Free Republic

Jonathan Turley is a truly fine person. I, too, think he made a mistake regarding the result of the 2000 Florida election, but I really think it was just that, a mistake, not a plot to deceive I am very conservative and through work came to know Jonathan — he’s as good as they come.

My idea: I saw an article someplace saying 16,000 dead voters voted in Detroit. If so, there will be a need for good documentation that these people are dead — not just a listing of a birth date from the voting roll. Anyway, I suggest getting Trump supporting genealogists to help. Give volunteers a list of names and just ask them to sleuth out the truth — to find out if the “voter” is dead. No one should object to the truth.

I’d love to help and I’ll bet thousands of other genealogists would, also. Wish I knew a way to get in touch with Steve Bannon. But I refuse to do social media.

Both Alaska (49th state) and Hawaii (50th state) joined the Union in 1959.

I think the President’s team has very poorly communicated that House Managers are asking for TWO outcomes: (1) President Trump should be removed from office; AND (2) President Trump should never be allowed to hold public office again, meaning that he would NOT be eligible to run for President this year.

The President’s team hints at this when they talk about “removal from the ballot” and “interfering with the 2020 election.” But I have not yet heard them say, “They don’t just want to remove him from office; they want to prevent you from ever being able to vote for him again.”

I think if #1 makes people angry, #2 should enrage them, but most people just don’t know.

Why is no one talking about this???

This probably isn’t the right place for this comment BUT I think the President’s team has very poorly communicated that House Managers are asking for TWO outcomes: (1) President Trump should be removed from office; AND (2) President Trump should never be allowed to hold public office again, meaning that he would NOT be eligible to run for President this year.

The President’s team hints at this when they talk about “removal from the ballot” and “interfering with the 2020 election.” But I have not yet heard them say, “They don’t just want to remove him from office; they want to prevent you from every being able to vote for him again.”

I think if #1 makes people angry, #2 should enrage them, but most people just don’t know.

Can anyone make sense of the below? I’m fairly confident that the Mifsud in items (1) and (2) below are the same Joseph Mifsud who is currently in the news. How about the Joseph Mifsuds in (3) and (4). Is it possible that all four references are to the same guy?

(1) There is a recent popular book on the FIFA Scandal, “Red Card.” The book is about the corruption within the governing boards for soccer. It’s written by the “BuzzFeed investigative reporter Ken Bensinger.” Many of the names associated with the Mueller investigation show up as a part of the investigation of this corruption. Interestingly, from the search I’ve done, the word “Mifsud” does not appear in the book. This is at best a puzzling omission. Joseph Mifsud was a very important person in FIFA. A 2000 article in Miami Herald states (with respect to England’s bid to host the World Cup), “England believes it has the support of Scotland’s David Will, Joseph Mifsud of Malta and . . . .”

(2) Article in The Washington Diplomat, 18 Dec 2014, by Larry Luxner. Headline: “Maltese Official Raises Profile of U.K. Diplomacy Academy” Article begins, “As a former top official at Malta’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Joseph Mifsud was a key member of the team that negotiated his tiny nation’s entry into the European Union. With only 420,000 inhabitants, Malta — a Mediterranean island twice the size of Washington, D.C. — is the smallest of the EU’s 28 states.” It’s very long puff article.

(3) Jan 1986 — pre Trial in Malta re the “hijacking of an Egyptair jetliner that left 60 people dead” takes place. “Defense lawyer Joseph Mifsud asked that testimony at the hearing not be published because he said it could influential potential jurors.” Same Joseph Mifsud? I don’t know for sure, But Malta is not a big place, and while there may be more than one Joseph Mifsud, this guy just has a way of turning up at interesting times. “Magistrate Gino Camilleri, acting on a motion by court-appointed defense attorney Joseph Mifsud, ruled that no pretrial evidence could be published or broadcast.”

(4) Dec 2000 — Articles re Lockerbie trial — “Earlier Tuesday, meteorologist Joseph Mifsud took the stand to counter testimony that one of the defendants purchased clothes and an umbrella in Malta, where they were allegedly working for Libyan intelligence.” Then on 25 Jan 2002, AP Archive, Dateline: CAMP ZEIST, Netherlands — Portions of the article: “ Defense attorneys argued Thursday that judges who convicted a former Libyan intelligence agent of bombing Pan Am flight 103 were too quick to accept testimony linking him to the attack and overlooked witnesses who could have vindicated him. . . . . Secondly, the defense seeks to call a new witness to testify that the lethal suitcase could have been put on board the plane at london’s Heathrow airport, rather than onto a feeder flight in Malta. . . . . Taylor said the trial judges erred in determining his client’s whereabouts . . . and asked them to reconsider testimony from one of three defense witnesses, Maltese meteorologist Joseph Mifsud.”

