Archive for the 'United States' Category

Ex Parte Milligan

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, war, wordpress, Politics, disclosure, ethics, United States, Law, Justice, Opinion, Legislation, Supreme Court on August 18th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

camp xray

While reviewing some documents on the four American presidents who were assassinated at least one fact unknown to this blogger was revealed. I was reading about President Garfield because he was the one of the four about which my memory was the least clear. And it was the initial reason for conducting the search.

The senseless act of violence known as assassination defined as the murder of a public figure not only reminds us of how depraved humans can be but how senseless the perpetrator is.

Garfield had little time to savor his triumph. He was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, disgruntled by failed efforts to secure a federal post, on July 2, 1881, at 9:30 a.m. The President had been walking through the Sixth Street Station of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad (a predecessor of the Pennsylvania Railroad) in Washington, D.C.. Garfield was on his way to his alma mater, Williams College, where he was scheduled to deliver a speech, accompanied by Secretary of State James G. Blaine, Secretary of War Robert Todd Lincoln (son of Abraham Lincoln[25]) and two of his sons, James and Harry.

Were it not for this despicable act the setting described above suggests a pleasant situation not likely a regular routine during anyone’s presidency. Further reading provided a glimpse of how history and the lives of presidents dramatically impact a nation and its citizens. And occasionally how they impact those who are not citizens.

Garfield was one of three attorneys who argued for the petitioners in the famous Supreme Court case Ex parte Milligan (1866). The petitioners were pro-Confederate northern men who had been found guilty and sentenced to death by a military court for treasonous activities. The case turned on whether the defendants should, instead, have been tried by a civilian court. Garfield went on to plead other cases before the high court, but none was as high profile as his first argument before the Supreme Court in Milligan.

President Lincoln has been criticized by some for his suspension of habeas corpus. Before James A. Garfield was president he was involved in Ex Parte Milligan as described in the preceding paragraph. And of course Presidents George Bush (43) and Barack Obama have been in the center of the controversy over those held at the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, and whether the trials should be military tribunal or held in civilian court.

The first case to be tried in civilian court is presently being determined. Which causes this blogger to present the following excerpt from Ex Parte Milligan. It has to do with the notion of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus as viewed by the Supreme Court in 1866.

An armed rebellion against the national authority, of greater proportions than history affords an example of, was raging, and the public safety required that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should be suspended. The President had practically suspended it, and detained suspected persons in custody without trial, but his authority to do this was questioned. It was claimed that Congress alone could exercise this power, and that the legislature, and not the President, should judge of the political considerations on which the right to suspend it rested. The privilege of this great writ had never before been withheld from the citizen, and, as the exigence of the times demanded immediate action, it was of the highest importance that the lawfulness of the suspension should be fully established. It was under these circumstances, which were such as to arrest the attention of the country, that this law was passed. The President was authorized by it to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus whenever, in his judgment, the public safety required, and he did, by proclamation, bearing date the 15th of September, 1863, reciting, among other things, the authority of this statute, suspend it. The suspension of the writ does not authorize the arrest of anyone, but simply denies to one arrested the privilege of this writ in order to obtain his liberty.

This blogger by no means suggests any personal expertise in matters of law. But the passage above seems to indicate the court agreed on Lincoln’s right to suspend habeas corpus. That would seem to indicate a current suspension would be valid also. And in much of the content of the court’s opinion in Ex Parte Milligan there seems to be a recurring theme.

The rights and rule of law are being considered in terms of citizens. That is to say it seems the discussion centers around the rights of citizens and not non-citizens. It seems to me that those confined at Gitmo are seeking their ‘liberty’ by a process not afforded them under US law. And that those who support their ‘civilian’ day in court are co-conspirators.

That’s just my humble opinion.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Liberal Love for Illegal Immigration

Posted in Terrorism, wordpress, Immigration, Tancredo, liberal, News Media, United States, Law, Justice, Border Control, Legislation, Mexico, Blogs4Borders on August 3rd, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

Mexico supports illegal immigration to the US

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Arizona voters, taken after the ruling was issued, finds that 66% still favor the recently passed immigration law. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed. Support for the law is unchanged from when it was first passed in April.

By a 59% to 34% margin, Arizona voters disagree with Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to block implementation of some parts of the law.

