australia and became a kick boxer in Texas before returning to Alabama to practice law.
The Falling Bottom Line by Gerald Celente
The Falling Bottom Line by Gerald Celente
But it wasn’t the stereotypical Middle Eastern-style corruption of vulgar Arab sheiks doing dirty deals behind closed doors with shifty business moguls. In Europe, corruption was refined, honorable, prudent and openly practiced. It was called “banking.”
Legal, state-sanctioned European financial corruption that made more billions for billionaires and mega-millions for multi-millionaires had crashed or crippled many EU member countries
But it wasn’t the stereotypical Middle Eastern-style corruption of vulgar Arab sheiks doing dirty deals behind closed doors with shifty business moguls. In Europe, corruption was refined, honorable, prudent and openly practiced. It was called “banking.”
Legal, state-sanctioned European financial corruption that made more billions for billionaires and mega-millions for multi-millionaires had crashed or crippled many EU member countries
'Why Did Police Kill My Dad?' by William Norman Grigg
'Why Did Police Kill My Dad?' by William Norman Grigg
"Given that the marksmanship of the typical tax-feeder is on a par with that of the Imperial Stormtroopers from Star Wars, it’s likely that only a handful of the gunshots hit their marks, but that was enough. Jose was killed before he could pull the trigger. That doesn't alter the fact that he died on his feet, with his face to the enemy as he shielded his family against criminal aggression.
Neither Jose nor Vanessa had a criminal record. Nobody in their household took part in commerce involving non-government-approved mood-altering substances, and no evidence was found to suggest otherwise.
In the immediate aftermath of the murder, Jose’s killers – in keeping with established custom – began to traduce the victim's reputation, claiming that the slain husband and father was a violent suspect who had fired the first shot, and that a ballistic shield had probably saved the life of one of the assailants. This version of events was dutifully regurgitated by an initially uncritical local media.
Jose’s reputation was allowed to steep in that falsehood for several days before the PCSO grudgingly admitted the truth. "A deputy’s bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield," recounted the Arizona Daily Star, paraphrasing an account provided by PCSO functionary Michael O’Connor. "That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot."
The PCSO wasn’t through bemerding the memory of Jose Geurena, however.
In the new version peddled by the department, Guerena supposedly used his final seconds this side of eternity to channel Tony Montana, crouching down and growling: "I have something for you!"
The people who gunned Jose down – who are hardly disinterested witnesses – claim that he knew that he was drawing bead on law enforcement personnel. This is not what happened, even though Jose had every moral and legal right to use lethal force to defend his home from an unlawful invasion. "
"Given that the marksmanship of the typical tax-feeder is on a par with that of the Imperial Stormtroopers from Star Wars, it’s likely that only a handful of the gunshots hit their marks, but that was enough. Jose was killed before he could pull the trigger. That doesn't alter the fact that he died on his feet, with his face to the enemy as he shielded his family against criminal aggression.
Neither Jose nor Vanessa had a criminal record. Nobody in their household took part in commerce involving non-government-approved mood-altering substances, and no evidence was found to suggest otherwise.
In the immediate aftermath of the murder, Jose’s killers – in keeping with established custom – began to traduce the victim's reputation, claiming that the slain husband and father was a violent suspect who had fired the first shot, and that a ballistic shield had probably saved the life of one of the assailants. This version of events was dutifully regurgitated by an initially uncritical local media.
Jose’s reputation was allowed to steep in that falsehood for several days before the PCSO grudgingly admitted the truth. "A deputy’s bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield," recounted the Arizona Daily Star, paraphrasing an account provided by PCSO functionary Michael O’Connor. "That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot."
The PCSO wasn’t through bemerding the memory of Jose Geurena, however.
In the new version peddled by the department, Guerena supposedly used his final seconds this side of eternity to channel Tony Montana, crouching down and growling: "I have something for you!"
The people who gunned Jose down – who are hardly disinterested witnesses – claim that he knew that he was drawing bead on law enforcement personnel. This is not what happened, even though Jose had every moral and legal right to use lethal force to defend his home from an unlawful invasion. "
Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution by Simon Black
Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution by Simon Black
" The Court agreed that the police officers entered the Barnes home illegally. The Court further agreed that one’s right to resist illegal entry has existed since the Magna Carta. The Court further agreed that the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right to resist unlawful entry in numerous court cases.
Seems pretty cut and dry, no?
Yet, in summarizing the court’s opinion, Justice Steven David writes, “We hold that there is -no right- to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
Wait. Full stop. A citizen has no right to resist unlawful entry by police officers on his private property? Apparently we’re all supposed to lay down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.
The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful entry is the hallmark of any free civilization. Conversely, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of a judicious, impartial court.