I’m neither a lawyer nor a paralegal, but I’m pretty sure this proposal is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has already ruled on a couple of very similar cases. In 1969 there was a case involving Adam Clayton Powell. (Powell v McCormack). Among other things the Court held that “In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.” In other words Congress can’t add new qualifications.

Better than that, however, is the more recent case (argued 1994, opinion in 1995) involving a petition from the people in Arkansas trying to impose term limits on its congressmen and senators. The case was U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v Thornton. Here are part of the words read by Justice Stephens when he delivered the majority opinion in that case:

“Over 25 years ago in a case called Powell v. McCormack we concluded that the qualification set forth in the text of the Constitution were exclusive at least in the sense that Congress may not supplement. Today’s cases present a different question than that presented in Powell, because the Arkansas Amendment was passed by a State rather than Congress.We are convinced however that the States as well as the Congress lack the power to add to the qualification set forth in the text of the Constitution.”

There’s an article dated May 23, 1995 in the NY Times about this case. The headline was “High Court Blocks Term Limits for Congress in 5-4 Decision.” I think anyone can get this article just by googling it.

I think it would be pretty hard to argue that forcing people running for office to provide a copy of their tax returns was not an attempt to amend the qualifications for running.

I’m not sure exactly how, but on this subject there should be some way to bring the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” into the discussion. Do black voters really want every woman who cries “rape” automatically “believed”?

If there is any audience which should insist on the presumption of innocence, it is black men! For not just years, not just decades, but literally for hundreds of years, they — more than any other group — have been the victims of the “I believe” movement. They were imprisoned, tortured, and lynched because of the “I believe” culture. It was shameful,and shameful isn’t even a big enough word.

When you look at those left wing mobs over the weekend, there weren’t a lot of black women there. I think there may have been a reason. I suspect there are lots of black women who have a brother or father or uncle or cousin who was unjustly accused - perhaps not of sexual assault but of something else.

In “To Kill a Mockingbird” the town does believe the “victim.” It is what happens at the trial — when the questioning occurs— that truth emerges. (Although the innocent black man on trial is nevertheless found guilty).

Are we going to leave that book — where almost every white member of a community joins in to the “I believe” culture to the detriment of justice — in classrooms? Wouldn’t that mean it’s OK to put black men in prisons as just the price you pay for a woman to be believed?

As I said at the beginning, I’m not sure how to do this, but I know that almost every person who’s gone to high school over the past 40 years has been required to read this book and the book usually made a profound effect on their consciences.

I don’t think Nicholas Deak was a grandfather. Just FYI

Thank you. I was able to find an announcement in the 25 April 1958 Washington DC Evening Star, p 29, “Mr. and mrs. Irvin P. Reamy of Landover Hills, Md., announce the engagement of their daughter Miss Paula Kay Bibler to Mr. Ralph G. Blasey, Jr son of Mr.and Mrs. Blasey of Silver Spring . . . . September wedding is planned.”

Anyway, I think this means that the testimony about attending the funeral of a grandmother is likely truthful, and that’s really what my question was about.

Thank you. Do you know where this obituary appeared?

But I also found an article which confirmed this.

Evening Star (Washington DC), Apr 25, 1958; p 29

“Mr. and Mrs. Irvin P. Reamy of Landover Hills, Md., announce the engagement of their daughter Miss Paula Kay Bibler to Mr. Ralph G. Blasey, jr., son of Mr. and Mrs. Blasey of Silver Spring. A September wedding is planned.”

I hope this entire reprehensible situation will serve to “diversify” the way Supreme Court justices choose their law clerks. For far too long — and I suspect that Appeals Court judges including Kavanaugh have been complicit in this — there has been this tendency to choose the vast majority of their law clerks from the Ivy schools of law.

Well, perhaps one consequence of this farce will be that justices will open their eyes a little wider and realize that not all the high IQ law students in this country go to the Ivies. There are brilliant students at most law schools in this country. The sad thing is that no one even gives them a chance at the clerkships.

Even Kavanaugh talked about the boost to your career these clerkships are.

I just hope he uses the situation to figure out ways he can work to get rid of the toxic political environment that allowed such a travesty of justice. And I think the best and fastest way would be to cast a wider net — a much wider net — next time he goes fishing for clerks.

Dear CurlyDave,

Not really. Less than 60 years ago (1958) there was a tsunami greater than 1400’ in Alaska.