Not surprisingly, voters favor Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to appeal the ruling by a 59% to 29% margin. Brewer has risen in popularity since signing the law and is now well ahead in the Arizona governor’s race.

Nationally, 59% of voters support passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, and 50% disagree with the judge’s ruling.

It is extremely rare that this blog author watches television. Before last Sunday I can only guess that it has been many months with the exception of the occasional online news video featured on this blog. So what was the attraction to listen to Meet the Press this week?

I couldn’t resist the appeal to confirm my suspicions that listening to Gregory’s guests would be excruciating. It was. Governor Rendell, Mayor Bloomberg and former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan were predictable as well as annoying.

Either during a commercial interruption or after the programmed concluded I took a quick look at what was on the other channels. My location features 11 off-air OMG digital broadcast channels. That’s right. No point in subscribing to cable or satellite if I don’t watch TV more than once every few months for less than an hour.

The local public television station offers three channels. One of them was airing a public affairs program populated only by liberals and perhaps a token conservative. The liberals were whining about Arizona’s state immigration law. Along with that they were whining about all the racism and inequality in America.

The point is this. One of the fine liberals concluded the poll data above or other polling data like it was wrong. He did his level best to convince the viewers he was right and most people opposed the Arizona law.

The problem is he had no data, no evidence or any other information to support his opinion. He simply presented his opinion as fact. This is exactly the reason I do not watch television very often. Given the financial woes of most broadcast and print media it may be the only people watching regularly are liberals.

Where else would anyone agree with their fantasies? And how long will it be until the rest of the liberal media goes the way of Air America? (bankrupt and out of business)

With any luck at all a return to the rule of law will begin after Novmeber 2010. Then the simple method of cutting off taxpayer provided benefits, free education for illegals, anchor babies and chain migration as well as sanctions against employers who hire illegals can begin in earnest.

For a return to national security and border control we can borrow a currently familiar phrase. ‘Yes we can.’ To anyone who claims it is not possible to remove all illegals from the US I say you are a closet shamnesty supporter. The simple method outlined above is more than possible. It is necessary and will work. Those who oppose it support illegal immigration.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Judge Bolton Impedes Arizona Law

Posted in Public Affairs, Announcement, Terrorism, wordpress, Politics, Immigration, Tancredo, United States, Law, Justice, Arizona, Border Control, Blogs4Borders, Jan Brewer on July 28th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR JAN BREWER

PHOENIX – “I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling enjoining several provisions of “The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” — SB 1070; though I am heartened by some findings – including the ban on sanctuary cities.

“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.

“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

“For anyone willing to see it — the crisis is as clear as is the federal government’s failure to address it.

“The judge herself noted that the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona and that, ‘You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored.’”

“When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.

“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.

“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.”

###

Wikileaks: Irresponsible or Criminal

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, war, wordpress, Politics, News Media, disclosure, ethics, Afghanistan, United States, Law, Justice, Military, 9/11 on July 26th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

Silence is securityThe name says it all. Wikileaks produces ’sensitive materials to communicate to the public’. In the name of a self-proclaimed ‘multi-jurisdictional public service’ this organization displays information without regard for the damage it may cause. In their own words the material is sensitive. They should understand that no matter how noble their intent might be the consequences of their actions can be viewed as irresponsible. That reasonable distinction between transparency and irresponsible behavior trumps any noble intent.

Of the nine people listed on their board for 2007 five are described as activist, dissident or social justice advocate. The other four are listed as writer, security expert or physicist.

If the actions of others resulted in the death of an activist, dissident, advocate or writer, etc., it would be no surprise if these same people at Wikileaks expressed outrage and a desire for justice. If death is caused by their brand of ‘transparency’ to someone outside their sphere of influence it is predicted no such outrage or call for justice would be forthcoming from Wikileaks.

In the days ahead a more complete accounting of Wikileaks latest crusade will develop. Questions about the content and validity of ’sensitive materials’ displayed will be raised. The effect and possible ‘unintended consequences’ may also be analyzed.

