Senator Jesse Helms Rebukes the U.N.
Congressman Davy Crockett on Welfare
Are We Living Under The Communist Manifesto?
The Declaration of Independence & what it means to me
Should Black Americans Come Back Home To The GOP?
Citizens for Constitutional Government
Text Size:    |
| ||
| |
As an author, Ron Paul has accomplished something he failed to do as a Republican presidential candidate: finish first. His new book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” has topped The New York Times best-seller list and the Amazon sales chart. It has also helped rally his grass-roots following long after John McCain clinched the GOP presidential nomination.
Paul’s supporters began the campaign full of hope. The libertarian Texas congressman smashed online fundraising records and led the Republican field in the fourth-quarter money primary. Polls, and more than a few pundits, suggested that Paul was within striking distance of a third-place finish in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Instead, Paul finished a disappointing fifth place in both states, though he did beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. He finished second in a few caucus states, including Nevada, Montana and Louisiana, but mostly began to register single-digit showings in subsequent primaries.
Paul’s campaign organization seemed unable to make good use of the millions it raised, and many of the candidate’s enthusiastic grass-roots followers were becoming dispirited.
Now the Ron Paul revolution, as his supporters call it, is experiencing a second wind. Paul took 16 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, his best primary showing yet, and has surpassed 1 million votes in the GOP contest. Ron Paul Republicans have started roiling local party organizations, taking control of state conventions and running for public office, all without much coordination from their leader.
One of the Ron Paul Republicans who actually has the congressman’s endorsement is B.J. Lawson, a fellow Duke Medical School alumni running for the House of Representatives from North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. Lawson won his May 6 congressional primary with more than 70 percent of the vote, despite his opposition to the Iraq war and criticism of the Bush administration’s free-spending ways.
In the neighboring 3rd District, Paul endorsed incumbent Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. in his primary fight against Onslow County Commissioner Joe McLaughlin. McLaughlin decided to challenge Jones after the freedom-fries crusader became one of the country’s most vocal anti-war Republicans.
Jones easily outraised McLaughlin and won the primary by nearly 20 percentage points.
Another Paul endorsee, Murray Sabrin, is running for the Republican senatorial nomination in New Jersey. Paul traveled to the Garden State on April 28 to help Sabrin raise campaign funds. In Virginia, Amit Singh is the Paul-backed Republican primary candidate running for a chance to take on Democratic Rep. Jim Moran.
In other cases, Paul isn’t involved in his supporters’ efforts at all. Four Ron Paul Republicans in Maryland won their primaries without the congressman’s endorsement. Paul backers amended the Alaska Republican Party platform to reflect their stances on civil liberties, the Patriot Act, repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the Department of Education.
At GOP district meetings in Minnesota, Paul supporters captured seven Republican National Convention delegate slots; one delegate was selected by the Maine Republican convention. The Nevada GOP convention adjourned early after the initial balloting showed Ron Paul Republicans winning at least half the delegates for the national convention.
Even the revived Paul juggernaut isn’t without problems. One of them is that Paul himself is too much a believer in decentralization to provide his movement with much direction. At a recent book event in Washington, he was asked what his supporters should do in the general election if he did not run as a third-party candidate. Paul reaffirmed that he wasn’t going to run as a third-party candidate and replied that it was up to his supporters to decide what to do.
Paul had to retract his endorsement of a Ron Paul Republican who was improperly vetted and turned out to be a white supremacist. Another candidate, Jim Forsythe in New Hampshire, has already dropped out. Other than in Pennsylvania, Paul, as the last active candidate running against McCain, hasn’t done as well as Alan Keyes did in the same position against George W. Bush in 2000 — largely because his disorganized campaign has sent out mixed messages about the status of his candidacy and has not corrected inaccurate reporting on the matter.
Can the Ron Paul movement make a difference in the Republican Party, especially in its current weakened state? A similar insurrection strategy helped Barry Goldwater’s supporters take over and transform the GOP during the 1960s.
