Archive for April, 2013

Today we salute YOU Mr. Bone Marrow Donor.

Real American Heroes!

Cameron Lyle Univ. of New Hampshire Track & Field. Click to enlarge.

Cameron Lyle – Univ. of New Hampshire Track & Field. Click to enlarge.


Since the tragic events in Boston, the only news we have heard lately is bad news. A story coming out of New Hampshire will hopefully change that.

Cameron Lyle, a senior track and field athlete from the University of New Hampshire, will miss the rest of his career after deciding to donate bone marrow to an anonymous donor later this month.

Back in his sophomore year of college, Lyle along with other UNH athletes participated in a drive on campus to join the national bone marrow registry. After having his mouth swabbed, Lyle did not think anything of the event and went about his collegiate career on the track team, throwing the discus, shot put and hammer.

It wasn’t until Lyle received a phone call from National Marrow Donor Program a few months ago that things started to change. They informed him during that initial phone call that he was a possible match for someone. A few weeks later, the organization called back and told Cameron that he was a 100 percent match. Lyle decided that he would donate his bone marrow which ended his career at New Hampshire.

“They told me it was a one in five million chance of me being a match for a non-family member,” Lyle told the Eagle Tribune. “They gave me the timeline and everything’s been moving quickly after that.”

After Lyle has the surgery, he will not be able to lift 20 pounds over his head for a few weeks. With that limitation, Cameron will be not able to throw the discus, hammer and shot put. He was scheduled to compete in two more meets this season including the America East championship. But Lyle knew the decision he would make.

“I knew right away I was definitely going to donate. I was pretty terrified at first but it is starting to settle in.”

Lyle’s bone marrow will be going to a 28-year-old male who is suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Lyle and the anonymous recipient must remain unknown to one another due to law.

“He has six months to live and I have the possibility to buy him a couple of more years,” said Lyle about the recipient of his bone marrow. 

The toughest person Lyle had to tell about his decision was his track and field coach at New Hampshire Jim Boulanger.

“I felt like I was walking into the principal’s office had done something wrong,” Lyle thought about telling his coach. Much to Lyle’s happiness, his coach was behind him.

“I told him, you either do 12 throws at the conference championships, or you give another man a few more years,” Boulanger said. “It was easy for me.”

The surgery is set for April 24 and Lyle is ready. His mother, Christine Sciacca, will be going with him to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston for the procedure. Lyle looks forward to possibly meeting the man he is helping.

“I’d love to meet him some day,” Lyle said. “He’s not that much older than myself. I just can’t imagine what he’s going through.”

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Thirtieth Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.


Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr.  was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.


Morgan was accused of being the mastermind behind the plot.


According to testimony from two former Board of Election officials who pled guilty, Morgan ordered Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.


“I think this helped uphold the integrity of the electoral system,” the prosecutor, Stan Levco told reporters.


“Their verdict of guilt is not a verdict against Democrats, but for honest and fair elections,” he said.


The scheme was hatched in January of 2008, according to affidavits from investigators who cite former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett, who told them he was in on the plan at first, but then became uneasy and quit. He waited three years before telling authorities about it, but if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest. A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time, could have been bounced from the ballot.


The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.


“I think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,” Levco told Fox News.


Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify for the primary ballots with 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional district, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton’s camp had 704.


Prosecutors say that in President Obama’s case, nine of the petition pages were apparently forged. Each petition contains up to 10 names, making a possible total of 90 names, which, if faked, could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit required to qualify. Prosecutors say 13 Clinton petitions were apparently forged, meaning up to 130 possibly fake signatures.  Even if 130 signatures had been challenged, it would have still left Mrs. Clinton with enough signatures to meet the 500 person threshold.


Levco said a total of “100 to 200” signatures had been forged on Obama’s and Clinton’s petitions.


An Indiana State Police investigator said in court papers that the agency examined the suspect Obama petitions and “selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed” petitions “or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear.”


Numerous voters told Fox News that they never signed the petitions.


“That’s not my signature,” Charity Rorie, a mother of four, told us when we showed her the Obama petition with her name and signature. She was stunned, saying that it “absolutely” was a fake.


