Monday, April 21, 2008

Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin....9/11?

Who is the culprit(s) who caused 9/11? Was it the government's story? The government claims that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda who's at fault; your friendly government was caught completely by surprise. Or was it the "9/11 truthers" who don't believe the government? Those people claim the government was responsible ("9/11 was an inside job!"); people like bin Laden and al-Qaeda have nothing to do with the crime. Now although I don't trust the government either, I believe that 9/11 was in the middle, and I base my facts on history.

Take a look at the RMS Lusitania. The official government story is that Lusitania was torpedoed by a German submarine. But in reality, the British purposely planned the sinking of that ship so that to infuriate the American people so much that they decided to go to war against Germany during World War I. Woodrow Wilson knew that the Lusitania would be sunk. The British government knew that the Lusitania would be sunk. Even the New York Times knew that the Lusitania would be sunk. So much so in fact that it ran ads in New York telling Americans don't get on board that ship. But both Britain and America dismissed these reports as scare mongering.

When Lusitania was sunk, Wilson refused to take the bait, while demanding an end to German's attacks. Germany complied. But after Wilson was elected a second term (by promising to keep America out of war), he asked Congress to declare war, which Congress did. He blamed his decision on Lusitania and the British telegram supposedly showing German talking to Mexico about joining the war as Germany's ally (which Mexico never did). In point of fact, Winston Churchill planned the sinking of several ships, among them the HMS Hampshire and the RMS Lusitania, in an effort to stoke American opinion against Germany. Meanwhile, the U.S authorities were aware of his plan, but turned a blind eye because it suited their own purposes.

Take a look at Pearl Harbor. The official government story is Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack by the Japanese Navy which cost almost 2,500 American lives--the most lives lost by an attack before 9/11--and it cost America entry into World War II. But in reality, Franklin Roosevelt knew beforehand the plans of Japan. Now since the first world war was fresh on American's minds, they don't have to face a second world war, and Congress was listening.

Roosevelt tried everything to fuel America's fire. First, he violated fundamental principles of neutrality under international law by assisting and arming one of the warring sides. Through Roosevelt's lend-lease plan, millions of dollars of American military hardware was shipped to Great Britain, encouraging Germany to counterattack. But Germany refused. Then He began using American military convoys to ship goods to Britain - another act of war under international law. But Germany again refused to attack America's ships. Finally, desperately trying to goad the Germans into an attack, Roosevelt ordered American ships to begin searching out German submarines and reporting their positions to the British. One American ship finally was attacked. But America, and thus Congress, told Roosevelt to "stay out of this war!"

Roosevelt was at his wit's end, until his focus shifted to the Pacific, his "back door to war" in Europe. On the west coast of the Pacific, Japan and China were fighting. Now, China had ties with Russia, and Russia had ties with England and France, while Japan had ties with Germany, so America was on the side of China. But the American people, and thus Congress, had no interest in getting the US involved in another foreign war. So Roosevelt starting tightening the noose around the Japanese necks: first, Americans gave assistance to the Chinese; second, with help from other Allied powers, the American people refused to sell Japan oil (Japan had no oil for itself; it was dependent on others). As a front, Roosevelt told the Japanese if they back off China, America will release the embargo. Unfortunately, Japan had too much pride, so it prepared for its attack on Pearl Harbor.

And all of Japan's messages were read by Roosevelt! He cracked the Japanese code! Did he warn Hawaii of the attack? Of course not! In fact, he told the Hawaiian Head Admiral to line all the ships in a row (like sitting ducks). The admiral refused. So Roosevelt fired the admiral and promoted a new admiral, and the new admiral submitted. Pearl Harbor took place, Roosevelt made his "infamy" speech, America declared war against Japan (and Japan reciprocated), Germany declared war against America (and America reciprocated), and the rest is history.

What about the Gulf of Tonkin? The official government story is that there were two attacks by North Vietnam ships against American destroyers (USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy) which led American forces into a large-scale involvement in Vietnam. But in reality, it was a hoax. There was no attack. The facts as recorded was not true. Take a look at James Stockdale. Stockdale was a Navy aviator who responded to the "attacks" on the Maddox and Turner Joy, and, in 1992, Ross Perot's running mate. He said it didn't happened.

"[I] had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets - there were no PT boats there. There was nothing but black water and American firepower," Stockdale wrote in his 1984 book, In Love and War.

Congress, however, responded to Lyndon Johnson's call to arms, giving him a veritable blank check to make war.

Looking back at history, do you know what happened at 9/11? The facts are that bin Laden and al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. How do I know this? Osama admitted it himself, several times! Although he is a terrorist, he doesn't lie, unlike George W. Bush. But like FDR before, Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand...and did nothing. In fact, he caused part of the destruction. Watch the video for yourself. It compares the controlled demolition of buildings imploding with the Twin Towers imploding. See it for yourself; do you see the resemblance? In 30-40 years or so, we will know the truth.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

The true meaning of rights in the Bill of Rights, including the right to carry a firearm

Two weeks ago (March 18), the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. Walter Dellinger argued for the District, Alan Gura argued for Heller, and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued for the federal government. You might say, "2 against 1; it's not fair!", but you are wrong. Make it 3 against 0; Gura didn't give the Court a too compelling argument.

Also, due to the controversial nature of the case, the Heller case filed 67 amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs (47 urging the court to affirm the case and 20 to oppose it). When the USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted, the editors decided to use the brief written by attorneys Bill Olson and Herb Titus. Olson and Titus explained in a 300 word op-ed the primary reason for the Second Amendment. It is titled, "An unambiguous right", and I couldn't agree with it more. You can read it for yourself.

Let's look at the structure legally of the 2nd Amendment. There are two clauses in that amendment: the first starting with, "a well regulated militia...", and the second starting with "the right of the people...". Which clause is a complete sentence on its own? The second clause. That is why the D.C. Circuit's ruling labeled the first clause "prefatory" (i.e., preliminary introduction) and the second "operative" (i.e., producing an appropriate effect). In other words, the main clause in the 2nd Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, what is the meaning of the phrase "right of the people" (or the word "people") and the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment? When you placed the 2nd Amendment beside the other amendments, you will see the word "people" in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; your right to be secure, or your unenumerated rights (both of the people) are yours alone. And Webster's definition of "arms" is "a means of offense or defense, especially firearms". So when you put the two together, you have a right to carry firearms individually.

And what is the meaning of "rights" anyway? The Declaration of Independence states (in part), "[A]ll men (including women--including you, me, and anyone out there) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". The first 10 amendments (including the 2nd) are called the "Bill of Rights". Looking in Black's Law Dictionary, a "right" is defined as "something that is due to a person by just claim". In other words, you don't need a higher authority; you are it. In that aspect, a right is the opposite of a privilege (take a look at chapter 2 of Michael Badnarik's book, Good to be King [.pdf]). And thus, you don't need government's permission to exercise your rights (e.g., your "right to bear arms", you don't need a CCW license). And the last 4 words, it can add to the end to imply "reasonable nor unreasonable, with no regulation." Else, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be a right at all.

Now, I know I am correct on this. But I am not a Supreme Court justice. I don't know whether or not the different justices may see things differently than I. I guess we have to wait until summer to see their ruling.