But the Ron Paul Republicans — many of them running in predominantly Democratic areas where they have little chance of success, even if they win their primaries — are nowhere near that point yet. Whether they ever get their way will determine whether Paul is remembered as a consequential figure within the party’s history or just another also-ran.
W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.
1 Recommendation
NVE Corporation (Nasdaq: NVEC) is a small Minnesota company whose stock has shot up 400% over the past year and a half to trade for 13 times revenue. The reason: It says it holds key patents on Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (MRAM).
The supposed Holy Grail of computing memory, MRAM is a "gee whiz" technology that could combine the speed of SRAM (Static Random Access Memory), the density of DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory), and the stability of flash memory. MRAM could allow your computer to turn on as fast as your TV and improve battery life for cell phones and PDAs.
Large tech outfits such as Motorola (NYSE: MOT) and Cypress Semiconductor (NYSE: CY) have signed license agreements with NVE. Proponents think Motorola will pay NVE a royalty on every MRAM chip it makes and that NVE will be able to resell some MRAM chips once Cypress starts production. Ergo, NVE must hold the keys to the Grail.
As in the legend, though, only the pure of heart get to see the Grail. MRAM could eventually become a major semiconductor business, but NVE will be lucky to see a nano-nickel from it. The real work on MRAM had been conducted independently by technology giants such as IBM (NYSE: IBM), Motorola, Infineon (NYSE: IFX), Toshiba, and Micron (NYSE: MU).
The highlight of what NVE calls its "watershed" MRAM patents is something known as a "one-transistor-per-bit read addressing scheme." This invention relates to the electrical circuitry supporting a memory cell, but has nothing specific to do with MRAM. Further, the claim is based on so much prior art that it's meaningless and unenforceable. The DRAM in your PC has relied on this approach for decades. Motorola did license technology from NVE in 1995, but this was before NVE even had these patents. Motorola pays NVE no fees today and has no reason to pay NVE royalties in the future. Meanwhile, Cypress Semi appears no closer than it has been to producing a commercially viable MRAM-based product. No other company with a major MRAM development program has licensed NVE's patents.
Although NVE has product sales today, none pertain to MRAM. The company generates $12 million a year in revenue, mostly from "work-for-hire" contract R&D. Its scant product revenues come from selling sensors and couplers. These products employ giant magnetoresistor (GMR) devices, a form of magnetic memory. However, you cannot make commercially viable MRAM using GMR. Instead, you have to use magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJ), an entirely different memory cell technology.
Motorola walks away
Consider this: When Motorola signed the license with NVE in 1995, Herb Goronkin, director of Motorola's Physical Research Laboratories, joined NVE's board. Goronkin oversaw Motorola's MRAM development program for the next eight years until his retirement in June 2003. Curiously, when Goronkin resigned from NVE's board in July 2002, Motorola opted not to install another representative. Between June 2003 and January 2004, Motorola sold its entire 8.4% stake in NVE. If NVE's technology had value to Motorola, surely it would maintain its board position and hold on to its shares.
Motorola apparently ditched NVE. In June 2003, Goronkin told the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Weekly that NVE's technology process was transferred to his lab in 1995 to "kick-start" Motorola's MRAM efforts. "We saved a year in learning the technology," he said. But Motorola "had a number of problems and had to make numerous discoveries along the way." Luckily, Goronkin explained, "someone at MIT and Japan discovered magnetic tunneling junctions and I went over to Japan and we decided we are going to switch horses and get on magnetic tunnel junctions." On its own, Motorola discovered the toggle (US patent 6,545,906), which solved the "soft error" problem caused by the fact that magnets flip each other randomly when crammed in close proximity.