Charity told Fox News that her husband’s entry was also a forgery, and that they have never been contacted by investigators or any authorities looking into the scandal.


“It’s scary, it’s shocking. It definitely is illegal,” she told us.


Robert Hunter, Jr. told Fox news that his name was faked, too.


“I did not sign for Barack Obama,” he told us. As he examined the Obama petition in his hands, Hunter pointed out that “I always put ‘Junior’ after my name, every time…there’s no ‘Junior’ there


Even a former Democratic Governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged.


“This is a bitter sweet moment for free and fair elections,” observed Ryan Nees, the Indiana born Yale “University senior who first exposed the scheme in the independent political newsletter, Howey Politics Indiana and South Bend Tribune.


Nees said the multiple guilty verdicts were “bitter, because a five-person conspiracy succeeded in illegally placing two presidential candidates on the ballot, but sweet because they were exposed, tried for their crimes, and convicted.”


Nees previously told Fox News that the fraud was clearly evident, “because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting,” and that nobody raised any red flags “because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures.”


Fox News’ Meredith Amor contributed to this report.


Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Seventh Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »

This is a no frills post — Just a copy & paste from The Blaze.



Background points:


    A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing

    As the story gained traction, TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national, originally identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject when confronted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill.

    An ICE official said a separate Saudi national is in custody, but is “in no way” connected to the bombings.

    A congressional source, however, says that the file on Alharbi was created, that he was “linked” in some way to the Boston bombings (though it is unclear how), and that documents showing all this have been sent to Congress.

    Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano

    Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports that Alharbi was allegedly flagged on a terrorist watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted

    New information provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered early Wednesday evening to disassociate him from the initial charges

    Sources say the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts

    Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.


Monday morning Glenn Beck laid out what he knows about the Saudi connection to the Boston marathon bombings.  It is a story that the mainstream media has all but completely ignored, though Beck says TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood reached out to numerous other networks in an effort to get the story out.   Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to acknowledge the story even existed when questioned by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) last Friday. But now a number of congressional sources have confirmed that the story is as TheBlaze reported last week, and Beck is presenting more pieces of the big picture.


“This week has changed me,” he said at the top of his radio program on Monday.  “The events in Boston changed me….The events in Washington around Boston changed me.”


We crossed an “extraordinarily disturbing threshold” last week, Beck said, but we know “exactly who we’re dealing with now.”


After a discussion of how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is currently under guard in the hospital, wasn’t read his Miranda rights, Beck proceeded to lay out a number of points on the case. “While the media continues to look at what the causes were of these two guys, there are, at this hour, three people involved,” he said.  “The first one is the one we are going to address.”


Beck proceeded to highlight the background of the Saudi national first identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston bombings, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, noting that the the NTC issued an event file calling for his deportation using section 212, 3B which is proven terrorist activity.


“We are not sure who actually tagged him as a ’212 3B,’ but we know it is very difficult to charge someone with this — it has to be almost certain,” Beck explained.  “It is the equivalent in civil society of charging someone with premeditated murder and seeking the death penalty — it is not thrown around lightly.”


Beck continued, noting that after Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud on Tuesday, the FBI began backtracking on the Saudi national from suspect, to person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.


Then, on Wednesday, President Obama had a “chance” encounter with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud and Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.


“Wednesday at 5:35 p.m. the file is altered,” Beck said.  “This is unheard of, this is impossible in the timeline due to the severity of the charge….You don’t one day put a 212 3B charge against somebody with deportation, and then the next day take it off.  It would require too much to do it.”


“There are only two people that could revoke the deportation order — the director of the NTC could do it after speaking with each department, the FBI, the ATC, etc. — which is impossible to do in such a short period of time, — or, somebody at the very highest levels of the State Department could do it.  We don’t have any evidence to tell you which one did it,” Beck said. Congressman Duncan is in possession of the original event file along with other members of the House Homeland Security Committee, and have sent a formal letter of request (which we have a copy of) to Napolitano for a classified briefing on the Saudi national and the deportation order.