There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic, seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government, and possession of firearms "
" Where consent isn’t freely given, forcible rape is lawful. Such is the logic — if that word can be tortured into applying here — behind the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Kentucky v. King, in which the Regime’s judicial branch destroys whatever remained of the illusive Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.
As with most rulings of this kind, the case was a byproduct of the Regime’s ongoing Narcotics Price Support Program. Narcotics officers in Lexington, Kentucky went trolling for patsies in a poor neighborhood that is most likely a preferred fishing hole for such activities. Using an undercover informant, the narcs set up a “controlled buy” of crack cocaine. Once the transaction was through, the merchant headed back to his apartment, which was one of two that were found at the end of a breezeway. The suspect was seen entering the apartment on the right, but the uniformed officers who arrived at the scene weren’t aware of this fact.
After discerning the aroma of marijuana emanating from the door on the left, the officers banged on it insistently and demanded to be let in. They later said that they “could hear people inside moving,” and what were taken to be the sounds of “things being moved inside the apartment.” Fearful that evidence would be destroyed, the officers kicked in the door, finding three terrified people inside. A “protective sweep” — “officer safety” über alles, you know — revealed a small amount of crack cocaine and marijuana.
A Kentucky Circuit Court ruled that the evidence seized in this warrantless search was admissible because it “consensual entry” was denied, and waiting to obtain a warrant would permit the destruction of evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed that ruling, pointing out that audible noises behind a closed door did not constitute reliable evidence “that evidence was being destroyed.” The state Court noted as well that it is impermissible for police deliberately to create “the exigent circumstances with the bad faith intent to avoid the warrant requirement” found in the Fourth Amendment.
Writing on behalf of the Supreme Court’s dominant Authoritarian Right faction, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the fault resided entirely with defendant Hollis King, who supposedly could have refused to respond to the police (presumably by remaining perfectly silent), or could have come to the door and demanded that the police return with a warrant. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,” sniffed Alito.
“How `secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” replied Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”
For several years, Punitive Populists have insisted that the Regime should be permitted to torture people identified as “terrorists,” since such people aren’t entitled to the protection of legal guarantees such as those found in the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions. After all, we already know that they’re terrorists, and so they shouldn’t be permitted to withhold evidence. After all, the Constitution “isn’t a suicide pact.” Obviously, the same reasoning (once again, assuming that this is the appropriate word) applies to the Fourth Amendment’s purported guarantees against warrantless searches.
A Texas county attorney has described the federal government in a way that is both insightful and destined for greatness. He said, "That bunch has a real corner on stupid."
Tom Edwards was talking about the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives, regarding a fire ATF agents accidentally set in Motley County, Texas, practicing detonations in an area locally designated no-burn. The county attorney is now helping Texans whose property was destroyed to apply for damages from the federal government.
" The Court agreed that the police officers entered the Barnes home illegally. The Court further agreed that one’s right to resist illegal entry has existed since the Magna Carta. The Court further agreed that the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right to resist unlawful entry in numerous court cases.
Seems pretty cut and dry, no?
Yet, in summarizing the court’s opinion, Justice Steven David writes, “We hold that there is -no right- to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
Wait. Full stop. A citizen has no right to resist unlawful entry by police officers on his private property? Apparently we’re all supposed to lay down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.
The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful entry is the hallmark of any free civilization. Conversely, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of a judicious, impartial court.
There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic, seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government, and possession of firearms "
" Where consent isn’t freely given, forcible rape is lawful. Such is the logic — if that word can be tortured into applying here — behind the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Kentucky v. King, in which the Regime’s judicial branch destroys whatever remained of the illusive Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.
As with most rulings of this kind, the case was a byproduct of the Regime’s ongoing Narcotics Price Support Program. Narcotics officers in Lexington, Kentucky went trolling for patsies in a poor neighborhood that is most likely a preferred fishing hole for such activities. Using an undercover informant, the narcs set up a “controlled buy” of crack cocaine. Once the transaction was through, the merchant headed back to his apartment, which was one of two that were found at the end of a breezeway. The suspect was seen entering the apartment on the right, but the uniformed officers who arrived at the scene weren’t aware of this fact.
After discerning the aroma of marijuana emanating from the door on the left, the officers banged on it insistently and demanded to be let in. They later said that they “could hear people inside moving,” and what were taken to be the sounds of “things being moved inside the apartment.” Fearful that evidence would be destroyed, the officers kicked in the door, finding three terrified people inside. A “protective sweep” — “officer safety” über alles, you know — revealed a small amount of crack cocaine and marijuana.
A Kentucky Circuit Court ruled that the evidence seized in this warrantless search was admissible because it “consensual entry” was denied, and waiting to obtain a warrant would permit the destruction of evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed that ruling, pointing out that audible noises behind a closed door did not constitute reliable evidence “that evidence was being destroyed.” The state Court noted as well that it is impermissible for police deliberately to create “the exigent circumstances with the bad faith intent to avoid the warrant requirement” found in the Fourth Amendment.