NVE had long insisted it would be due royalties if Motorola commercialized the MRAM device described in its technical papers, but NVE recently backed away from this claim. Last summer, Motorola spun out part of its Freescale Semiconductor (NYSE: FSL) business, the unit that would produce the MRAM chips. On September 9th, at the Smith Barney technology conference, Freescale's president Scott Anderson told investors he had never heard of NVE. In its November SEC filing, NVE claimed it is trying to work out a new license with the soon-to-be-independent Freescale, but admitted there "can be no assurance...that NVE would receive any value under the existing Patent License Option Agreement [with Motorola] or any value under any such further agreement with Freescale." So much for those royalties!
What about Cypress?
Next we have Cypress Semi, which signed a royalty-free license with NVE in April 2002 in conjunction with a $6.2 million purchase of stock and warrants amounting to 24% of NVE. Cypress CEO T. J. Rodgers had said in May 2002 that Cypress would be sampling its MRAM chips by August, with chips in production by year-end. That didn't happen. In September 2003, Cypress announced its MRAM product would be delayed again. The chipmaker also disclosed it had sold all of its 686,849 shares of NVE, retaining only its stock purchase warrants.
This past August, Rodgers predicted that Cypress would sample its 256Kbit chip by year-end and generate revenues by the first quarter of 2005. But the specs show Cypress still doesn't have a commercially viable product. Contrary to the norms of semiconductor development, Cypress' MRAM memory cell has now doubled in size to a non-nano 24 microns. This chip is many times larger and more expensive to make than the higher capacity Motorola/Freescale 1.55-micron chip or 1.42-micron chip under development by Infineon and IBM. Cypress continues to experience "soft error" issues that cause data to be lost or corrupted, forcing it to add massive amounts of redundant circuitry. But even that hasn't solved the problem. Manufacturing yields also remain terrible. Even worse, the Cypress chip uses 5 volts, whereas most current memory chips and competitors' MRAM chips use 3.6 volts or less. Cypress also employs a 3-transitor-per-bit design that doesn't even appear to use the alleged invention in NVE's "watershed" patents. Cypress looks poised to produce a chip so big, expensive, and electronically unsuitable, relative to current standards, that its product will have an extremely limited commercial market, if any.
So NVE's key MRAM patents seem irrelevant, its potential royalty-paying licensee appears not to be using NVE's intellectual property, and its other licensee can't produce a commercially viable chip. NVE's MRAM efforts are worthless today, and they seem to have no demonstrable future value.
What NVE does have is a CEO with an alarming history. Prior to joining NVE in January 2001, Dan Baker had spent more than 10 years as CEO of Printware Inc. (Pink Sheets: PRTWZ.PK), a company that missed earnings targets the second quarter after its July 1996 IPO and spent the next five years failing to match Baker's optimistic forecasts. Baker's reign at Printware ended with angry shareholders voting him out. Baker has expressed his own confidence in NVE's future by selling nearly all of his then current shares last January, pocketing $4 million. He even exercised options that didn't expire until 2011. NVE's management now owns just 8% of the stock.
NVE has also enjoyed the sponsorship of a number of stock promoters, including most prominently the Forbes/Josh Wolfe nanotech newsletter, which first mentioned the stock in June 2003. Wolfe subsequently anointed it a "Nanosphere" play and the stock took off. Wolfe has shown panache as a self-promoter. Before he had made a single nanotech investment, he modestly heralded himself as one of the "true business visionaries of the nanotechnology sector."
Blind them with science
This is the model of how a former penny stock like NVE becomes a darling of speculators. Take allegedly important patents and big name licensees who may never use the technology or produce a marketable product. Add a promotional CEO and mix in a self-styled "visionary" with a wide readership of speculators.
But dubious penny stocks have a habit of returning from whence they came. The truth is that everyone best positioned to understand NVE's technology and future business prospects -- Motorola or Cypress or even Baker -- has cashed out already. Investors who get caught in this trap have simply ignored the evidence before them.