Beck proceeded to highlight more key points: The Saudi national was allegedly once flagged on a terror watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted.


If, as an ICE official said last week, there is actually a second Saudi in custody, who is it? Beck asked.  “Why were there were no names, no pictures presented?  The fact is, an event was created for one Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi indicating he was to be deported for terrorism activity related to the Boston bombing. If this file was created with another Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi in mind, don’t you think we should know about it?”


Beck proceeded with more exclusive information:     The Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findley, Ohio.  He has been in this country six months.  He has an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts.


    If this is a case of mistaken identity, then who is the person named in the file, with the same name, with the 3B charge?  And If DHS was working with the person as a source to out the bombers, then why was there a 3B Charge?


    Exclusive: Why wasn’t the Congressional Committee on Homeland Security notified?  Why are they being cut out of all information?  This is protocol.


    We are working on the family connections, and there is more to come.


    Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.  This will be the reason Napalitano won’t answer the Homeland Security Committee’s request for a briefing.  Like Benghazi they have heavy into a disinformation campaign floating a variety of scenarios to confuse the media — but that apparently doesn’t take much — to prevent the story from being pursued… They are also working very hard to discredit those on the scent.


It is still unclear why the government is stonewalling the media on information as to why the file initially labeled Alharbi as a threat, only to change that designation later in the week.


Is there a legitimate threat that’s being covered up?  Did the government have actual concerns about Alharbi, but was too quick to connect him in this instance and is now trying to stave off embarrassment?  Many questions remain. Bottom line, Beck said: “I need you to call your congressmen right now.  There are congressmen who are aware of this, have seen the documentation — they need your support, they need your help…If we do not stand up, he is on a plane tomorrow or he is already gone.”


“We demand answers from the Justice Department and this administration.”


Beck proceeded to put the issue in a larger perspective, noting that multiple news outlets reported after 9/11 that prominent Saudis were allowed to leave the country, even as all flights were grounded.


“The Bush administration would later block the investigation into Saudi involvement into 9/11, even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and would eventually force the redaction of a 28-page chapter of the 9/11 Commission report regarding foreign, specifically Saudi, support for some of the Al-Qaeda hijackers,” Beck said, noting that the questionable relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States goes back further than the current administration.


But, he said, we have now taken that relationship to a whole new level. “On January 14, 2013 President Obama met with Saudi Minister of Interior,” Beck remarked.  “Two days later Janet Napolitano signed agreement with Saudi minister allowing ‘trusted traveler’ status on Saudi student visitors, meaning greatly reduced security checks and scrutiny.”


“This is trusted traveler status that we don’t give to some of our most trusted allies, and we gave it to Saudi Arabia last January?” Beck said.  “So they can just walk into our country no questions asked?”

“There is a pattern,” he said.  “There is a relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia the American public doesn’t know about. The case of Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi is only the latest example.”

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Second Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »

What the HELL does Homeland Security & the US Border Patrol need with Bagpipes?

The Founders would have been SHOOTING these people already!

MVC-864F MVC-856F MVC-857F MVC-859F MVC-860F MVC-861F MVC-863F

Solicitation Number: PR20074261            Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation


Added: Apr 10, 2013 10:03 am
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.The solicitation number is PR20074261 and is issued as an invitation for bids (IFB), unless otherwise indicated herein.The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular FAC 2005-66. The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 339992 with a small business size standard of 500.00 employees.This requirement is a [ Small Business ] set-aside and only qualified offerors may submit bids.The solicitation pricing on http://www.FedBid.com will start on the date this solicitation is posted and will end on 2013-04-17 11:30:00.0 Eastern Time or as otherwise displayed at http://www.FedBid.com.FOB Destination shall be Washington, DC 20229

The DHS Customs and Border Protection requires the following items, Brand Name or Equal, to the following:

LI 001: Carbon Bagpipe Drone Reed Set, 5, EA;

LI 002: Bagpipe Chanter Reeds-Easy, 12, EA;

LI 003: Bagpipe Chanter Reeds-Medium, 12, EA;

LI 004: Deluxe Bagpipe Bag Covers w/ Non-slip Grap Patch and Zipper, 5, EA;