Writing on behalf of the Supreme Court’s dominant Authoritarian Right faction, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the fault resided entirely with defendant Hollis King, who supposedly could have refused to respond to the police (presumably by remaining perfectly silent), or could have come to the door and demanded that the police return with a warrant. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,” sniffed Alito.
“How `secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” replied Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”
For several years, Punitive Populists have insisted that the Regime should be permitted to torture people identified as “terrorists,” since such people aren’t entitled to the protection of legal guarantees such as those found in the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions. After all, we already know that they’re terrorists, and so they shouldn’t be permitted to withhold evidence. After all, the Constitution “isn’t a suicide pact.” Obviously, the same reasoning (once again, assuming that this is the appropriate word) applies to the Fourth Amendment’s purported guarantees against warrantless searches.
A Texas county attorney has described the federal government in a way that is both insightful and destined for greatness. He said, "That bunch has a real corner on stupid."
Tom Edwards was talking about the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives, regarding a fire ATF agents accidentally set in Motley County, Texas, practicing detonations in an area locally designated no-burn. The county attorney is now helping Texans whose property was destroyed to apply for damages from the federal government.
The Persecution of John Demjanjuk by Patrick J. Buchanan
The Persecution of John Demjanjuk by Patrick J. Buchanan
"John Demjanjuk Guilty of Nazi Death Camp Murders," ran the headline on the BBC. The lede began:
"A German court has found John Demjanjuk guilty of helping to murder more than 28,000 Jews at a Nazi death camp in Poland."
Not until paragraph 17 does one find this jolting fact: "No evidence was produced that he committed a specific crime."
That is correct. No evidence was produced, no witness came forward to testify he ever saw Demjanjuk injure anyone. And the critical evidence that put Demjanjuk at Sobibor came – from the KGB.
First was a KGB summary of an alleged interview with one Ignat Danilchenko, who claimed he was a guard at Sobibor and knew Demjanjuk. Second was the Soviet-supplied ID card from the Trawniki camp that trained guards.
There are major problems with both pieces of "evidence."
First, Danilchenko has been dead for a quarter of a century, no one in the West ever interviewed him, and Moscow stonewalled defense requests for access to the full Danilchenko file. His very existence raises a question.
How could a Red Army soldier who turned collaborator and Nazi camp guard survive Operation Keelhaul, which sent all Soviet POWs back to Joseph Stalin, where they were either murdered or sent to the Gulag? As for the ID card from Trawniki, just last month there was unearthed at the National Archives in College Park, Md., a 1985 report from the Cleveland office of the FBI, which, after studying the card, concluded it was "quite likely" a KGB forgery.
"Justice is ill-served in the prosecution of an American citizen on evidence which is not only normally inadmissible in a court of law, but based on evidence and allegations quite likely fabricated by the KGB."
This FBI report, never made public, was done just as Demjanjuk was being deported to Israel to stand trial as "Ivan the Terrible," the murderer of Treblinka. In a sensational trial covered by the world's press, Demjanjuk was convicted and sentenced to hang.
But after five years on death row, new evidence turned up when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia opened up. That evidence wholly validated the claims of Demjanjuk's defenders.
Not only had Demjanjuk never even been at Treblinka, the Soviet files contained a photograph of the real "Ivan" – a larger and older man. To its eternal credit, the Israeli Supreme Court reversed the conviction, rejected a request to retry Demjanjuk as a camp guard elsewhere in Poland, freed him and sent him home to America.
Exposed as a laughing stock, and denounced for fraud by Ohio district and appellate courts, the Office of Special Investigations began crafting a new case, John Demjanjuk of Sobibor, to deport and try again the old man whose defense attorneys had made fools of them.
Thus the Sobibor story and Demjanjuk's supposed complicity in the murder of 28,000 Jews – though, as the BBC notes, no one testified at the trial that they ever saw John Demjanjuk injure anyone.
Consider the life this tormented American has lived.
Born in Ukraine in 1920, as a boy he endured the Holodomor – the famine imposed on his people in 1932 and 1933 by Stalin and his hated henchman Lazar Kaganovich, which resulted in the starvation and death of somewhere between 5 million and 9 million Ukrainians.
It has been called by historians the "forgotten Holocaust."
Conscripted into the Red Army, Demjanjuk was captured in the German blitzkrieg. Unlike American and British POWs, whom Germans regarded as racial equals, Ukrainians were untermensch who could be used for medical experiments.
Not only did Demjanjuk survive, he managed to evade the Allied order, under Keelhaul, for all Red Army POWs to be repatriated to Stalin, which was the Soviet dictator's demand before he would return the U.S. and British POWs his troops liberated in the march to Berlin.