Fool contributor Jeff Young is neither long nor short any of the companies mentioned in this story. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
MINNESOTA RULES
OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
AMENDED
Effective October 1, 2005
Amended July 1, 2007
www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/05mrpc
INDEX
I. THE SOURCE OF DSS POWER IS THIS: JUDGES CAN'T TELL DSS WHAT TO DO! THE DSS TELLS JUDGES WHAT IT WILL DO!
DSS is completely in control. Even judges can't reign them in.
This is one of the dirtiest and least known secrets of how DSS is able to destroy so many families, and the source of their power: DSS is in control, not the courts.
Ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided two cases back in 1995, Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602 (1995) and Care and Protection of Jeremy, 419 Mass. 616 (1995), the DSS has had almost complete control of all children in its custody. A judge will only interfere if DSS is committing what is ridiculously called an "abuse of discretion."
When does DSS abuse its "discretion" enough for a court to step in and stop them?
Generally, never. The Courts have become rubber stamps for DSS. Death, torture, broken bones, bruises, wounds, medical neglect, and other 'minor' problems caused by DSS do not seem to bother courts very much. However, if the parents pray, spank, or yell at the child, then they will authorize the DSS to take your children and give them to a family who cannot be told not to abuse them. Foster parents and DSS approved programs and institutions can usually abuse children at will, often with no consequences whatsoever. As long as it's their guy doing the abusing, nothing will happen.
Not only will a court refuse to stop DSS caretakers from abusing children, it will usually not mind if DSS is falsifying records, committing perjury, taking children on false pretenses, illegally stretching out a case for years, or demanding that a wife commit perjury by getting a false restraining order against the husband.
In other words, DSS is accountable to no one, and no one can stop them, unless the state legislature or a higher court steps in and changes the state of the law.
Well, can't I sue them?
As with all things in the strange world of "child protection", the DSS has been given a gift of protection from lawsuits, called "qualified immunity". That is a fancy name for being lawsuit-proof in most cases. Right now, until someone succeeds in getting a court to change the situation, DSS agents are immune from suits for all "discretionary" decisions.
"Discretion" is when they decide to do just about anything they want: to kidnap your child from you, to keep your child, to adopt your child out, to hurt your child, to emotionally manipulate your child, to stop your child from hugging you at visits, or just about anything else. Only when they violate a "clearly established" constitutional right can they be sued. That is almost never.
It is ridiculous, but the courts have continually protected foolish and biased social workers from any liability for wrongdoing. We are going to try to change this. See the section about our DSS lawsuit.
What are "clearly established" constitutional rights?
Technically, they are rights specifically listed as being protected in the Massachusetts or federal constitutions, such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
Parental rights are not specifically listed in the either the state or federal constitutions. However, parental rights are "reserved powers", which means that any power not specifically given to the government by the constitution belongs to the people. All powers, including parental rights, which are not mentioned in the Constitution, are kept by the people under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Because most courts now operate more by a political agenda than by law, they will often only protect 'enumerated', or listed rights. However, the constitution is not supposed to work that way. All rights are yours by natural divine law. The constitution does not create rights, but only binds down the government from interfering with them. The Massachusetts and Federal constitutions list several rights as examples in the Bill of Rights, and then basically say that if we forgot any others, they are protected, too.
However, most judges now believe that government creates and grants rights, rather than preserves existing rights that are bestowed by our creator, and which cannot be taken away. Thus, they will ignore your parental rights if it suits them.
Judges often merely explain rights away if they do not favor them politically, as they have done with gun rights, for example. They treat the rights protected under the constitution like an accordion - they expand certain ones that are in political favor, and contract others that are not politically correct.
Do parents have ANY rights?
Not really. The problem is that our founders never dreamed that anyone would ever think of intruding into families, so they did not write specific protections into our state and federal constitutions. They assumed family government would exist peacefully alongside state and church government. Now, when the rights of parents to raise children are being challenged, there is little protection available from courts against the savage predators in the DSS.