LI 005: Drone Cords, 5, EA;

LI 006: Highland Bagpipe Tuner and Metronome with cases, 2, EA;

LI 007: Combination Tuner and Metronome, 6, EA;

LI 008: Black Polypenco Bagpipes w/ cases, 10, EA;

LI 009: Polypenco Bagpipe Chanter, 10, EA;

LI 010: Bellows Blown Blackwood Smallpipes in “A” w/ cases, 4, EA;

LI 011: Black waxed bagpipe hemp, 4, EA;

LI 012: Real Beeswax, 4, EA;

LI 013: Long Polypenco Practice Chanters, 10, EA;

LI 014: Bagpipe Tutor Book – VOL 1 C.O.P., 10, EA;

LI 015: Practice Chanter Reed, 10, EA;

LI 016: Rol of Pipe Bag Tie-In cord, 2, EA;

LI 017: Tapered Reamer, 1, EA;

LI 018: PiobMaster 2.3 CD ROM-Bagpipe music writing software, 1, EA;

LI 019: Pipe Band Base Drum Carrier, 2, EA;

LI 020: Folding Bass Drum Stand, 1, EA;

LI 021: Inverness Rain Cape, 14, EA;

Con’t at link…..

I guess Border Patrol will be playing the next big party at the White House.

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Eleventh Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »

Benefit for Deputy John Buonadonna

of the Durham County

Sheriff’s Department.

When: Saturday April 27, 2013 11:00am – 7:00pm

Where: Charlie’s Pub & Grille

758 Ninth Street

Durham, NC 27705

Pre-sale tickets available at Charlie’s. Telephone (919) 286-4446   

Click on the flyer for the full size / printable version.

Click on the flyer for the full size / printable version.

And here are a few photos I stole from his Facebook page. I hope he doesn’t mind.

Deputy John playing Santa Claus during the Bahama  Christmas Parade.

Deputy John playing Santa Claus during the Bahama Christmas Parade.

Just John

Just John

John and the Blue Devil.

John and the Blue Devil.

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Tenth Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


Carolyn B. Maloney has introduced a bill in Congress to make all gun owners show proof of “appropriate liability insurance coverage” before being allowed to purchase ANY firearm. There is no mention of the AMOUNT of Liability Insurance you must carry, but there is text about the FINE if you don’t have coverage —- $10,000.00



Introduced in House (03/20/2013)

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[H.R. 1369 Introduced in House (IH)]



  1st Session

                                H. R. 1369

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, a person who is  not covered by appropriate liability insurance coverage.



                             March 21, 2013


 Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Ellison, Ms.  Norton, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Moran, Mr. Rush, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Lynch, and  Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to  the Committee on the Judiciary



                                  A BILL


To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance  coverage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



    This Act may be cited as the “Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013”.





    (a) Prohibitions.–Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    “(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

    “(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

    “(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

    “(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

    “(2) In paragraph (1), the term `qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that–

            “(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser  specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while  it is owned by the purchaser; and

            “(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.

    (b) Penalty.–Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

    “(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

    (c) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.


And the list of Co-Sponsors

Co-sponsor                                            Date Co-sponsored

Rep. Ellison, Keith [D-MN-5]*              03/21/2013

Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]*    03/21/2013

Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7]*      03/21/2013

Rep. Moran, James P. [D-VA-8]*    03/21/2013

Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1]*         03/21/2013

Rep. Tsongas, Niki [D-MA-3]*          03/21/2013

Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]*    03/21/2013

Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]*       03/21/2013

Respectfully and lividly submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Second Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »

I was listening to an archived Radio Talk Show yesterday. It was originally broadcast on 7/15/2001 and it was an interview with William Cooper. William Cooper wrote a book in 1991 titled “Behold a Pale Horse”.

Shortly after the Radio Show aired in 2001, William Cooper was shot and killed by local and federal agents.

Today, my father went to our local Public Library and asked if they had it. The librarian looked it up, and notice they didn’t have and neither did ANY of the other public libraries. (Note: They can request books from the Library of Congress and any university library). After some further investigation, the librarian stated that the book was “ON HOLD”. When asked what “ON HOLD” meant, the librarian stated he “He didn’t know what it meant.”