In the war's aftermath, Demjanjuk married his wife Vera, who had been conscripted in the Ukraine and brought forcibly west to work in the German economy.
Thence he moved to Cleveland, became an autoworker, raised a family and practiced his Christian faith. But he made a mistake.
He sent his wife to Ukraine to tell his aged mother that he had survived the war and was living in the great United States of America.Word got around the village. The KGB came calling. Swiftly, the payments his mother had been receiving for her war hero son were halted, and suddenly, there turned up an ID card that said John Demjanjuk had been trained at Trawniki to be a Nazi camp guard.
The KGB began feeding OSI from its "files," as OSI began a manic persecution of Demjanjuk that has lasted 30 years.
Stalin died in bed in 1953. Kaganovich died with his family around him in Moscow in 1991. And John Demjanjuk, 91, after spending five years on death row for a crime he did not commit in a place he never was, is stateless and homeless in a Germany where veterans of the SS walk free.
That is justice – in our world. "
"John Demjanjuk Guilty of Nazi Death Camp Murders," ran the headline on the BBC. The lede began:
"A German court has found John Demjanjuk guilty of helping to murder more than 28,000 Jews at a Nazi death camp in Poland."
Not until paragraph 17 does one find this jolting fact: "No evidence was produced that he committed a specific crime."
That is correct. No evidence was produced, no witness came forward to testify he ever saw Demjanjuk injure anyone. And the critical evidence that put Demjanjuk at Sobibor came – from the KGB.
First was a KGB summary of an alleged interview with one Ignat Danilchenko, who claimed he was a guard at Sobibor and knew Demjanjuk. Second was the Soviet-supplied ID card from the Trawniki camp that trained guards.
There are major problems with both pieces of "evidence."
First, Danilchenko has been dead for a quarter of a century, no one in the West ever interviewed him, and Moscow stonewalled defense requests for access to the full Danilchenko file. His very existence raises a question.
How could a Red Army soldier who turned collaborator and Nazi camp guard survive Operation Keelhaul, which sent all Soviet POWs back to Joseph Stalin, where they were either murdered or sent to the Gulag? As for the ID card from Trawniki, just last month there was unearthed at the National Archives in College Park, Md., a 1985 report from the Cleveland office of the FBI, which, after studying the card, concluded it was "quite likely" a KGB forgery.
"Justice is ill-served in the prosecution of an American citizen on evidence which is not only normally inadmissible in a court of law, but based on evidence and allegations quite likely fabricated by the KGB."
This FBI report, never made public, was done just as Demjanjuk was being deported to Israel to stand trial as "Ivan the Terrible," the murderer of Treblinka. In a sensational trial covered by the world's press, Demjanjuk was convicted and sentenced to hang.
But after five years on death row, new evidence turned up when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia opened up. That evidence wholly validated the claims of Demjanjuk's defenders.
Not only had Demjanjuk never even been at Treblinka, the Soviet files contained a photograph of the real "Ivan" – a larger and older man. To its eternal credit, the Israeli Supreme Court reversed the conviction, rejected a request to retry Demjanjuk as a camp guard elsewhere in Poland, freed him and sent him home to America.
Exposed as a laughing stock, and denounced for fraud by Ohio district and appellate courts, the Office of Special Investigations began crafting a new case, John Demjanjuk of Sobibor, to deport and try again the old man whose defense attorneys had made fools of them.
Thus the Sobibor story and Demjanjuk's supposed complicity in the murder of 28,000 Jews – though, as the BBC notes, no one testified at the trial that they ever saw John Demjanjuk injure anyone.
Consider the life this tormented American has lived.
Born in Ukraine in 1920, as a boy he endured the Holodomor – the famine imposed on his people in 1932 and 1933 by Stalin and his hated henchman Lazar Kaganovich, which resulted in the starvation and death of somewhere between 5 million and 9 million Ukrainians.
It has been called by historians the "forgotten Holocaust."
Conscripted into the Red Army, Demjanjuk was captured in the German blitzkrieg. Unlike American and British POWs, whom Germans regarded as racial equals, Ukrainians were untermensch who could be used for medical experiments.
Not only did Demjanjuk survive, he managed to evade the Allied order, under Keelhaul, for all Red Army POWs to be repatriated to Stalin, which was the Soviet dictator's demand before he would return the U.S. and British POWs his troops liberated in the march to Berlin.
In the war's aftermath, Demjanjuk married his wife Vera, who had been conscripted in the Ukraine and brought forcibly west to work in the German economy.
Thence he moved to Cleveland, became an autoworker, raised a family and practiced his Christian faith. But he made a mistake.
He sent his wife to Ukraine to tell his aged mother that he had survived the war and was living in the great United States of America.Word got around the village. The KGB came calling. Swiftly, the payments his mother had been receiving for her war hero son were halted, and suddenly, there turned up an ID card that said John Demjanjuk had been trained at Trawniki to be a Nazi camp guard.