A parents' right to direct the upbringing of their children was never questioned until recently. Now, the state sees itself as the parent, and they let you have temporary custody of your own child, unless and until you do something the state doesn't like - then the child goes back to its true parent - the state. There is even a Latin lawyer term for this: Parens Patriae, which means, "father of his country". The Real Life Dictionary of the Law defines parens patriae as: "the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only entrusted to their parents."
Are you getting this? The state now owns your children, and entrusts you with them, until you do something politically incorrect, like home school them, spank them, pray with them, or otherwise try to keep them out of the hands of those who want to make them into obedient world citizens.
You have told me all that I CAN'T do. Is there anything I CAN do?
Yes, but there are no easy answers. Read on.
II. THE GRIZZLY BEAR (Adapted from material written by Mike Humiston at NationalOutrage.org)
A grizzly is a dangerous creature. They are arbitrary, vicious, and they are not afraid of you. Sound familiar? If you encounter one in the wild, you must be very careful. . .
Should I throw sticks and rocks and scream at him?
Only if you want him to kill you.
Then I should turn and run, real fast . . .
Only if you can run very, very fast.
Then what should I do?
Stand firm, don't show any signs of fear or anger, then carefully, quietly, back away.
The grizzly is the child welfare system . . .
But I thought somebody else's government was the Great Bear . . .
Indeed. Always be polite when dealing with caseworkers and the police. Always, always!
Why?
Because the police carry guns, for crying out loud! And because you are dealing with terrorists, and they have your children. If you argue with the caseworker or the judge, you will only antagonize them. Nothing you say is going to change their minds or make them quit twisting your words. So don't try. Don't give them words to twist. There's no use throwing sticks and stones at the grizzly.
What about running away?
If you can do so legally, then do so. If the state has legal custody of your children, it is illegal to take them and leave. If you're going to break the law, then as with the grizzly, you better be able to run pretty far pretty fast. There are people sitting in prison at this moment for "kidnapping" their own children.
Are you telling me to give up?
Absolutely not! We're telling you to be smart. Know your rights and control the flow of information, but do it with a smile on your face and with total graciousness. "I'm sure this treatment plan is okay, but I'd just like to have my attorney go over it before I sign it. I believe you when you tell me they're just routine, so I'm sure you don't mind if he just has a look before I sign." Remember, the guy who tells you don't need an attorney is the guy who has something to hide. Just because their forms are "routine" does not make them right.
III. WHAT A PARENT CAN DO TO FIGHT FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE.
Unfortunately, you cannot do as much as you would really like to do to fight DSS yourself, except to AVOID doing the wrong things. You can learn about many of those wrong things, and about DSS dirty tricks, on this MassOutrage web site, and the linked sites. However, even if you learned it all, that is only the beginning.
Knowing the things you can learn here, simply doesn't give you the whole scope of the process. Courts and lawyers have made it so complicated (probably to keep a lot of their buddies employed) that very few people even inside the system completely understand the process and all its legal requirements.
In sum, fighting DSS is so hard, so technical, and there are so many pitfalls, that you are better off to work with a good lawyer rather than try it yourself. There is just so much to fighting one of these cases, that it is about like doing brain surgery on yourself to try it alone.
So. . . .
1. Get a good lawyer.
The single biggest ingredient in fighting the DSS menace is to get a good lawyer. What is a good lawyer? Here is the list of qualities I would look for:
2. Work with your lawyer.
The most important thing you can do to get your children back, in addition to avoiding falling into any of the DSS dirty tricks, is work with your lawyer to help him or her get your kids back. How?
You can help review the DSS record, which is very tedious, to look for any evidence you can use against DSS. You can make a chronology, or a time line of all the major events so far, so that the lawyer can get a clear overview of your case. You can pay the poor guy, so he can endure the endless days and nights of attention to your case. You can be patient with the delays, knowing that it is not your lawyer, but DSS and the Court, who have caused them.
