of (106)

Author: Brian D. Hill

Source: USWGO Alternative News

PDF File: Council Of Governors



On January 11, 2010 Obama did the unthinkable in signing an illegal executive order, which amounts to the same Fascist style Hilter didbefore he killed millions of people, in creating the council ofgovernors, and is actually on WhiteHouse.Gov for those willing to risk having their computer probed by Northcom agents and hackers.

For those of you who don't realize what the Council of Governors are, it is a small group of politicians where the president talks with5 democrat governors and 5 republican governors. This is the beginningof what is, transferring more power from the states to the centralizedFederal Government, Executive Authority, and it is all under the guiseof security and protecting the homeland. It's also an attempt to ownour governors and take away the states since many states are standingup to Obama over the health care bill and other tyrannical actions.

Here is what The White House states for the Council of Governors:

President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between theFederal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation

The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further thepartnership between the Federal Government and State Governments toprotect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, theCouncil will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guardof the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronizationand integration of State and Federal military activities in the UnitedStates; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to NationalGuard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. Inselecting the Governors to the Council, the White House will solicitinput from Governors and Governors’ associations. Once chosen, theCouncil will have no more than five members from the same party andrepresent the Nation as a whole.

Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President forHomeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the Presidentfor Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the AssistantSecretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ SecurityAffairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of theCoast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretaryof Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.

The Council of Governors will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and localofficials on strengthening our National resilience and the homelanddefense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in thefuture.

The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, “ThePresident shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advisethe Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and theWhite House Homeland Security Council on matters related to theNational Guard and civil support missions.” (NDAA FY2008, Sec 1822)

The Council of Governors is another executive order, another decree, to strip away even further more American Civil Freedoms and Libertiesand goes along with PDD51 which allows the Federal Government toinstigate martial law and won't even allow the congress to be given anyrights to read secret laws, orders, and decrees.

I believe the Council of Governors is Unconstitutional and against the Founding Fathers if this country because whether we have to worryabout terrorism or not, the very reason we have 3 branches ofgovernment, is because is separates the power and keeps anydictatorship from forming. Now the Executive branch wants to run theSupreme Court and the Legislative Branch. Also I believe to reservesome governors to work directly with the President is illegal,unconstitutional, and gives the president too much power having directcontrol over a certain amount of governors.


Read more…

Darwin was (Plenty) Wrong, while Lamarck’s now Resurrected,
"Faith Healing" and What that Means to You

It is a well-known LIE common among the simple-minded that so-called "soft sciences" like sociology, psychology, human-goal attainment, etc. are subject to far greater change than that taking place in the hard sciences. The soft-sciences have long been considered ever-shifting ground compared to “hard science” explanations of how the world works. Of course, that's totally bogus, a lot more change takes place in the hard sciences a lot faster.

Till relatively recently, biology and especially genetics, had been considered a semi-soft science. There were the experiments of Gregor Mendel pubished in 1866; and before that there was Darwin’s book “The Origin of the Species published in 1859, the year before Lincoln’s election and little else had changed. Darwin’s ideas were considered more troubling because they dealt with life capable of movement (animals and apes and men); but Mendel’s was actually relatively hard science that could be replicated by observers. Darwin’s “Natural Selection” (largely sexual selection) misnamed by the press as “Survival of the Fittest” was, after all, only a theory.

In fact, however, biologic theory has also galloped apace. There came in the late 19th and early 20th century discovery of chromosomes and genes and much later DNA. Today biology is considered a much harder science and genetics (with the publishing of the human genome) is by most of the great unwashed all wrapped up into a neat little package called “bio-tech” which definitely sounds like a hard, hard science to the point of virtually being an industrial art so that the term “designer genes” has become much more than a play on words. Rajjpuut, to that says, slow down, Pilgrim, slow down.

It turns out today, however, that in many respects biology, as a hard science, is going back to the drawing board. For one thing, Charles Darwin in his later writings said that he regretted having given nature (meaning “genetics” -- the word genetics didn’t exist in his time) too much credit and to have sorely underestimated the effects of nurture and the environment in shaping life. Wow, the misnomer term “survival of the fittest” in popular thinking certainly sounds like a “struggle,” a battle just to live and then above that a struggle to ensure survival by living long enough and fighting hard enough to overcome others in unrelenting battle and viola! to mate . . . and yet the great Darwin is saying, "I didn’t give the environment enough credit." Think on that, if you want to disappear down Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole . . . the fittest by genetics isn't necessarily the fittest overall and nurturing "group dynamics" and nature itself play a greater role . . . Rajjpuut has often insisted the greater truth might be "Survival of the Luckiest," surely Darwin didn't mean that?

As it turns out from the more recent ideas placed into mathematical form by a scientist named John Nash (Nobel Prize Winner and the subject of the movie “A Beautiful Mind”) now-a-days extrapolated into biology and even evolutionary theory, cooperation (including nurturing) seems to be every bit as important to survival and reproduction of the individual and the group as fierce competition does. Survival of the most blessed? Most beloved?

And then there is the amazing fact that the scientists (virtually all of them men until the last fifty years) did what women are often accusing men of doing: they thought (figuratively) with their gonads and not with their brains. Or, more precisely, they put the center of control (and dare Rajjpuut say, “intelligence”) in a living cell (the smallest indivisible unit of life itself) in the cell nucleus. As it turns out, that idea from our high school biology classes is totally wrong: the center of cell intelligence is their external membranes where they interact with the world and the cell’s nucleic areas are actually predictably enough “the gonads” of the cell.

More importantly, for the thinking populace, knowing about all these recent changes in the field of biology, we can now examine a little idea published in 1867 which was nothing more or less than highly emphasized “survival of the fittest” extrapolated onto the societies of man himself in a poorly conceived book published in 1867 “Das Kapital” subtitled “a critique of political economics” by Karl Marx with large chunks of editing by Friedrich Engels. Marx said specifically, he intended to make a science of understanding human economy as related to politics and to reveal to the world an understanding of the evolution of political-economic life forms. He began at what he called the “cell” level and worked his way continually broader from there until he was talking about the “struggle for existence” between capital and labor (the business owner and the worker). Marx postulated a survival of the fittest occuring between economic-political systems across the broad sweep of history all around the world, never ceasing. He raked capitalism over the coals and talked about the benefits of socialism which would definitely outlast and defeat capitalism and eventually the final triumphant result of all these political-economic systems battling away over time: tah, dah! creation of the communist utopia where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” had replaced the barbaric animal exploitation and battling which Marx claimed was the fundamental fact propping up all capitalism.

Marx, of course, never paused to see all the co-operation necessary for capitalist entities to grow and prosper, the subject of this brief and poignant essay . . . .


And the enablers of Marx throughout modern history, the Keynesian economists who advocate inflation as a most useful tool for governments (actually, it turns out, only for totalitatian governments) also have overlooked tranquility and cooperation in their understanding of the world of real micro- and real macro-economics . . . put even more briefly . . . .



And summed up into a whole consistent theory here:


Returning from Marxism based upon the ill-conceived "survival of the fittest" notions, it now appears that strange Frenchman our high school teachers used as a strawman in postulating the FACT of EVOLUTION based upon Darwin’s work, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was possibly much more right than Darwin was and he was right almost sixty years before Darwin’s book. His speech of May 11, 1800, at the Paris Natural History Museum set forth Lamarck’s theory of evolution which was every bit as systematic as Darwin’s was but earlier and included soft-evolution as part of the process. When we were kids, the biology profs made fun of Lamarck saying that according to him if you cut off the tails of two mice and bred them . . . of course their offspring would NOT be tailless so Lamarck was an utter fool . . . and continuing on with a lot of such nonsense that, naturally, a close reading of Lamarck shows he never said or meant. Lamarck, like Darwin, made mistakes but he was first, and today's up to the minute science may actually be proving, he was actually better.


Lamarck, coming much earlier than Darwin and living in mostly religiously-orthodox France rather than more worldly Britain as Darwin did, was the object of much hate and derision. Despite all this he stuck by his guns and remained true to evolution. Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological theories. First, it was the environment which gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. Secondly, life is structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make it possible for the organic movements of animals. Thirdly, the whole process is the result most usually of great, great amounts of time. Although he was not the first thinker to advocate organic evolution, he was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory. He outlined these theories regarding evolution first in his Floreal lecture of 1800, and then in three later published works:

  • Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants, 1802.
  • Philosophie Zoologique, 1809.
  • Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, (in seven volumes, 1815-1822)

It now appears that Lamarck was largely correct, that the environment (as Darwin said in the last years of his life -- and which obviously includes nurturing) is a much more prominent cause of evolution than recent thinking led us to believe; and that Darwin was wrong about the role of savage competition as the single largest driving force in shaping evolution, to wit cooperation within a group and even cooperation within the environs themselves play a much greater role than Darwin might ever have conceived. And for those of you who read our first link above (the little "I, Pencil" essay) it definitely appears that Marx totally missed the boat, basing his ideas upon Darwin’s faulty model of evolution and the faulty term “survival of the fittest,” he created a winner-take all model in which only the ends mattered, the end totally justified the dialectical-materialism to come. That is the world that Barack Obama was raised in, courtesy of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham and his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, and his birth-father Barak without a 'c' Hussein Obama, Sr. and that world view (where the glorious state can seriously consider 100% taxes**) is finally and inalterably proven wrong here and now.

For more on the biological background in a format accessible to the layman: try (Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.’s book “The Biology of Belief” which received “The Best Science Book of 2006” award, one of several stimulating works tying cooperative evolution, quantum-physics and psychology together. In a certain sense, we have returned to square one: “it is done unto us, in accordance with our faith.” Of course, now it’s possible to say that faith has a scientific explanation . . . and that evolution is no longer a theory, but a provable fact and they're both part of God’s Design. And, yes, there is clear scientific evidence of the power of faith healing, placebos, and medical miracles of the sort that certainly until now were not considered "hard science." It's all akin to the History Channel showing from translators that the term "Red Sea" was a mis-translation and that it just meant a big river of the time and then going to the river in question and finding tons of ancient military artifacts such as chariots and shields and swords and finding out about an earthquake that took place at the time. Where does faith leave off and science begin? Why not enjoy both? What an amazing world we live in!

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

** as shown here at the link below, in the words of Barak Obama, Sr. but not mentioned in his son's first autobiography "Dreams from My Father" what the real dreams of his father were . . . .

Read more…

We can "fix" congress permanently

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the President, Senators and the House of Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the President, Senators and the House of Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

Read more…

Ol’ Rajjpuut says it’s not a question of “IF,” but rather “WHEN” the U.S. Supreme Court calls Obamacare unconstitutional and sends it back to congress for a do-over. Right now ten states, led by Virginia which is suing on two separate fronts, have filed suit against the federal government for Obamacare miscues. At the same time a total of at least 38 states other than Virginia are seeking to pass recommended model state legislation so that they can have their ducks in order to challenge the federal government against Obamacare.

One weakness, Rajjpuut sees, is that some of the states are talking about Commerce Act challenges rather than direct Constitutional challenges or challenging on both issues. This is a major mistake. The court has always been reluctant to screw around with the Constitution but might very well jump at a chance to modify the Commerce Act.
Since bankruptcy of all 50 states is at stake, Rajjpuut suggests every bullet be fired and instantaneous reloading take place.

As it stands the provisions of Obamacare that force individual states to take over a much augmented Medicaid and a very much augmented state role in paying for Medicaid are almost certain to bankrupt all 50 of the states with the possible exception of Texas (which has special doctor-friendly and insurance-friendly laws in place) by 2020 or 2022 at the latest. This much you already know if you’re a loyal reader of Rajjpuut’s Folly here or at TownHall.com . . . Listening to Fox News the other night was quite enlightening . . . .

The United States is not some single monlithic entity called “America” but rather a federal system of government with the national government holding some important dominion over 50 semi-autonomous states. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is sort of like a protective armor designed to negate much of the potentially most objectionable power grabs that the national government (acting upon the states and upon the individual citizens) might attempt. Perhaps the least appreciated and little understood of all the Bill of Rights’ ten amendments is the 10th and last amendment which limits the power of the national government just to assume powers willy-nilly a la Obama and his czars and Obamacare.


The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The main reason the states will have a powerful case arguing against the provisions of Obamacare that will bankrupt them is that like so much of what Barak Obama has done his so-called “reforms” under Obamacare are merely commandeering the state legislature’s role in every one of the 50 states for federal purposes which always in the past the Supreme Court has labeled “unconstitutional.” In a nutshell the key question is this: “Should the U.S. Government be allowed to pass laws and programs and force the states to pay for them?” If you wanted a stronger form of the question, “Can the federal government be allowed to pass laws, then force the states to pay for them and bankrupt the states?”

This question about the U.S. Congress regulating state governments has been asked many times and always the answer has been a resounding, “NO!” In Obamacare, as the law now exists, Congress has told the states to modify their health care regulation; they must surrender some areas of health care regulations; and they must spend state taxpayer money in the exact manner that the U.S. Congress is telling them to spend it. The U.S. Congress is removing all self-determination and discretion from the state governments in the health care arena.

According to Fox News senior judicial analyst and former New Jersey Superior Judge and author of the book “Lies the Government Told You,” Andrew P. Napolitano, the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the health care industry and healthcare insurance makes the new sweeping federal legislation “all the more problematic” continuing to say, “Barak Obama is one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations. I believe we are run by a one-party system in this country called the ‘big-government party.' " The judge went on to delineate a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branceh that likes welfare and taxes and deficits and assaulting commercial liberties. " President Obama stands squarely with the most leftist portion of the Democratic branch.”
Many people today, believe that the differences between today's ordinary American citizens and their government is much larger than the 18th Century differences between Great Britain and the colonists . . . which is another way of saying what the judge has emphasized here. And the reasons for this? In Rajjpuut's view, the communistic leanings of Barak Obama added to the already entrenched view of the Congress that they constitute a privileged special interest group not beholden to the ordinary voter -- this has made the electorate feel that our country's traditions are being struck down in the name of more power for the politicians.

Napolitano is also no lover of FDR, for the same reasons he criticizes Obama. But he would surprise virtually everyone by saying that when it comes to “constitutional fidelity” the least loyal to the provisions of the constitution was Abraham Lincoln. “He waged war on about half the country, without authority for that in the Constitution, a war that killed 700,000 people if civilians are included. Obama is already close to Lincoln and has surpassed FDR in stepping on the Constitution. Ol’ Rajjpuut has known plenty of southerners who blanched at the term the “Civil War” and preferred to call it “The War of Northern Aggression" as they had been taught in their schools” but from a N.J. judge that’s gotta be a surprise . . . .

Back to Obamacare, the judge continues: “the states have had a role in health care delivery for 233 years, a big role since about 1920, and a huge role since Medicaid was passed in 1965, there is no precedent for the federal government to just move in there. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of the law the president just signed.” However, according to Napolitano, the bad news is that many of the laws provisions will not be "challengable" until 2014 when they’d go into effect. In any case, the Judge says it takes the average court case four years to pass through the system to reach the Supreme Court. “You’re talking abut 2018 which is eight years from now.

Rajjpuut, of course sees a cleaner, better world and has a better way, the thing to do is for 38 states (the 3/4 necessary for citizen creation of a new amendment to the Constitution) to pass an amendment repealing Obamacare and all its provision, eliminating all the 159 new federal bureaucracies created by the law, and unhiring all 1,650 new IRS agents required by the law. This is the single most magic action awaiting the TEA Party's commitment. There has never before been an Amendment created for the Constitution, this is the TEA Party's divine purpose if ever there was one!

Other points raised by the Judge include . . . .

The federal government lacks constitutional authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance or fine them for not doing so.

The sweetheart deals still in the Obamacare law are definitely unconstitutional. The Gatorade exception, Louisiana Purchase and others “create a very unique and tricky constitutional problem (they violate the equal protection clauses and equal process clauses) because they treat some citizens differently from others” based upon the state they’re living in “so these benefits or bribes whatever you call them” force people in other states "to pay for the benefits of states that pay less.”