The KGB began feeding OSI from its "files," as OSI began a manic persecution of Demjanjuk that has lasted 30 years.
Stalin died in bed in 1953. Kaganovich died with his family around him in Moscow in 1991. And John Demjanjuk, 91, after spending five years on death row for a crime he did not commit in a place he never was, is stateless and homeless in a Germany where veterans of the SS walk free.
That is justice – in our world. "
The Dirty Old Man and the IMF by Patrick J. Buchanan
The Dirty Old Man and the IMF by Patrick J. Buchanan
" The Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates was dead. And the IMF, established to maintain it, should have died with it.
It did not, for as Ronald Reagan reminded us, the closest we come to eternal life on this earth is a government program.
For 40 years, the IMF has soldiered on, backed by both parties, plying its new trade – endless transfers of U.S. and Western wealth to bail out failing non-Western and anti-Western nations.
Under DSK, the IMF took on a new role that enchanted Europe.
It joined with the European Central Bank to provide hundreds of billions to bail out Greece, Ireland and Portugal, so these nations would not default on their debts and bring down the European banks that are stuffed full of Greek, Irish and Portuguese bonds.
Through the IMF, U.S. taxpayers are bailing out European nations to save European banks, just as U.S. taxpayers, through the Federal Reserve, secretly bailed out European banks throughout 2009 and 2010.
This is why the socialist Strauss-Kahn was a hero in the capitals of Europe. He was their agent in our capital.
Consider the winners and losers of this globalist racket.
The people of Greece, Ireland and Portugal endure austerity and recession for years, while the European banks are assured 100 cents on the dollar for their bonds. And the deal-makers like DSK are put up at $3,000-a-night hotel rooms, fly first class and get tax-free salaries larger than those of the president of the United States, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Saturday at the Sofitel, we saw up-close the sense of arrogance and entitlement such privilege induces in our global elite.
Time to shut down the IMF and get back what's left of our gold. "
" The Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates was dead. And the IMF, established to maintain it, should have died with it.
It did not, for as Ronald Reagan reminded us, the closest we come to eternal life on this earth is a government program.
For 40 years, the IMF has soldiered on, backed by both parties, plying its new trade – endless transfers of U.S. and Western wealth to bail out failing non-Western and anti-Western nations.
Under DSK, the IMF took on a new role that enchanted Europe.
It joined with the European Central Bank to provide hundreds of billions to bail out Greece, Ireland and Portugal, so these nations would not default on their debts and bring down the European banks that are stuffed full of Greek, Irish and Portuguese bonds.
Through the IMF, U.S. taxpayers are bailing out European nations to save European banks, just as U.S. taxpayers, through the Federal Reserve, secretly bailed out European banks throughout 2009 and 2010.
This is why the socialist Strauss-Kahn was a hero in the capitals of Europe. He was their agent in our capital.
Consider the winners and losers of this globalist racket.
The people of Greece, Ireland and Portugal endure austerity and recession for years, while the European banks are assured 100 cents on the dollar for their bonds. And the deal-makers like DSK are put up at $3,000-a-night hotel rooms, fly first class and get tax-free salaries larger than those of the president of the United States, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Saturday at the Sofitel, we saw up-close the sense of arrogance and entitlement such privilege induces in our global elite.
Time to shut down the IMF and get back what's left of our gold. "
Monday, May 16, 2011
R.I.P. President Daniels
R.I.P. President Daniels
" What has rendered him unelectable, and possibly unfit for the governor's office he now holds, is a recent decision by the Indiana Supreme Court, with the majority opinion written by Daniels's sole nominee.
"Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
– Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home, May 13, 2011
This horrific decision by the Indiana judges means that Americans, or at least Americans who happen to be living in Indiana, have fewer rights than medieval Englishmen. The decision isn't merely incorrect, it is a grotesque insult to the Fourth Amendment, to the United States Constitution, to the American Revolution, indeed, to the very concept of America itself. America is not a police state, and it is a travesty to claim that a nation born in violence against the legally constituted authorities does not have a right to resist them in their own homes.
And Daniels has thus far remained silent on the issue, when anything short of an abject apology for David's appointment combined with a demand for David's immediate resignation, and the resignation of the other two judges who sided with David, is absolutely necessary for him to remain a credible governor, let alone a president. And even if he does do as he must, the Indiana court decision raises serious questions about what sort of appointments Daniels would make in the unlikely event he were to find himself in the White House.
Ron Paul aside, the present slate of potential Republican candidates is an insipid and uninspiring collection of political hacks. "
" What has rendered him unelectable, and possibly unfit for the governor's office he now holds, is a recent decision by the Indiana Supreme Court, with the majority opinion written by Daniels's sole nominee.
"Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
– Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home, May 13, 2011
This horrific decision by the Indiana judges means that Americans, or at least Americans who happen to be living in Indiana, have fewer rights than medieval Englishmen. The decision isn't merely incorrect, it is a grotesque insult to the Fourth Amendment, to the United States Constitution, to the American Revolution, indeed, to the very concept of America itself. America is not a police state, and it is a travesty to claim that a nation born in violence against the legally constituted authorities does not have a right to resist them in their own homes.
And Daniels has thus far remained silent on the issue, when anything short of an abject apology for David's appointment combined with a demand for David's immediate resignation, and the resignation of the other two judges who sided with David, is absolutely necessary for him to remain a credible governor, let alone a president. And even if he does do as he must, the Indiana court decision raises serious questions about what sort of appointments Daniels would make in the unlikely event he were to find himself in the White House.
Ron Paul aside, the present slate of potential Republican candidates is an insipid and uninspiring collection of political hacks. "
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
OBAMA IS A JACKASS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Read the Constitution, of the few, carefully picked powers given to the federal government, securing the border was among the first among them.
11 million ??? Better call Census and straighten that out. Someone is fibbin'. Try 25 million ... or more. Let's call it what it is, MIGRATION and INVASION .
Uh, no... See, we don't have an "immigration problem", what we DO have is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT problem, and that's putting it nicely...
Obama is a lying piece of crap...but, mass deportation of 11 million people...how does that get accomplished realistically you may ask ??? "
Like this the way IKE did it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_W....
Strawberries may go up 50 cents/quart { not likely }
But Your hospital bill goes down $30,000.
How does that balance out again?
"You cannot win a bet on the end of the world. You either lose because you're wrong or you lose because you're right and can't collect."
Karl Denninger SAYS :
" Heh Mr. President: Bite Me on your Immigration policy
You know, the Marxist-in-Chief is way, way out there with this one:
President Barack Obama said the drive to revamp the nation’s immigration laws has fallen victim to political games and “ugly rhetoric,” and that eliminating an underground economy fueled by illegal immigration will strengthen the U.S. middle class.
Then deport them all. That will strengthen the US middle class.
... it is time to overhaul the law to provide a legal path to residence for some of the 11 million people in the country illegally and revise an “outdated” system for legal immigration.
No.
Here's reality. Those 11 million illegal invaders are consuming both jobs and public resources that 8 million out of work Americans could do. They're also increasing government expenditures which could be cut.
Send every one of them home right now Mr. President.
They're INVADERS.
“Immigration reform is an economic imperative,” Obama said
Sending all the illegal invaders home is an economic imperative.
“It’s for this reason that businesses all across America are demanding that Washington finally meet its responsibility to solve the immigration problem,” he said.
Businesses want $2/day labor. Haven't you noticed all the jobs going to Chinese assembly companies? If you "legalize" these people there will simply be more illegal invaders.
Middle-income Americans will benefit when “there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everyone else,” he said.
LIAR.
Opponents who argue that the border needs to be made more secure before they can support an overhaul are playing politics with the issue and will “never be satisfied,” Obama said.
“Maybe they’ll say we need a moat,” he said. “Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”
I'll be satisfied with alligators, although it's probably cheaper to take some of our National Guard and give them a magazine full of ammunition.
Illegal invaders are just that INVADERS !!!
Would you have arrested invading Japanese on our shores during WWII? Or would you have handed out magazines and rifles? Oh wait, we got this one - our own BATF hands out the rifles and magazines - to the Mexican thugs!
Mexican President Felipe Calderon said immigration is a “crucial issue” for U.S. relations with Mexico and for the economies of both countries. Mexico’s abundance of labor complements the U.S.’s capital-intensive economy, he said.
Oh, and it's legal for Americans to decide to cross "at will" and stay in Mexico, buy land and generally live there without immigrating through proper procedures, right?
Wait... you mean people get thrown in jail for doing that in Mexico?
Well golly gee, what a double-standard we have.
To Calderon and Obama:
Any immigration reform MUST to include deportation.
Any "solution" that rewards those who have violated the laws at the expense of those who don't is unethical on its face and just invites further violations and will have deleterious consequences for the country as a whole. Our banking/mortgage/financial/credit/debt situation provides a great real-world example.
"President Barack Obama said the drive to revamp the nation’s immigration laws has fallen victim to political games and “ugly rhetoric,”
You outta know Obama,because that is exactly what you are engaged in right now to grab at the hispanic vote,you sir are an exploiter not unlike the illegal alien employer's.
If one watches the news and the polotician's for most part all you hear is this comprehensive reform or secure the border,fact is Nappy { what a piece of shit she is } from Arizona appointed to head Homeland Security should of stopped anyone in their tracks thinking that this admin was seriuos about border security.