You can do everything he tells you in the way of counseling or drug testing or parenting classes, so that he can go back to DSS and report that you have been a good little boy or girl. You can clean up your act, if it isn't: Straighten up your house, your heart, and your life.
You can attend every visitation that your child's kidnappers allow, without fail, even though they will cancel the visits any time they feel like it for any selfish reason. (Irony - they often cancel to care for their own child). You can smile (though gritted teeth) at your child's captors, and work with them. Never, never show your anger, even though the social worker may deserve to fry in the lowest part of Hell.
Listen to your lawyer. Trust your lawyer. If you can't, get a new one. Even if you have a state appointed lawyer, due to lack of finances, fire him if he does not work for you. If he is laughing it up with DSS, fire him. Most lawyers who do this work actually like DSS because they get a lot of work from it. Me - I'd be very happy to be put out of the DSS business tomorrow, if they were abolished.
IV. ANY MORE ADVICE?
What about the Government School? Can they get my children there?
They sure can. In fact, it is the preferred method. No pesky parents. Only sympathetic statists who embrace big brother and believe that the government has the best interest of the child at heart, as opposed to the parents. Government school, you say? Is that a PUBLIC school? Yes, and it is financed by, supported by, and run by the same government who wants to steal your children.
If they have any suspicions about your home whatsoever, the DSS agents will come to your child's government school, all smiles, and take your children aside. They will use suggestive and coercive techniques, and get "disclosures" about what goes on in your home: things like spanking or other discipline, prayer in the home (that is now 'abuse'), yelling or arguments between parents (that is now 'domestic violence'). Since this is done alone, no one will be able to fight the DSS agent's lying version of the "abuse" that they will coerce out of the child.
If I can't trust the government school, who can I trust?
No one but your own private lawyer, as stated above. The government has a snitch network of so-called "Mandated Reporters" everywhere a child is likely to be. Nurses, doctors, school counselors, police, dentists, therapists, teachers, day care workers, and many others MUST report anything they think is suspicious, or risk a big fine.
They have manipulated these former helping professionals into becoming snoops for the "Central Party Committee". These people used to be able to help folks in trouble. Now, if you go to them, they will turn you into the DSS. The authorities have beat them into submission, and most of them now have the attitude of : When in doubt, report.
At this point in our history, only your lawyer can keep your secrets, by law. Everyone else is a snitch. Tell them to no one else.
What should I do, then?
GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT of the government school, and do it now. That is the major pipeline through which the DSS steals children from families. If you are taking government aid of any sort, get rid of it, if you can.
If you decide to compromise your family by keeping your children in danger there, then at least teach them that if some DSS agent comes to talk to them, that they demand to have their parents present before answering any questions.
Teach your children the sanctity of the family. The schools are teaching your children to rat on you. Teach your children the other side, the danger to which they expose your whole family by reporting you to the authorities. Teach your children that dozens of children have committed suicide while in foster care. Hundreds have died. Thousands have been tortured and abused.
Teach them that they have the right to remain silent, and if they choose not to remain silent, each and every word they say will be used against their mommy and daddy. Love them, love them, love them.
Teach your children this: "Kids, this is our family attorney, Mr. Smith. He is our family's only attorney. He is the only attorney that we talk to. If somebody else comes to you and says he is your own attorney (e.g. the DSS agent, or guardian ad litem) anything you say to him will be used against our family."
One of the best things you can do is buy and read Suzanne Shell's book, Profane Justice. It can be ordered for $15.00 by calling 1-800-447-3081, ext. 7794, or write to: Sage Wisdom Press, P.O. Box 75863, Colorado Springs, CO 80970. Forewarned is forearmed.
What about real child abuse?
Real child abusers should go to prison. And the traditional due process protections of criminal law are more than enough to separate the true abusers from the falsely accused. Just because O.J. was acquitted of murder does not mean we should dispose of all due process. Likewise, just because some abusers will get away does not mean we should take away all children.
[Compiled from numerous sources.]