If harm to anyone comes from this action by Wikileaks fair is fair. They should be held accountable for their actions. Like most other things in life you can take whistleblowing too far. Any reasonable method for any reasonable purpose can be misused. It is only a matter of time before a group like Wikileaks finds that threshhold and violates standards of ethics and good judgment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

story source:

WikiLeaks Founder Defends Releasing US Documents on Afghanistan

Afghan, Pakistani Reactions at Odds Over Leaked US Documents

Analysis: Leaks Only a ‘Snapshot’ of Afghan War Effort

Human Rights vs Human Responsibility

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, wordpress, Politics, Immigration, Tancredo, disclosure, ethics, United States, Law, Justice, obama, Freedom, Foreign Affairs, Border Control, Legislation, Mexico, ICE, Blogs4Borders on July 17th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

justice_is_blindHardly a day goes by without some ‘rights group’ being featured in the MSM. There are groups that could be defined as ‘responsibility groups’ but they receive little attention from those individuals that regard themselves as journalists or organizations that claim to present news and information based on standards of journalism.

Last week one report opened by describing Human Rights Watch as a ‘leading human rights group.’ Could the author be referring to the executive director’s salary? Since 1993 a lawyer named Kenneth Roth has been the executive director of HRW with an annual salary of $350,000. That’s nearly 18% of HRW’s management and general expenses for the year. And they may have 275 employees. And let’s not forget their fundraising expenses of $8,641,358 for 2008 (according to Wiki).

The non-governmental organization claims they do not accept government money directly. But they receive funds from other groups who may. And they supported ACORN at least in 2000 and/or 2001 to the tune of a half-million dollars.

So what’s this all about? The report out last week has Human Rights Watch whining about the rights of illegals. And for all their whining the problem they perceive could be solved if no one entered the United States illegally. They bad mouth countries all over the world for claimed wrongdoing. It is interesting that they say nothing about Mexico’s ‘responsibility’ to correct their own problems and eliminate the attraction to cross the border illegally into another country.

Here’s the report. Have a good laugh. HRW is a scam. The last three paragraphs assume the reader is extremely gullible. Correction, the entire report assumes you are gullible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A leading human rights group is calling on the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration to include protections for immigrants’ rights in their proposals for immigration reform.

New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report Friday saying more needs to be done to protect undocumented immigrants in the workplace and in court.

The group says at work such people are vulnerable to exploitation - including sexual abuse and poor working conditions - and should be allowed to find other jobs in such cases.

It also recommends giving undocumented immigrants a path to legalization that includes government protection, so they feel safe to report crimes.

Earlier this month, President Obama called for bipartisan support for immigration reform. He described overhauling the system as a “moral imperative.” Congress is sharply divided over the issue, with Republicans generally opposing what they call amnesty programs.

The Human Rights Watch report also urges the government to allow immigration judges to consider the ties legal permanent residents have in the United States before deporting them for minor crimes. The group says thousands of legal residents are deported each year without having their family connections or past military service considered.

Human Rights Watch also calls on the government to limit immigrant detentions. The group says those who have committed nonviolent crimes should be exempt from detention.

Illegals Cost Billions

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Health, Education, Terrorism, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, McCain, Immigration, Tancredo, disclosure, ethics, United States, Law, Justice, obama, Freedom, Pelosi, Reid, Arizona, Foreign Affairs, Congress, Border Control, Minimum Wage, Legislation, Mexico, Blogs4Borders, Jan Brewer on July 11th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

This is no surprise to anyone. Beyond the problem of national security, border control and ignoring the rule of law and founding principles of our nation illegal immigration is a crushing economic burden. It’s time for a reminder to all the liberals supporting shamnesty. Like the rest of the liberal agenda the notion of shamnesty is dangerous. An excerpt from a new report on the economic risks associated with illegal immigration is presented below followed by a link to the full report. Read it and weep, or join the fight against illegal immigration to save our country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level.

The full report (click here)

McCain Supports Shamnesty in 2007, Opposes in Election Year

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, McCain, Immigration, Tancredo, United States, Law, Justice, Arizona, Border Control, Legislation, Blogs4Borders, Jan Brewer on July 10th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

Wow, RINO McCain does it again! The same man who conspired with Bush 43, Ted Kennedy and others in the 2007 push for shamnesty now says in an election year that we should deport illegals.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday he would favor immigration reform that would deport many of the residents of the United States who are here illegally.??