See below from wikipedia:

“The 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami occurred on July 9 at 10:15:58 p.m., following an earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.8 and a maximum Mercalli Intensity of XI (Extreme). The earthquake took place on the Fairweather Fault and triggered a rockslide of 30 million cubic metres (40 million cubic yards, and about 90 million tons) to fall from several hundred metres into the narrow inlet of Lituya Bay, Alaska. The impact was heard 50 miles (80 km) away,[6] and the sudden displacement of water resulted in a megatsunami that destroyed vegetation up to 1,722 feet (525 m) above the height of the bay and a wave that traveled across the bay with a crest reported by witnesses to be on the order of 98 feet (30 m) in height.[citation needed] This is the most significant megatsunami and the largest known in modern times. The event forced a re-evaluation of large wave events, and recognition of impact, rockfall and landslide events as a previously unknown cause of very large waves.”

Cheers! I admit, however, that it was probably the geography involved that resulted in this megatsunami and that would be unlikely in your area.

What the article “sort of says” but not explicitly is that in general (with a very few exceptions) the natural resources of Alaska are not privately owned; they are literally owned by all the people of the State. That’s most of why the dividend is possible. Oil companies bid for the right to develop a property. Then if they “hit it” one of every eight barrels is royalty oil, i.e., oil that goes back to the state. Then depending on several things, including the field, etc., up to 100% of the money from that royalty oil goes into the Permanent Fund.

Dividends are then paid from the Permanent Fund. It should also be noted that on several occasions the Alaska legislature has made appropriations to the Permanent Fund beyond what was required to go into the Fund.

So we’re pretty lucky, I suppose. My own recollection is that Hammond proposed the Permanent Fund for that “Rainy Day” when the oil money ran out and the Permanent Fund would be needed to run State Government. That scenario is pretty much politically impossible now. Unfortunately, many Alaskans are so tied to the dividend that they believe the dividend should continue no matter what and a highly progressive tax should be put into effect to run a state government, including all the transfer payments.

I think we have some real belt tightening to do as a State. Having the dividend has not been good for our individual character development, in my opinion. It really has led to a sense of entitlement — I want my dividend and I want everything else to continue just the way it is and I want you to be taxed to be sure I get everything the government is currently giving me and if you don’t do that well, clearly, you are “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the children.”

While I believe Mary did execute Protestants, I don’t think she was thrown off her throne for those acts. She only ruled a few years and died still Queen while in her early 40s I think

Good grief! This article doesn’t pass the laugh test. The times for sunrise and sunset for Kotzebue at winter solstice are obviously wrong — they sound like Anchorage times to me. At winter solstice Kotzebue will have less than 2 hours between sunrise and sunset.

Someone needs to do some fact checking.

I agree. It’s probably a pet’s name — lots of folks do this.

Also, the existence of this email address isn’t exactly new. There’s an article on the web from more than a year ago (April 10, 2014) at http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/right-wing-noise-machine-explodes-over-irs by Karoli. In general the article is a gigantic defense of Lois Lerner. One of the paragraphs is the following:

****Other “evidence” used to claim privacy violations include alleged use of a personal email address to communicate, again without evidence. There was a person included on an email thread with an MSN email address, but Camp & Co offer no evidence it belonged to Lerner. In fact, Lerner used her official IRS address throughout the exchange. The MSN account name is Toby Miles. Camp & Co and assumed that because Miles is also Lerner’s husband’s last name, there must be some personal connection there. Except there is nothing offered to support that little leap. Miles isn’t exactly an unusual name, after all.****

Two comments

1. I’d make a campaign ad of his comments and play it against every Senate Democrat incumbent running for reelection with a very few words: “Had enough of this garbage? If your answer is yes, defeat _____ and vote for _______.”

2. I’d take to the Senate floor and point out that many, including I’d guess Mr. Rockefeller, are very critical of Joseph McCarthy who said he had a list of communists in the State Department. [He may or may not have had a list, but of course he was substantially right about the infestation within the State Department.] Anyway, I’d point out the “McCarthyite” tactic and challenge Senator Rockefeller to start naming names.

Two comments

1. I’d make a campaign ad of his comments and play it against every Senate Democrat incumbent running for reelection with a very few words: “Had enough of this garbage? If your answer is yes, defeat _____ and vote for _______.”

2. I’d take to the Senate floor and point out that many, including I’d guess Mr. Rockefeller, are very critical of Joseph McCarthy who said he had a list of communists in the State Department. [He may or may not have had a list, but of course he was substantially right about the infestation within the State Department.] Anyway, I’d point out the “McCarthyite” tactic and challenge Senator Rockefeller to start naming names.