She while gov in AZ fought,kicked,lied with any and all immigration related laws that could of helped the people of AZ,it wasnt until the voters forced her to do something she signed a bill.
The People want enforcement period.
59% Favor Cutoff of Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c....
It's pretty painfully obvious by now that this idiot wants America Divided. His opponents on every single issue aren't just wrong. He doesn't just disagree with their premise. He bypasses any sort of argument and just flings ad hominem, casting anyone who would take offense as an immoral kook.
He's poking a bear with a stick and getting more aggressive, because the people he's pissing off can take a fair amount of abuse so the bills get paid and mouths get fed. He's purposefully trying to incite violent reactions by mocking and waging a very personal war against his opponents. At a time when this country is at its weakest Obama is obviously doing everything in his considerable power to break it.
For our own good of course, so we can be remade in his image. Global citizens and all that.
A) Deport EVERY illegal alien that law enforcement has ANY interaction with (US born kids or not makes no difference).
B) Fine and JAIL employers that knowingly hire an illegal.
C) Do not provide ANY "entitlements" to illegal aliens. In short... you're here ILLEGALLY, so you're not "Entitled" to ****.
D) Deny any Fed funds for any "sanctuary cities" or any state that refuses to enforce immigration laws. Start jailing city managers, mayors, etc... that support illegal immigrants in any fashion.
E) Fingerprint and ID every illegal deported and put them on a blacklist. Call it a "No immigrate list", I don't care... just make it infinitely clear that if you are here illegally, then you need to get the hell out and take your turn waiting in line. If you don't, then when you get caught you are forbidden from EVER entering legally. And, make it a felony with mandatory years (3-5) in prison if you come in illegally again.
Do this, and I bet at least half would be gone by Christmas,
Deport 10 invaders/day (per state) and he illegal immigrants will go away--
but,
if each of the 50 states deported
10 invaders each day
that would = 500/day
& would = 15,000/month,
and = 180,000/year
NOT HARD TO DO, America would choose to act.
When the invaders these 10 deportations/day
in each state,
they would self-deport,
as they started doing
in Arizona,
immediately after that state
passed SB 1070,
even though the law
has not really been enforced
due to legal actions against it.
10/day,
and they'll go away... "
oper
2011-05-10 23:08:31
11 million ??? Better call Census and straighten that out. Someone is fibbin'. Try 25 million ... or more. Let's call it what it is, MIGRATION and INVASION .
Uh, no... See, we don't have an "immigration problem", what we DO have is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT problem, and that's putting it nicely...
Obama is a lying piece of crap...but, mass deportation of 11 million people...how does that get accomplished realistically you may ask ??? "
Like this the way IKE did it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_W....
Strawberries may go up 50 cents/quart { not likely }
But Your hospital bill goes down $30,000.
How does that balance out again?
"You cannot win a bet on the end of the world. You either lose because you're wrong or you lose because you're right and can't collect."
Karl Denninger SAYS :
" Heh Mr. President: Bite Me on your Immigration policy
You know, the Marxist-in-Chief is way, way out there with this one:
President Barack Obama said the drive to revamp the nation’s immigration laws has fallen victim to political games and “ugly rhetoric,” and that eliminating an underground economy fueled by illegal immigration will strengthen the U.S. middle class.
Then deport them all. That will strengthen the US middle class.
... it is time to overhaul the law to provide a legal path to residence for some of the 11 million people in the country illegally and revise an “outdated” system for legal immigration.
No.
Here's reality. Those 11 million illegal invaders are consuming both jobs and public resources that 8 million out of work Americans could do. They're also increasing government expenditures which could be cut.
Send every one of them home right now Mr. President.
They're INVADERS.
“Immigration reform is an economic imperative,” Obama said
Sending all the illegal invaders home is an economic imperative.
“It’s for this reason that businesses all across America are demanding that Washington finally meet its responsibility to solve the immigration problem,” he said.
Businesses want $2/day labor. Haven't you noticed all the jobs going to Chinese assembly companies? If you "legalize" these people there will simply be more illegal invaders.
Middle-income Americans will benefit when “there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everyone else,” he said.
LIAR.
Opponents who argue that the border needs to be made more secure before they can support an overhaul are playing politics with the issue and will “never be satisfied,” Obama said.
“Maybe they’ll say we need a moat,” he said. “Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”
I'll be satisfied with alligators, although it's probably cheaper to take some of our National Guard and give them a magazine full of ammunition.
Illegal invaders are just that INVADERS !!!
Would you have arrested invading Japanese on our shores during WWII? Or would you have handed out magazines and rifles? Oh wait, we got this one - our own BATF hands out the rifles and magazines - to the Mexican thugs!
Mexican President Felipe Calderon said immigration is a “crucial issue” for U.S. relations with Mexico and for the economies of both countries. Mexico’s abundance of labor complements the U.S.’s capital-intensive economy, he said.