McCain, who at one point had been the top Republican advocate for immigration legislation promising a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, said he favored establishing a guest worker program. But McCain expressed opposition to any program that would give illegal immigrants a way to become citizens.

“No amnesty. Many of them need to be sent back,” McCain said during an interview on KQTH-FM in Tucson, Ariz.

McCain aka McShamnesty, also favors a guest worker program for the guest worker who never leaves. This is no different than before. Neither is his flip-flop on shamnesty. Sounds like John Kerry. I was for it before I was against it.

RINOs are disgusting. As much as I oppose liberals, RINOs are worse. At least you know where a liberal stands even though they are wrong. With RINOs you may get fooled if you haven’t paid attention to them for a while.

Right or wrong I have more respect for someone who stands up for what they believe in than those like McCain who play politics all the time. A liberal example more principled than John McCain is when vulnerable Democrat Blanche Lincoln said win or lose she’s a Democrat and will pursue re-election as a Democrat. McCain is a RINO and only talks conservative as a political strategy.

Voters in Arizona would do well to vote for JD Hayworth. He may not be perfect but what has Arizona gained by having McCain in the US Senate? How about the need for SB1070 although Jan Brewer supports McCain. Go figure.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Cold War Never Ended

Posted in Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, conspiracy, disclosure, ethics, United States, Russia, Law, Justice, obama, Foreign Affairs, FBI on July 8th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

SovietCIA400.jpg
In an apparent throwback to the Cold War, Moscow and Washington are discussing a deal to swap 10 of the suspected deep-cover Russian agents arrested last month in the U.S. for prisoners held in Russia, according to people familiar with the talks.

That’s how a story about recently arrested Russian spies opens at the WSJ. How about there’s no ‘throwback’ at all? The Cold War never ended. Remember Hillary Clinton’s gaffe translating the English word ‘reset’ to Russian and being politely punked by a Russian official? That essentially sums up the current administration’s grip on foreign relations. In other words they don’t have a clue.

Hearings in the US for the Russians arrested for spying have been delayed. The Russians don’t want to comment and those all too familiar unnamed sources close to the story suggest a spy swap is in the works. But not unlike the 70’s the US may swap garden variety prisoners in Russia for those arrested for spying in the US. Does that sound smart to you?

“We’re rolling back the clock,” said Yuri Ryzhov, a former Russian ambassador and prominent academic who heads a commission that has defended scholars accused of treason. “It’s the 1970s now.”

Prisoners that may have been accused by the Russians of treason in Russia would be swapped for likely Russian spies?

As if the entire liberal agenda in Washington, DC wasn’t bad enough now the Obama administration is adding more foreign affairs blunders to their list of achievements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Immigration, Obama and Election Year Politics

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, wordpress, Politics, Immigration, Tancredo, disclosure, ethics, United States, Law, Justice, obama, Freedom, Border Control, Legislation, Blogs4Borders on July 6th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

The previous post touched on President Obama’s recent immigration speech. Reviewing the speech once again compels commentary. The first excerpt to be evaluated demonstrates that Mr Obama can present inspirational messages.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

That IS the speechmaking undoubtedly responsible for many casting a ballot for then candidate Barack Obama. But as Mr Barone pointed out in his writing at the Washington Examiner referenced in the previous post this particular immigration speech was all about election year politics. The very plague that then candidate Obama denounced to get elected.

It gets worse.

I believed that then and I believe it now. And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.

Sorry Mr President, you have not ‘tackled’ the economic problems. And you and your liberal followers used anti-war rhetoric, campaigning and personal attacks on the very man you now hail as the best choice to lead the military operations in Afghanistan, General Petraeus. In addition you and your crew have refused to acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq for allowing the winding down in Iraq. Your senate leader Harry Reid went so far as to say the war was lost.

But you are correct on the last point. Your administration has refused to ignore ’some’ of the challenges. Those items you choose to target are for purposes of your liberal agenda. The items you mention in this speech: the economy, healthcare, Wall Street, energy and immigration are all targets of your liberal agenda and your attention to them has nothing to do with ‘confronting the great challenges of our times’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Protecting the 4th of July

Posted in Public Affairs, wordpress, America, United States, Freedom on July 4th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

There is no real need to publish a post encouraging Americans to celebrate the birth of our nation. As is the case with this and other official holidays in this country the public interest in exploiting ‘free’ time for leisure activities is self-sustaining. What does need to be addressed and encouraged is the underlying importance of the Fourth of July in the United States.

