HOTT Newslinks March 25, 2010

Communist Party Statement on “Health Care Victory”



Ambassador: U.S. moving to support international court



“A coffin was placed on a Missouri Democrat’s lawn, another in a string of incidents against lawmakers after their vote Sunday on a health care overhaul.”



Avoid Genetically Modified Food






Next Collapse Coming This Year?



Nearly 300 Congress members declare commitment to ‘unbreakable’ U.S.-Israel bond




Osama Bin Laden threatens retaliation over 9/11 trial’


He returns from beyond the grave again.


Computer snafu is behind at least 50 ‘raids’ on Brooklyn couple’s home


Maybe someone needs to get a computer glitch upside the head with a CPU.


More “health care” BS



Goodbye, Burger King: Top U.S. General Orders Closure of Western Comforts in Kandahar



Analysis: Obama risks alienating Jewish voters



Senate passes reconciliation ‘fixes’ to health bill – Health care reform



Hospital superbugs kill 48,000 patients a year



Massachusetts makes disobedience vaccine mandatory



The Silent Entitlements Monster



Barack Hussein Obama should be called Barack Nero Obama



Health Care Mandate Applies to All



Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama ‘dumped him for dinner’



Time For “Socialism” In Talk Radio



UI police seize air weapons from 2 men target shooting



Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution



Raw Milk Becomes Contentious



Dogs suffer cancer after ID chipping


It is too bad for the dogs that the owners are so stupid.


Prisoners forced to submit to radiation experiments for private foreign companies



ObamaCare’s Effects Are Already Showing



12 Taxes in Health Care Law Violate Obamaâ?Ts Pledge Not to Increase Taxes on Households Earning Less than $250,000



Woman who invented credit default trades may be behind carbon derivatives



States Can Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Laws


This is another one of those that falls into two categories depending on who you are – “really?” and “no sht”.


2 Philadelphia Homeowners Facing Foreclosure Resort To Suicide



G.I Drugged



NATO rejects Russia’s demand to destroy Afghan poppy fields



FDA warns doctors about Glaxo rotavirus vaccine



CIA may face prosecution for drone’s raids in Pakistan


I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you.


GOP Lawmaker Darrell Issa Poised to Call for Special Prosecutor to Investigate White House



As prices fall, strawberry farmers plow crops under




  1. I found these court rulings on http://www.worldtrans.org/sov/frogfarmfaq.txt and “thought” you would find them interesting.


    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen 481 F. 946

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)

    “Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be.” Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

    “The right to counsel exists not only at the trial thereof, but also at every stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be effected.” Mempha v. Rhay 389 U.S. 128

    “A conviction obtained where the accused was denied counsel is treated as void for all purposes.” Burgett v. Texas 389 U.S. 109

    “For a government official to mouth in a ritualistic way part of the warning about the right to counsel, while excluding the person relied upon as counsel is, in effect, to reverse the meaning of the words used…When a federal officer’s interference with the right of free association takes the form of limiting the ability of a criminal suspect to consult with and be accompanied by a person upon whom he relies for advice and protection, he gravely transgresses…” US v Tarlowski, 69 -2 U.S.T.C. & D.C. EA. Dist. N.Y., 305 F. Supp 112 (1969).

    “If there is any truth to the old proverb that ‘One who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ the Court, by its opinion today, now bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself.” Faretta v California, 422 US 806 (1975).

    “Lack of counsel of choice can be conceivably even worse than no counsel at all, or having to accept counsel beholden to one’s adversary.” Burgett v Texas, 389 US 109.

    “Upon the trial of criminal cases, counsel, in their argument, may read law to the jury in the hearing of the court, subject to the correction of the court in its charge.” McMath v State, 55 Ga. 303.

    “In a criminal case, counsel may, in summing up, argue the law of the case to the jury.” Lynch v State, 9 Ind. 541; Commonwealth v Porter (?), Hannah v State, 79 Tenn. 201.

    “Counsel will not be permitted to argue before a jury questions of law not involved in the instruction asked and submitted to the court.” US v Watkind, Fed. Case. No. 16,649 (3 Cranch, C.C. 441). [So always submit instructions to the jury!]

    “A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.” Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    “The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the individual against arbitrary exactions of majorities, executives, legislatures, courts, sheriffs, and prosecutors, and it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian processes.” STANDLER. Supreme Court of Florida en Banc, 36 So 2d 443, 445 (1948)

    “Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.” Smith v. U.S. 502 F2d 512 CA Tex (1974)

    “Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona (U.S. Supreme Court) 380 US 436 (1966)

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen 481 F2d 946 (1973)

    “We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simmons v. US, 390 US 389 (1968)

    “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489

    “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” State v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630

    “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hurtado v. California 110 US 516.

    “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    “Justice Douglas maintained that the privileges and immunities clause was the proper basis for the holding and further insisted that freedom of movement was a right of national citizenship binding upon the states and recognized as such by Crandall v. Nevada (73 US 35) before the 14th Amendment was ratified.” in Edwards v. California 314 US 160

    “Moreover, a distinction must be observed between a regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufference or permission. In the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissable in the former.”
    Packard v. Banton 264 US 140

    “Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution.” Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284

    “Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be.” Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

    “Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary actions of those in authority.” Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511.

    “…fundamental rights do not hang by the tenuous thread of a layman’s
    knowledge of the niceties of the law. It is sufficient if it appears that he is attempting to assert his constitutional privilege. The plea, rather than the form in which it is asserted, determines whether the privilege against self-incrimination is to be upheld.” US v St. Pierre, 128 F 2d at 980.

    “…good faith is not enough to constitute probable cause. That faith must be grounded on facts within knowledge of the…agent, which in the judgment of the court would make his faith reasonable.” Director General v Kastenbaum, 263
    U.S. 25.

    “Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise. Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” Watson v Memphis, 375 U.S. 526.

  2. Hey, what do you think of this video I found?

    Video: Military knows Israeli Agents did 9/11


    If the military knows, why doesn’t our government officials. If they know, why are they covering it up?

    P.S. After watching this video, others of interest will be displayed, watch them as well. Wonder why we haven’t seen this information of Hannity, O’Reilly, National news, Meet the Press, etc. Could our press hide something like this from the public? If so, what else could they have hidden from public view?