Oh, and it's legal for Americans to decide to cross "at will" and stay in Mexico, buy land and generally live there without immigrating through proper procedures, right?
Wait... you mean people get thrown in jail for doing that in Mexico?
Well golly gee, what a double-standard we have.
To Calderon and Obama:
Any immigration reform MUST to include deportation.
Any "solution" that rewards those who have violated the laws at the expense of those who don't is unethical on its face and just invites further violations and will have deleterious consequences for the country as a whole. Our banking/mortgage/financial/credit/debt situation provides a great real-world example.
"President Barack Obama said the drive to revamp the nation’s immigration laws has fallen victim to political games and “ugly rhetoric,”
You outta know Obama,because that is exactly what you are engaged in right now to grab at the hispanic vote,you sir are an exploiter not unlike the illegal alien employer's.
If one watches the news and the polotician's for most part all you hear is this comprehensive reform or secure the border,fact is Nappy { what a piece of shit she is } from Arizona appointed to head Homeland Security should of stopped anyone in their tracks thinking that this admin was seriuos about border security.
She while gov in AZ fought,kicked,lied with any and all immigration related laws that could of helped the people of AZ,it wasnt until the voters forced her to do something she signed a bill.
The People want enforcement period.
59% Favor Cutoff of Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c....
It's pretty painfully obvious by now that this idiot wants America Divided. His opponents on every single issue aren't just wrong. He doesn't just disagree with their premise. He bypasses any sort of argument and just flings ad hominem, casting anyone who would take offense as an immoral kook.
He's poking a bear with a stick and getting more aggressive, because the people he's pissing off can take a fair amount of abuse so the bills get paid and mouths get fed. He's purposefully trying to incite violent reactions by mocking and waging a very personal war against his opponents. At a time when this country is at its weakest Obama is obviously doing everything in his considerable power to break it.
For our own good of course, so we can be remade in his image. Global citizens and all that.
A) Deport EVERY illegal alien that law enforcement has ANY interaction with (US born kids or not makes no difference).
B) Fine and JAIL employers that knowingly hire an illegal.
C) Do not provide ANY "entitlements" to illegal aliens. In short... you're here ILLEGALLY, so you're not "Entitled" to ****.
D) Deny any Fed funds for any "sanctuary cities" or any state that refuses to enforce immigration laws. Start jailing city managers, mayors, etc... that support illegal immigrants in any fashion.
E) Fingerprint and ID every illegal deported and put them on a blacklist. Call it a "No immigrate list", I don't care... just make it infinitely clear that if you are here illegally, then you need to get the hell out and take your turn waiting in line. If you don't, then when you get caught you are forbidden from EVER entering legally. And, make it a felony with mandatory years (3-5) in prison if you come in illegally again.
Do this, and I bet at least half would be gone by Christmas,
Deport 10 invaders/day (per state) and he illegal immigrants will go away--
but,
if each of the 50 states deported
10 invaders each day
that would = 500/day
& would = 15,000/month,
and = 180,000/year
NOT HARD TO DO, America would choose to act.
When the invaders these 10 deportations/day
in each state,
they would self-deport,
as they started doing
in Arizona,
immediately after that state
passed SB 1070,
even though the law
has not really been enforced
due to legal actions against it.
10/day,
and they'll go away... "
oper
2011-05-10 23:08:31
Monday, May 2, 2011
Should State Agents Be Held Accountable Only to the State? by William L. Anderson
Should State Agents Be Held Accountable Only to the State? by William L. Anderson
For all of the talk of "democracy" and "self-government" from the American political classes, what we have today is self-perpetuating "Progressive" government. We are supposed to assume we are governed by Wise People Who Know What Is Best For Us. Instead, we are governed by people who face few standards of accountability, and while they repeat the line that they can "police themselves," we also know that is untrue.
In its Connick ruling, the Supreme Court simply affirmed the "Progressive" canards that those "professionals" who govern us also can be trusted to govern themselves. That is a lie as bad as any lie that DA Harry Connick Sr.’s underlings told the jurors when they wrongfully convicted John Thompson of murder and sentenced him to execution.
For all of the talk of "democracy" and "self-government" from the American political classes, what we have today is self-perpetuating "Progressive" government. We are supposed to assume we are governed by Wise People Who Know What Is Best For Us. Instead, we are governed by people who face few standards of accountability, and while they repeat the line that they can "police themselves," we also know that is untrue.
In its Connick ruling, the Supreme Court simply affirmed the "Progressive" canards that those "professionals" who govern us also can be trusted to govern themselves. That is a lie as bad as any lie that DA Harry Connick Sr.’s underlings told the jurors when they wrongfully convicted John Thompson of murder and sentenced him to execution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