The passing of time and the fading memories of current events and issues in the public mindset serves to demonstrate that much older historical facts and events regardless of their importance are lost in our daily lives. This condition poses a danger that we may find ourselves at risk of losing what is represented by this very day. Freedom, independence and all the other benefits of living in this great country were of course provided by the discipline, commitment and sacrifice of those who came before us as well as many who currently carry on that tradition on our behalf.

This is still a very young nation. That most of us have enjoyed the liberty we celebrate does not guarantee its survival. The words used above, discipline, commitment and sacrifice describe what is required to protect this nation. Just as we all share in the benefit of being Americans we all have a responsibility to honor those who gave us this legacy by sharing the burden and adhering to the principles that have guided this nation for more than two centuries.

We are by no means perfect. We have differences which cause disagreement and have been responsible for some of the darker moments in our history. It is the founding of this nation, the wisdom of the founding fathers, the documents that provide our road map and the ability to return to these principles when we stray that have allowed our survival as a free people. No matter the circumstance let us all do our part for this great country.

God bless America.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(this is a repost from 2009)

Rights and Responsibilities in America: Civics Literacy (14)

Posted in Public Affairs, Education, wordpress, America, United States, Freedom on July 3rd, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

WeThePeopleGOV.jpg

It is long overdue that this blog features a post on ‘Rights and Responsibilities in America: Civics Literacy.’ That this is the point on the calendar in which patriotic Americans turn their attention nationwide to the founding of our nation is certainly an opportunity to correct this oversight. This blog is dedicated to America and preserving our nation but this one post series has been recently neglected and for that the blog author, Stanford Matthews, apologizes.

The content featured for this installment of ‘Rights and Responsibilities in America: Civics Literacy’ will not be accompanied by any point, opinion or argument from the blog author. The item from Thomas Jefferson obviously stands on its own. And it is for you to decide what special significance, if any, it holds for you this Independence Day weekend, 2010.

There are additional copies of other founding documents in the ‘pages’ portion of the sidebar. Feel free to browse.

God bless America.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers

Draft Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them

December 1825

We, the General Assembly of Virginia, on behalf, and in the name of the people thereof, do declare as follows:

The States in North America which confederated to establish their independence of the government of Great Britain, of which Virginia was one, became, on that acquisition, free and independent States, and as such, authorized to constitute governments, each for itself, in such form as it thought best.

They entered into a compact, (which is called the Constitution of the United States of America,) by which they agreed to unite in a single government as to their relations with each other, and with foreign nations, and as to certain other articles particularly specified. They retained at the same time, each to itself, the other rights of independent government, comprehending mainly their domestic interests.

For the administration of their federal branch, they agreed to appoint, in conjunction, a distinct set of functionaries, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the manner settled in that compact: while to each, severally, and of course, remained its original right of appointing, each for itself, a separate set of functionaries, legislative, executive, and judiciary, also, for administering the domestic branch of their respective governments.

These two sets of officers, each independent of the other, constitute thus a whole of government, for each State separately; the powers ascribed to the one, as specifically made federal, exercised over the whole, the residuary powers, retained to the other, exercisable exclusively over its particular State, foreign herein, each to the others, as they were before the original compact.

To this construction of government and distribution of its powers, the Commonwealth of Virginia does religiously and affectionately adhere, opposing, with equal fidelity and firmness, the usurpation of either set of functionaries on the rightful powers of the other.

But the federal branch has assumed in some cases, and claimed in others, a right of enlarging its own powers by constructions, inferences, and indefinite deductions from those directly given, which this assembly does declare to be usurpations of the powers retained to the independent branches, mere interpolations into the compact, and direct infractions of it.

They claim, for example, and have commenced the exercise of a right to construct roads, open canals, and effect other internal improvements within the territories and jurisdictions exclusively belonging to the several States, which this assembly does declare has not been given to that branch by the constitutional compact, but remains to each State among its domestic and unalienated powers, exercisable within itself and by its domestic authorities alone.

This assembly does further disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.

Nor is it admitted, as has been said, that the people of these States, by not investing their federal branch with all the means of bettering their condition, have denied to themselves any which may effect that purpose; since, in the distribution of these means they have given to that branch those which belong to its department, and to the States have reserved separately the residue which belong to them separately. And thus by the organization of the two branches taken together, have completely secured the first object of human association, the full improvement of their condition, and reserved to themselves all the faculties of multiplying their own blessings.

Whilst the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers. It is only when the hope of avoiding this shall become absolutely desperate, that further forebearance could not be indulged. Should a majority of the co-parties, therefore, contrary to the expectation and hope of this assembly, prefer, at this time, acquiescence in these assumptions of power by the federal member of the government, we will be patient and suffer much, under the confidence that time, ere it be too late, will prove to them also the bitter consequences in which that usurpation will involve us all. In the meanwhile, we will breast with them, rather than separate from them, every misfortune, save that only of living under a government of unlimited powers. We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our federal brethren, and to the world at large, to pursue with temper and perseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace; and further to show, that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government. And these are the objects of this Declaration and Protest.

Supposing then, that it might be for the good of the whole, as some of its co-States seem to think, that the power of making roads and canals should be added to those directly given to the federal branch, as more likely to be systematically and beneficially directed, than by the independent action of the several States, this commonwealth, from respect to these opinions, and a desire of conciliation with its co-States, will consent, in concurrence with them, to make this addition, provided it be done regularly by an amendment of the compact, in the way established by that instrument, and provided also, it be sufficiently guarded against abuses, compromises, and corrupt practices, not only of possible, but of probable occurrence.

And as a further pledge of the sincere and cordial attachment of this commonwealth to the union of the whole, so far as has been consented to by the compact called “The Constitution of the United States of America,” (constructed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its language, to the common intendment of the time, and of those who framed it;) to give also to all parties and authorities, time for reflection and for consideration, whether, under a temperate view of the possible consequences, and especially of the constant obstructions which an equivocal majority must ever expect to meet, they will still prefer the assumption of this power rather than its acceptance from the free will of their constituents; and to preserve peace in the meanwhile, we proceed to make it the duty of our citizens, until the legislature shall otherwise and ultimately decide, to acquiesce under those acts of the federal branch of our government which we have declared to be usurpations, and against which, in point of right, we do protest as null and void, and never to be quoted as precedents of right.

We therefore do enact, and be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, that all citizens of this commonwealth, and persons and authorities within the same, shall pay full obedience at all times to the acts which may be passed by the Congress of the United States, the object of which shall be the construction of post roads, making canals of navigation, and maintaining the same in any part of the United States, in like manner as if said acts were, totidem verbis, passed by the legislature of this commonwealth.

source

‘We are not terrorists…We are jihadists…’

Posted in Terrorism, wordpress, Pakistan, United States, Law, Justice, Islam, Muslim, 9/11 on June 26th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

5americansArrestedinPK400.jpg

‘and jihad is not terrorism’ is what one of the five said outside a Pakastani court ealier this year according to AP.

So the story goes, made contact with a group tied to al-Qaida in Novvember 2009. Traveled to Pakistan in December of 2009. Arrested in the home of the leader of the group they contacted also in December 2009. Defended by CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who says the five made a ‘farewell video’ stating ‘Muslims must be defended.’

So they didn’t get life for terrorism in a Pakastani prison why? Back in December 2009, Pakistani police have said they plan to ask the court to press terrorism charges, carrying life sentences.

A Pakistani court on Thursday sentenced five American students accused of contacting militants in Pakistan over the Internet and plotting terrorist attacks to 10 years each in prison, the deputy prosecutor said.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Shamnesty: Reject Whitman, Oppose Obama, Support Arizona

Posted in Public Affairs, Terrorism, wordpress, Politics, Immigration, Tancredo, Clinton, United States, Law, Justice, obama, Arizona, Border Control, Legislation, Blogs4Borders, Eric Holder, Jan Brewer on June 20th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

If a candidate or other political personality is not featured on this blog or in the sidebar it does not indicate whether or not they are supported or opposed here. At any given time the decision to support or oppose said political person may be withheld until more information is collected.

