Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Re: Chris Hedges: The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State - Truthdig | Main | Another COUNTERFEIT credential for Ronald H. Weich, Legislative Affairs Division, U.S. Department of Justice »

Private Attorney General's REPLIES Re: Got a sandwich? by Dinesh D'Souza

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

Update:

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html

Post main:

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:48 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General's REPLIES Re: Got a sandwich? by Dinesh D'Souza

Greetings Cindy et al.:

I'm REALLY glad you posted this video:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rEM4NKXK-iA?feature=player_detailpage


First of all, I recognize Dinesh as a very intelligent and very articulate 
human being, and I honor him for his ability to frame moral issues
so succinctly and so clearly.

Nevertheless, I did NOT hear one single reference to the supreme Law in America,
so allow me an opportunity to fill in that HUGE GAPING HOLE in his brief statements:


(1)  the whole issue of Federal "social welfare" legislation
arose back in the period of 1932-35, when the Congress tried to enact 
a metric tonne of such social welfare programs;  what happened?
Answer:  the Supreme Court struck down much of it, and
that was one of the main reasons why FDR resorted
to his "Court Packing" scheme -- to eliminate high Court obstacles
to FDR's socialist plans;


(2)  Social Security was allowed to remain, in part on the
basis of the FACT that it is Federal MUNICIPAL law, and 
as such it ONLY applies to areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction
like D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico:
we know this from "legal experts" in the Office of the Legislative Counsel
and the Congressional Research Service (both agreeing):

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif


(3)  it should already be very evident, from (1) and (2) above,
that the Constitution authorizes NO POWER for Congress
to compel Citizens of the States to participate in such
social welfare programs;  and, Dinesh is correct to place
emphasis on the "compulsory" nature of these programs;


(4)  you will also note, I hope, that the role of the State governments
in providing social welfare programs is rather conspicuous 
for its absence from the comments Dinesh made;


(5)  there IS another MAJOR MORAL ISSUE that arises from
the fact that the Federal government has a well documented
propensity to proliferate boated and inefficient bureaucracies
whose major raison d'etre (reason for existence) is to 
implement and regulate programs like the thousands of
studies which killed millions of dogs to prove that smoking
is a health hazard;  there were so many dogs killed by these
federal smoking studies that Congress needed to appropriate
funds to build a dog crematorium, to incinerate all those dogs
effectively euthanized by "compelling" them to inhale 
toxic cigarette smoke 24/7;


(7)  this brings us full circle to ask how much discretionary
money would be available, in the aggregate, if the Congress
were NOT allowed to waste so many BILLIONS of tax dollars
for so many THOUSANDS of programs whose main objectives
are to COMPEL social engineering at all levels of American society,
particularly when Congress does so by means of fraud e.g.
by re-defining "States" to mean something OTHER THAN 
the 50 States of the Union and doing so after the Supreme Court
specifically prohibited such re-definitions of terms that occur
in the U.S. Constitution;


(8)  an excellent example of (7) is the fraud that has been forced
upon churches throughout the country, by requiring them to apply
for 501(c)(3) "tax exemption", when it is now well known that
those churches had no legal obligation to request such exemptions
in the first place, and those same churches have no legal obligations
to require their paid employees to execute IRS Forms W-4,
and certainly not when those workers are NOT included
in the IRC's definition of "employee" in the first place:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm


(9)  therefore, a strong argument can be made that churches --
and the many members of their congregations -- would have
far more discretionary money at their disposals, if the
Federal income tax and the IRS simply did NOT exist
and if neither were being sustained secretly and fraudulently
to continue collecting interest payments payable to the
Federal Reserve Banks -- particularly when those very same Banks
have no desire to promote the welfare of the American People;


(10)  it should also be obvious from the above that the entire
American macro-economic situation would have far more
discretionary money at its disposal to purchase voluntary and 
private health insurance, PROVIDED that the Congress restricted
its legislation within the 50 States to the specific authorities
which are authorized to it by Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 thru 16
and 18:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:1
...
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:16
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:18


(11)  I like to close such discussions with a moral comparison 
to the divisive issue of abortion:  if Congress restricted its
legislation on this issue to the federal zone, and allowed
the State Legislatures to make their own decisions 
on this issue, I predict with moral confidence that 
the Most High would allow States to flourish insofar
as they prohibited abortion, and the Most High would
punish States that permitted and encouraged abortion;


(12)  of course, impostors and dictators like Barry Soetoro
continue to believe, falsely, that Congress has PLENARY authority
to enact MUNICIPAL legislation that applies EVERYWHERE
inside the 50 States of the Union;  and, as we already know
with certainty, that belief is totally contrary to the intent
of the Framers and the essence of a Republican Form of
Government which the Congress is required to guarantee
to all 50 States of the Union but has failed to do so at least
since the end of the Civil War in the year 1865.


-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice 




On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Cindy Macdonald <macrealm6@gmail.com> wrote:
     SUBJECT:  Got a sandwich?
 
 
 
This was an on-stage discussion at a college ( taking questions from students), and the topic came to the topic of entitlements and the Christian perspective regarding same. One of the panelists was Dinesh D’Souza. THIS is the best explanation I have ever heard...
Here is a little discussion about sandwiches that is worth hearing:
 
 
Click here.
 

February 20, 2013 | Permalink