The book, “Behold a Pale Horse” is about political conspiracies — JFK Assassination, UFO’s, the 16th Amendment never being ratified by the states, etc.

This blog is to provide you folks some info on the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) and why there is NO LAW that forces you to pay the federal government one red cent.


‘The law that never was’

Geoff Metcalf’s interview answers question, ‘Is 16th Amendment legal?’

Published: 02/06/2000 at 1:00 AM

by Geoff Metcalf   Email: gmetcalf@worldnetdaily.com

A criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for approximately 10 years, William J. Benson of South Holland, Illinois has been at the vanguard of debate and controversy surround the 16th Amendment for almost two decades. In 1984 he embarked upon a year-long project to examine the process of the ratification of the 16th Amendment and to determine whether or not it had been lawfully adopted as part of the U.S. Constitution. The culmination of Benson’s work is the book, “The Law That Never Was.”


Bill Benson, author of “The Law That Never Was”


Question: You have been engaged in this 16th amendment battle for almost 20 years. How did it start?


Answer: I was a former investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue. I discovered a great deal of corruption within that department and for that the Director fired me. I told him if he fired me, I would sue him for violation of First Amendment rights. Six and half years later we were in court. We had a jury of six; it was a civil trial. They awarded me $353,000 for violation of First Amendment rights.


I began working with my attorney, Andy Spiegal. We had a willful failure to file case in Indiana. Red Beckman had some documentation that showed there was some serious problem with the 16th Amendment. He got the documentation from a man named Dean Hurst, from Cheyenne, Wyoming. I purchased that documentation and made every attempt to have Andy get it before the court, and the Judge said no.


The judge gave us three real good reasons why he did that: The documentation is not notarized, it is not certified, and you do not have a witness to testify to.


That evening I said, “Okay, the judge has given us our marching orders. The only thing we have to do is go to all 48 states and get the documentation” to see if the documents have any validity. The attorney said, “Bill, you’re crazy, you can’t do that.” I said, “Sure you can.”

Q: How long did it take to do that?


A: It took a full year. There is not one state — not one — that has ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the most amazing documents I found was in the national archives in Washington D.C. — a 16-page memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, then the attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, on February 15, 1913. What he says is that in the certified copies of the amendment passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the 16th Amendment, it appears that only four of those resolutions — Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico — have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly what was proposed by Congress. The other 33 resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling or wording. …


Q: So what’s the big deal? Why are errors of capitalization, spelling or wording so significant?


A: On page 15 of the 16-page memorandum, the attorney says, “further under the Constitution, a Legislature is prohibited from altering ‘in any way’ the resolution proposed by Congress.” The right of the Legislature is merely to approve or disapprove the amendment. The last page is also interesting because it says the department has not received the copy of the resolution passed by the state of Minnesota, but the secretary of the governor of the state has officially notified the department that legislators of that state have ratified the proposed 16th amendment.


Q: Here’s the obvious question that comes up all the time. Say it was a bureaucratic oversight, a procedural glitch or something. Why are we still saddled with this thing? The reality check is, if you don’t comply you end up in a whole world of hurt, as you know from personal experience.


A: Oh, there isn’t any question about it. And that is why I continue to defy the federal government. That is why, when we were in Washington (at the National Press Club) I said, “I have waited 15 years to get behind these microphones, and I challenge the United States, I challenge the Justice Department, to come and get me. Take me, and leave these people alone.” Let’s get the 16th Amendment argument on the table once and for all before a jury and let them decide.


Q: Why don’t they just drag you into court and resolve the controversy once and for all?


A: I wish they would. This has been going on now for 18 years. They cannot win with the 16th Amendment argument.


Q: Bill, at this event you guys had in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club in July, it seemed like a collection of former Geoff Metcalf guests, including Joe Banister.


Joe Banister is a former IRS agent — a badge-carrying, gun-carrying agent who after listening to my radio program with interviews of other people and hearing discussions about this issue conducted a research analysis of his own to find out if he was enforcing a law that was a law or not. He submitted his findings to his superiors and asked them to either confirm or deny this stuff, or at least look into it. They basically said, “We’ll be happy to accept your resignation, but we are not going to respond.”