Such is the case for this site and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. But given the latest news about this ‘Republican’ candidate related to illegal immigration opposition to her election can now be expressed here.

Whitman Disses Ariz. Law in Spanish to Court Calif. Latinos

Republican Meg Whitman is translating her message into Spanish, and emphasizing her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law, to court Latinos in her quest to become California’s next governor.

Is there any other way to interpret this move by this candidate than to say it’s an obvious sellout for votes? If there is this blog hasn’t found it. No amount of campaigning can convince this blog author that Whitman’s immigration blunder simply means she opposes illegal immigration and may support another solution for the problem. She simply sold out in public for all to see.

The candidate who doesn’t vote has more money than California and is looking to be CEO of the land of fruits, nuts and flakes gives that state what it deserves. A choice between herself and Moonbeam Brown.

Add to this another story that should rally the troops against the shamnesty scam by larger numbers than ever.

Obama Administration to File Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

Obama administration officials have decided to file a federal lawsuit to block a politically popular Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration, Fox News and other news organizations reported Friday.

There are some interesting details from these reports. Liberals at the Justice Department and other ’senior’ officials are anonymously stumbling all over themselves to spin the latest development.

The confirmation comes after an inadvertent confirmation by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an interview last week with an Ecuadorian journalist.

If the healthcare ripoff, national debt, deficits and the Gulf oil mess were not enough to rile voters in an election year the libs are apparently willing to go all in on their agenda bets for this cycle.

Regardless of any other considerations regarding Arizona’s new immigration law those who support Governor Brewer and this effort would do well to financially support the state of Arizona in their fight against the lame Obama administration and its desire to allow anyone to enter our country whenever they feel like it.

As a reminder, when immigration meant those coming to America brought something to the table rather than simply pursuing handouts or to do this country harm the melting pot was a good thing. All that changed when libs decided to put up the sign ‘free for all’ opening the floodgates to illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration must be eliminated.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

June 6, 1944

Posted in Public Affairs, Announcement, war, wordpress, United States, Freedom, Military on June 6th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

D-Day Memories from the US Army
Ordinary people who accomplished an extraordinary feat to save the world from tyranny. The lessons taught by the actions of these remarkable individuals stand as testimony to what becomes necessary when the world ignores the threats to peace and liberty. To honor their service and sacrifice let us not allow this to happen again. You can watch a short video by clicking on the picture above as well as explore other features which commemorate this day in history.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama, Spacex, Your Money and Private Spaceflight

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Technology, wordpress, Politics, disclosure, ethics, United States, Aviation, Mars, Business on June 6th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews

NASA 4 sale

Another example of a misguided conclusion driven by politics features President Obama, space exploration and self-serving alliances. The report presenting this political nonsense is provided below.

Obama Space Plan ‘Vindicated’ by Private Rocket Launch, Builder Says
Clara Moskowitz
SPACE.com Senior Writer
Fri Jun 4, 7:15 pm ET

The successful liftoff of a new private rocket helps vindicate President Barack Obama’s plan to rely on commercial spaceships to carry cargo and possibly astronauts to orbit, the rocket’s millionaire owner said.

Commercial firm Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) blasted off its first Falcon 9 rocket Friday from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

“I think this bodes very well for the Obama plan,” SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk said after the launch. “It really helps vindicate the approach he’s taking.”

Why is this report political nonsense? First of all, the report and Elon Musk suggest this rocket is ‘private’ not ‘public’ in terms of funding. Not exactly.

Established in 2002 by Elon Musk , the founder of PayPal and the Zip2 Corporation, SpaceX has already developed two brand new launch vehicles, established an impressive launch manifest, and been awarded COTS funding by NASA to demonstrate delivery and return of cargo to the International Space Station.

Then there is the suggestion that private space travel is Obama’s plan. Like he developed it. Not exactly.

Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites and Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Group joined forces to develop a fleet of commercial spaceships and launch aircraft. Rutan is responsible for the following:

White Knight launched SpaceShipOne 14 times, including the first privately funded human spaceflight. The final launch, on October 4, 2004, won the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Rutan, Branson and others were moving toward private space flight projects well before Musk’s NASA-funded project or President Obama’s endorsement of it. However, Obama should get credit for favoring privately funded space exploration if he in fact does.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com