The U.S. Constitution created the federal government and it was “not created to right every wrong, but rather to operate only in the seventeen specific, discrete areas where the Constitution empowered it to act.”

One of the more objectionable parts of the law was that a takeover of the student college loan industry was added into the bill so that students taking out loans could partially fund Obamacare. Included in the law was an exception so that a congressional member’s bank (he partially owns it, Rajjpuut believes) could still stay in the student loan business.

Exempting union members from so-called “Cadillac taxes” on expensive health care insurance policies while imposing a direct tax on other citizens is “outright discrimination” and unconstitutional.

“This health care legislation will prove that the UNlimited government folks are WRONG in a very direct and in-your-face way.”

A group very much in tune with Judge Napolitano is the recently-emerged TEA^^^ Party (acronym: Taxed Enough Already) which buys his arguments 100% and seeks to find fiscal-conservatives to back this November. One strong reason for the great distress of TEA Party members: Obama's budget initiatives carried into the future have been shown by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the National Debt to Gross Domestic Product ratio from an alarmingly high 53% to an incredible 90+%. The last nation to embark willingly on such a plan was Japan in the late 80's and early 90's. Today Japan, once thought of as an economic super power, faces a debt/GDP ratio of 192% and her glory days are far behind her.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



Voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress according to the latest Rasmussen poll. 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress while only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of those key issues. 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress. 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical. There is a wide divide between the tiny Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed. By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.




Read more…

PARTS OF THE Health CARE BILL pages 58 & 59


Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX -
HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious

Please read this........ especially thereference to

pages 58 & 59


"I have reviewed selected sections ofthe bill, and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by SpeakerNancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headedelements."

"Both Republicans and Democrats areequally responsible for the financial mess of both Social Security andMedicare programs."
"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a numberof reasons.

To start with, it is estimated that a federalbureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be requiredto administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a governmentthat is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders,fighting the massive drug problem and putting more lawenforcement/firefighters out there."

JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Otherproblems I have with this bill include:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill willprovide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are hereillegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time accessto an individual's bank account and
will have the authority to make electronicfund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will besubsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retireesand for community organizations (such as the Association of CommunityOrganizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposedunder this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody intheir
right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors willall be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will setall doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancerhospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The governmentwill impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communitiesmay petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The governmentmandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security
will berequired to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every fiveyears. (Death counceling.)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The governmentwill specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goeson:

"Finally,it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members ofCongress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the SocialSecurity system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers theirretirement needs.
If they were on our Social Security plan,I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan
financially sound for their future."

Honorable David Kithil

Marble Falls, Texas

All of the above should give you the pointblank ammo you need to support your opposition toObamacare. Please send this information on to all of your emailcontacts.

Read more…
http://gopetition.com/petitions/cease-and-desist-the-prosecution-of-3-navy-seals/sign.htmlCease and Desist The Prosecution of 3 Navy Seals35242 Signatures[Sign Petition]Published by Angela on Dec 02, 2009Category: JusticeRegion: United States of AmericaTarget: Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullin, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,Background (Preamble):Violation of FM 27-1We the people feel as a collective that known terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed injured himself after resisting arrest.A person may not use physical force to resist a lawful arrest by a police/militery officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer.Resisting an arrest is a misdemeanor. Resisting arrest typically involves an arrestee physically struggling with an officer as he tries to place on handcuffs, or when the arrestee struggles as he is being placed in a patrol car or jail cell.Petition:Cease and Desist any and all charges brought against the United States Navy Seals Listed Below.We the people feel as a collective that known terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed injured himself after resisting arrest.Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for wilfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.A person may not use physical force to resist a lawful arrest by a police/militery officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer. Resisting an arrest is a misdemeanor. Resisting arrest typically involves an arrestee physically struggling with an officer as he tries to place on handcuffs, or when the arrestee struggles as he is being placed in a patrol car or jail cell.Sign the petition
Read more…