Deux et Machina, Jan. 19, 2010

Now, before the media recovers its composure and begins its full-court press on Scott Brown, before he is subjected to the Palin treatment, we can take a few moments to savor something rare these days: something seemingly good actually happening in current events. It's been so long, I hardly remember the feeling.

Deux et machina: God in a box, a plot twist coming out of nowhere.

* * *

Michael Connelly on the Truth about the Health Care Bill

This is a good summary written by a constitutional attorney. This is presented without any editing on my part, and to the best of my knowledge, the information is accurate. / b

The Truth About the Health Care Bill
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

* * *

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.

I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated.

If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law.

It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor Carrollton , Texas

Not Evil Just Wrong

For the record, I just finished screening the film, "Not Evil Just Wrong" as part of the global simultaneous film premiere event.

Report to follow. An important, beautifully executed film.

* * *

Brenda Giguere

Ceding US Sovereignity: Video Update

With gratitude to several plugged-in citizens on Twitter, I now have a link to share so we can view Lord Christopher Monckton's recent talk.

This is it, folks- pivotal issue. If we give up our sovereignity, we'll have one hell of a time getting it back.

http://bit.ly/2tYl6w

Pass it on.

Brenda Giguere

* * *

Signing Away America?

President Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

But is anyone listening to Lord Christopher Monckton? We should be.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Hello, friends and neighbors. Something extraordinarily disturbing came to my attention this morning, and I immediately stopped what I was doing to check its veracity. I am so concerned I want share it with as many of you as possible. Its seriousness seems self-evident.

As you will find via the link below, the information that so alarmed me comes via a radio station website. But the piece itself-- the original source-- was a keynote talk given at an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening [I am preparing this flier on Thursday October 15, 2009]. A friend called my attention to the talk.

Addressing the event was Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I'm aware of Lord Monckton's work in debunking the global warming scare tactics of Al Gore, and these issues aren't new to me. But his take on the upcoming UN agreement, and the details he provides here, effectively bring home the urgency of our situation.

The text of his talk can be found many places online, but this link is especially useful because it includes the transcript of the talk’s Q & A session:

http://www.infowars.com/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-claims-british-lord/

For your convenience, here is the text of Lord Monckton’s talk, questions and responses included, as posted.

Says Monckton:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevant to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

Skimming through the treaty, I [radio host] came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)

b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)

The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

END OF TRANSCRIPT of Lord Monckton’s talk and subsequent Q&A

Regardless of our affiliations or levels of civic involvement, we have to be careful what news and sources to take seriously. But with indisputable deterioration in objective mainstream news reporting, it’s no longer adequate to rely blindly on these outlets for the stringent and unbiased reporting (not to mention analysis) we need to evaluate current events.

I believe the above quotes to be accurate, and Monckton’s assessment to be valid. As more information about that evening's talk becomes available, I'll try to post links here so we can follow this story together.

It surely must be obvious that the pending signing of the aforementioned global agreement is extremely dangerous, requiring attention from of all of us. This issue needs to be at the top of the stack.


* * *

Brenda Giguere

Gilad Shalit Twitter Campaign

* * *

On August 28th, 2009, kidnapped Israeli Defense Force soldier Gilad Shalit will celebrate his 23rd birthday. But for the fourth year in a row, it appears he will most likely celebrate this important milestone far away from his home in Israel. Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas in the summer of 2006 and has remained in captivity since. Negotiations for his release are ongoing.

‘Tweet4Shalit’ is a virtual grassroots movement inspired by the struggle Gilad Shalit must endure daily as a prisoner of war and as a victim of Islamic extremism.

For more information, see this link. Thank you.

Gilad Shalit Twitter Campaign!

Posted using ShareThis

* * *

Something "fishy": A U.S. citizen who is against Obamacare because of verifiable facts

* * *

Dear White House:

I am most strenuously against government taking over our health care in this country. I want to be very clear about this.

Whenever possible, I do try to share with others my belief that the proposed health care legislation is a very bad choice. I don't have to lie or make things up to do this, either; all I need to do is present verifiable facts in a calm and logical manner. I am a working American, a voter, non-violent and reasonable, just a regular person exercising my right to free speech.

It is deeply disturbing that our government is now apparently calling on people to report citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights, merely because they do not agree with the government on this issue and dare to iterate those beliefs in writing. I saw this solicitation with my own eyes on the White House website this morning, but could scarcely believe it.

What are we to make of this? What possible virtue, what possible justification is there in gathering names of dissenters?

This is not the America I know.

Sincerely and respectfully submitted,



Brenda Cox Giguere


* * *