A: They forced him to resign. I think the entire nation owes Joe a great deal because of the courage it took for a special agent from the Internal Revenue Service to do what Joe Banister did. On C-SPAN Joe Banister told the entire listening audience that the IRS was a fraud, and that the 16th Amendment had not been ratified.


Q: It is fascinating that the first time you guys had a get together, it was broadcast on C-SPAN. I think they had the largest requests they ever had for any taped shows, and they ain’t cheap. Yet, when you came back, they wouldn’t even put you on the air.


A: That’s true. I think the problem that arose was with the promoter of the program. He made a mistake. He went ahead and released a press announcement to the national press in Washington and to the President and right on down and told them what we were going to talk about.


The first session on July 2nd they had to bring in four people, two cameras, the lights and the whole thing, and we were on for three hours and 28 minutes. C-SPAN aired that program on four separate occasions.  But they didn’t show up on the second one and it was in my personal opinion because the cat was let out of the bag, so to speak, because of the error of the promoter.


Q: Bill, regarding this whole 16th Amendment issue, some folks say, “Well, it’s an interesting academic argument, and they may be right on the ‘technical’ aspects of it, but the reality check is the golden rule — and the guy with the gold makes the rules.”


Were you ever approached by anyone “in government” regarding the documentation you had collected?


A: Yes I was. In 1985, prior to volume one being printed, Mrs. Benson had received a call from an attorney by the name of Warren Richardson. Warren said, “I am making this call on behalf of Senator

Orrin Hatch. And of course,” he said, “you know who he is? You tell Bill that it is an absolute emergency that he call Washington D.C. immediately.”


Q: Did you call them immediately?


A: No, I had no emergency. I was lecturing on the 16th amendment. I did call them in a few days. Warren Richardson said, “I am making this call on behalf of Senator Orrin Hatch.” He said “Bill, you cannot permit that book to get in the hands of the kooks out there. We know what you are doing.”


I said, “Warren, by your making this telephone call to me you’re one of the biggest kooks in D.C.”


He said, “You don’t understand what I’m trying to do? You have all of the books printed that you want. You name the number of books, and then you put a price on each and every book, and we will pay it. But then we want you never ever again to speak to one person, never again to get on one radio station, one television station or one group of people.”


Q: Was that all?


A: No. Warren then said, “The last thing we want are all 17,000 certified, notarized documents that you have — and you will be a multi-millionaire.”


Q: What was your response?


A: I told him thank you, but no thanks. In fact, I told him to “go to hell!” I’m not for sale. America is not for sale. What I am fighting for is freedom, and that is exactly what I told Warren Richardson. I told him to carry that message right back to Orrin Hatch.


Q: You made that announcement at the second event in D.C. that C-SPAN chose not to broadcast. Did Orrin Hatch’s office contact you to confirm, deny or threaten or try to sue you?


A: No, they have not.


Q: Have you made any effort to get in touch with them?


A: I haven’t made any effort to get in touch with Orrin Hatch since 1985. I was waiting for the proper forum to release this information. I thought C-SPAN was that forum, because you’re speaking to

millions of people, not groups of 100 or 200, and it would get all over the country. But C-SPAN didn’t show up.


Q: Bill, why is this whole 16th Amendment issue so critical?


A: In order for the federal government to collect anything from you, they must have a law. The 16th Amendment is what they collect the tax on. And I have proven beyond a doubt with 17,000 certified,

notarized documents that not one state out of the 48 has ratified the law. They have all rejected it.


Q: Bill, thank you.


Final thoughts from interviewer Geoff Metcalf: Bill Benson claims that not a single state legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution in the manner required by law. According to Benson’s book, “The Law That Never Was”:


The federal government claims Kentucky was the second  state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.


In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed, so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning.


The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.


Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not deter Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.


Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states. In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment — including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. Then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted.


Geoff Metcalf is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily and is a radio talk-show host for KSFO in San Francisco.

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
Source:  http://www.wnd.com/2000/02/4017/

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this First Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »