If there is no actual, verifiable harm to the Child-just CPS/GAL hearsay or sayso-they have no standing & the court has no jurisdiction. You tell n make sure Your Child knows to NEVER subject to any line of questions of their family or You as parents-tell n teach Your Child the phrase-I want my Lawyer/Parents-lawyer is Constitutionaly enforced demand that all question CEASE immediatly-later when Your Child is older, teach them of how dirty the system can be & to ask, "is this a custodial interogation"??? See Edwards v Az, a custodial interogation demands the ass't of a lawyer & teach them the importance of the right of the 5th Amend-the right to be silent. Always challenge jurisdiction on actual, provable harm-if Your childs simply remains silent in defense of Your family-GAL/CPS has nothing to twist, distrot & fanricate a case out of. Any1 needing HELP can write petesfarms@yahoo.com but my time is limited, as well as my funds. If You have done wrong-donut come to me n expect me to help You weasil Your way out of harm done to a child Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/645/ Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/645/case.html Stanley re-inforces Your right to full Due Process Protections, family courts donut meet the requirements of the 6th Amend & are therefore a void porcess-a fraud, a system of statutory creation-no statute trumps the 6th Amend per the Supremecy Clause 1 Refuse to enter any family court proceeding for lack of jurisdiction 2 Demand a lawyer n state a lawwyer You can trust 3 Demand a probable cause hearing & strike all hearsay by GAL?CPS as inadmissable-remind the judge of His Oath, any violation of the Oath he is no longer acting in any judicial capacity/authority-any orders the judges signs after he has lost jurisdiction of violated the Oath is subject to 18 USC 1001 with 42 USC 1985 Use Direct link to 42 U.S.C. 1988 this to give You authority to act to enforce violations of Title 18- see18 usc 242, title 18 usc 241, 18 usc 241 242 Also is the judge refuses to grant a full blown probable cause hearing, the judge has procedurally defaulted & lost jurisdiction, object to everything GAL/CPS states as they r not a witness with 1st Hand knowledge. If they start out with, "I was told"-OBJECT, Heasray or "I blieve what I saw"-OBJECT as what they believe is immaterial, The Child said-OBJECT, was the parent/lawyer present & a Child is not a legally competant witness & CPS/GALs know how to coach false testimony & any LIES-OBJECT & ask for the witness to be held in contempt with perjury charges filed-if the judge refuses-demand he recuse-then remove the action to federal court & name the judge as a defendant-You want to make a stick-name the County Commissioners, chier presiding judge, GAL/CPS & all superiors, scretary of state & Governer Last but not least-NEVER allow a CPS/GAL to enter any of Your private property-even with a cop, they still need a warrant issued by a neutal & detached judge-if this is a judge You have removed, the warrent is VOID Here is some case desions I found in my research; "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it .... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177 (emphasis added)
[A] natural parent may only be deprived of custody of a child upon a showing substantial harm to the child." In re Askew (Tenn. Supreme Court 1999)
The child has a similar liberty interest in being in the care and custody of her parents. See Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1018-19 (7th Cir. 2000); Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 923 (5th Cir. 2000); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 825 (2d Cir. 1977); Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 427 Mass. 1201, 691 N.E.2d 911, 915 (1998). This liberty interest is protected both by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause, which constrains governmental interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests, and by the procedural component of the Due Process Clause, which guarantees "fair process." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997).
“There must be some other special factor such as harm to the child or custodial unfitness that justifies state interference.” (Ark. S.Ct. Linder v. Linder)
For parents contempting a grandparent visitation order and choosing jail to protect their children and who want to turn their child over to someone other than the grandparent:
One of Suboh's rights as a mother was the right to choose a proxy custodian for Sofia following her arrest. See In re Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 383 Mass. 573, 421 N.E.2d 28, 34 (1981) (noting, in case of incarcerated mother, that mother's "presumptive right to custody of the child includ[es] the right to choose a caretaker proxy").
Vt. GLIDDEN v. CONLEY: "That a child might benefit from contact with a grandparent or that a parent might deny grandparent visitation for no good reason in the court's view are not the kind of compelling circumstances contemplated by the Constitution or this decision. Rather, to overcome a parent's decision on grandparent visitation, a grandparent must show circumstances like parental unfitness, see Linder, 72 S.W.3d at 858 (some special factor like unfitness of custodial parent must exist to justify state interference in parent's right to decide grandparent visitation issue); Stacy, 99-CA-00579-SCT, 23, 798 So.2d at 1280 (compelling circumstances suggesting something close to unfitness of custodial parent may be sufficient to justify visitation award to grandparents over parent's objection), or significant harm to the child will result in the absence of a visitation order (thus suggesting parental unfitness), see Linder, 72 S.W.3d at 858 (harm to the child in absence of visitation order may warrant overriding parent's visitation decision); Blixt, 774 N.E.2d at 1060 (to rebut presumption in custodial parent's favor, grandparent must prove that failure to grant visitation will "cause the child significant harm by adversely affecting the child's health, safety, or welfare"). This construction of the statute minimizes the risk that a court [or legislature - added] will substitute its judgment for that of the parent simply because the court [or legislature - added] disagrees with the parent's decision. Our construction of the statute also recognizes that a dispute between a fit custodial parent and the child's grandparent over grandparent visitation "is not a contest between equals." Stacy, 99-CA-00579-SCT, 23, 798 So.2d at 1280; see also Wickham, 769 N.E.2d at 7-8 (finding unconstitutional a statute that places parent on equal footing with third parties seeking visitation with the child)."
As Alabama found true in Beck v. Beck: Ordering scheduled visitation in a case where the grandparents have never been denied visitation with the child, where there is no indication in the record that the father would deprive his child of a relationship with the grandparents, where the grandmother described her relationship with the child as "normal grandparent involvement," and where the grandparents' time with child has decreased in large part because of the child's and the parent's schedules, goes beyond the constitutionally mandated limits for awarding grandparent visitation.
Constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in the rearing of their children is basic in our society, and the legislature could properly conclude that those primarily responsible for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.” GINSBERG v. NEW YORK 390 US 629 (1968)
In footnote 1 in Seagrave v. Price (Ark. S.Ct.) “We note that our holding finds nearly all of the Act unconstitutional, save one clause wherein grandparents may petition for visitation when no parent has custody. See § 9-13-103(c)(2).”
Arkansas Supreme Court in Linder v. Linder: “We begin our analysis of the instant case by concluding that Lea Ann, as a single parent, has a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment in prohibiting state intrusion on her parenting of Brandon.” Linder v. Linder Arkansas court of Appeals: “We further acknowledged that, following a divorce, children belong to a different family unit than they did when their parents lived together. The new family unit consists of the children and the custodial parent, and what is advantageous to the unit's members as a whole, to each of its members individually, and to the way they relate to each other and function together is in the best interests of the children.” [Parker v. Parker, No. CA00-331 (Ark.App. 09/19/2001)] IL Supreme Court “…one parent's well-established fundamental right’ to raise her child without interference from the state is not diminished by the death of the other parent.” {Schweigert v. Schweigert, (Ill. 2d 2002)} “Additionally, the United States Supreme Court does not limit the fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of children to decisions made by joint parents…” {Wickham v. Byrne/Langman v. Langman, IL Supreme Court}
“We, therefore, reject any argument that single parents are entitled to less constitutional liberty in decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” {Wickham v. Byrne/Langman v. Langman, IL Supreme Court} “Parents have the constitutionally protected latitude to raise their children as they decide, even if these decisions are perceived by some to be for arbitrary or wrong reasons. The presumption that parents act in their children's best interest prevents the court from second guessing parents' visitation decisions. Moreover, a fit parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest to direct the care, custody, and control of his or her children mandates that parents-not judges-should be the ones to decide with whom their children will and will not associate.”
Brooks et al v. Parkerson (Georgia)----While there are, to be sure, many instances where the grandparent-grandchild bond is beneficial to the child, we have found, and the parties cite, little evidence that this is most often the case. It has also been noted that even if such a bond exists and would benefit the child if maintained, the impact of a lawsuit to enforce maintenance of the bond over the parents' objection can only have a deleterious effect on the child. Bohl, supra at 296. Note, Columbia Law Rev. at 124. In so saying, we recognize that there are many grandparents who have a deep and significant bond with their grandchildren, and that we have an explicit policy in this state to "encourage that a minor child has continuing contact with parents and grandparents." OCGA § 19-9-3(d).
Even though Justice Hannah dissented in Linder for various reasons, his statement persuasively shows that grandparent visitation should not be the same as parental visitation. “The trial court granted the paternal grandfather the same visitation as a noncustodial parent. Unless this visitation was granted in the context of a custody proceeding, it appears to be granted in error. Even then, absent a finding of an extremely close paternal type relationship, which was absent in the facts of this case, this amount of visitation could not have been in the best interests of this child. I would reverse and remand this case for the trial court to reconsider the paternal grandfather's visitation.” (Linder v. Linder)
In the Interest of A.M.K. a Child: Colorado appellate opinions have confirmed that "natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children." In re Petition of J.D.K., 37 P.3d 541, 543 (Colo.App. 2001); see L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d 1271 (Colo. 2000). This fundamental liberty interest gives rise to a presumption that the best interests of the child will be furthered by a fit natural parent. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).
As Justice O'Connor noted in Troxel, grandparental visitation has no historic roots in the common law but rather is a legislated creature of the late twentieth century. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 96-97 (plurality opinion); see also Brooks v. Parkerson, 454 S.E.2d 769, 770 n.2 (Ga. 1995) ("At common law grandparents had no legal right of visitation with their grandchildren over the objections of the parents."); Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993).
Arkansas Supreme Court, Linder v. Linder: “The question then becomes whether unfitness solely to decide visitation matters is a compelling interest on the part of the State that warrants intrusion on a parent's fundamental parenting right and overcomes the presumption in the parent's favor. We conclude that it is not. So long as Lea Ann is fit to care for Brandon on a day-to-day basis, the Fourteenth Amendment right attaches, and the State may not interfere without a compelling interest to do so. As Justice O'Connor wrote in Troxel, the State must accord "special weight" to the mother's decision so long as she is a fit mother. See Troxel at 68-69.” In re Custody of Nunn, 103 Wash. App. 871, 14 P.3d 175 (2000). In Nunn, the appellate court considered a paternal aunt's argument that the mere fact that the natural mother of the child was rejecting contact with the paternal relatives made her unfit. The court framed the issue as follows: And so the question boils down to this: Can an otherwise fit parent be found unfit because she chooses to fight a nonparental custody petition, because she openly expresses her dislike of the side of the family that brought the custody petition, because she avoids old family friends who are supporting the other side in the custody litigation,because she doesn't trust the custody evaluators who have been brought into the litigation, and because she doesn't foster a good relationship between her child and all of those people? The answer is no. Nunn, 103 Wash. App. at 887-88, 14 P.3d at 184. The court went on to say: "It would be an anomaly to consider an otherwise fit parent unfit simply for exercising her fundamental right as a parent to limit visitation of her children with third persons-even if, as in Smith, those third persons are….family members and close friends of family." Id. at 888, 14 P.3d at 184. Linder: See Dodge v. Graville, 121 S. Ct. 2584 (2001) (memorandum decision). In Dodge, the [US Supreme] Court summarily vacated a decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, which had limited a parent's right to cut off all grandparental visitation and cited Troxel as authority for doing so. While this court can only speculate on the Court's reasons for vacating the Arizona Court of Appeal's decision in Dodge, it is apparent that, in the Court's view, cutting off some or all parental visitation, in and of itself, was not the critical point on which the Troxel decision turned. Vermont: Glidden v. Conley quoting Linder:
That a child might benefit from contact with a grandparent or that a parent might deny grandparent visitation for no good reason in the court's view are not the kind of compelling circumstances contemplated by the Constitution or this decision. Rather, to overcome a parent's decision on grandparent visitation, a grandparent must show circumstances like parental unfitness, see Linder, 72 S.W.3d at 858 (some special factor like unfitness of custodial parent must exist to justify state interference in parent's right to decide grandparent visitation issue); Stacy, 99-CA-00579-SCT, 23, 798 So.2d at 1280 (compelling circumstances suggesting something close to unfitness of custodial parent may be sufficient to justify visitation award to grandparents over parent's objection), or significant harm to the child will result in the absence of a visitation order (thus suggesting parental unfitness), see Linder, 72 S.W.3d at 858 (harm to the child in absence of visitation order may warrant overriding parent's visitation decision); Blixt, 774 N.E.2d at 1060 (to rebut presumption in custodial parent's favor, grandparent must prove that failure to grant visitation will "cause the child significant harm by adversely affecting the child's health, safety, or welfare"). This construction of the statute minimizes the risk that a court will substitute its judgment for that of the parent simply because the court disagrees with the parent's decision. Our construction of the statute also recognizes that a dispute between a fit custodial parent and the child's grandparent over grandparent visitation "is not a contest between equals." Stacy, 99-CA-00579-SCT, 23, 798 So.2d at 1280; see also Wickham, 769 N.E.2d at 7-8 (finding unconstitutional a statute that places parent on equal footing with third parties seeking visitation with the child). |
All Posts (28825)
Sort by
Fox News’, Sean Hannity, in a special report he called “Boomtown,” informed his audience that Washington, the reemergence of European aristocracy, lives on the backs of the taxpayers while the average worker struggles to exist on his take-home pay. The object of Washington is to divide us. The political parties are together on this class warfare. Don’t expect it to change, says Hannity.
Our freedoms are not automatic, we should know by now. We can’t serve two masters. Almighty God resides in Washington. Our God-given rights are internal. If we don’t personally act to protect them, they don’t last. We lose them one by one.
Our Constitution gives us a Bill of Rights, and government for this that—actually anymore, bills without rights. With every right lost, we become more subservient to the Almighty in Washington. We should know by now that government is not here to pass out rights. We have as much right to health care as a haircut--anything that requires the service of others.
In our Bill of Rights, in the Fifth Amendment, with regard to federal taxes, we have the Due Process Clause, which gives each of us the right to be heard in a meaningful way in a meaningful place. Actually, we are not heard. Legal precedence prevails. We were heard in 1946. The U. S. Court of Appeals ruled that tax was not take. Tax took me to the cleaners. Conveniently, according to our makers and keepers of the law, one suit fits all. The law of "might makes right" prevails. The IRS got away with confiscating my property. But that didn’t stop me. Finally, a federal judge decided to hear me. The IRS admitted that it had wrongly taxed me and gave back what the aristocracy in Washington confiscated--for the good of all, with a fat cut for Washington.
Then the IRS, for the good of all, proceeded to my bank, and to take every cent I had in my bank account. The judge that heard me refused to reopen the case. A piece of paper without even a signature allowed Washington's aristocracy, lawlessly, to take my rent and grocery money.
I took the piece of paper without the signature and the court record to the the news media. The IRS admitted on the front page that it had “mistakenly” taken my property. They said they meant no harm.
Take a look at the king in the above picture, and his woman with her boobs popping out, and her skirt about to fall to her knees--the President and First Lady of the United States. This joker and worman look harmless enough. Yea! Your complaints and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. The American people would vote for a brass monkey if it meant something in their pockets.
I'm no different than you. In 1986, I forced the Almighty God residing in Washington to eat crow. Now it is up to you. I'm government entitled.
Unless you people act, Almighty Washington, in union with the Muslim Brotherhood, will take you back to feudal times. The government entitled, I can tell your from personal experience, come ahead of producer rights. Your taxpayer problem is Washington’s bonanza. Washington has a duty to those dependent on Washington. As a taxpayer, do you not have a personal stake? This Chicago style con, the biggest of all times, will continue to worsen until you people are slaves. You have no choice but to act, and now.
I’ve written and self-published a book on how I dealt with the confiscation of my property, In Earth as It Is in Heaven 2012: an Explanation for the underlying Mechanism of Creation, now available at Amazon. Mysteriously, all of my dreams have come true, and the same can be true for you, if you act. And if you don't--well, I'll let you answer that.
http://blackroberegimentpastor.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-does-obama-clintons-lance.html
“What Does Obama, The Clinton's, Lance Armstrong And Manti Te'o All have in Common ?"
“What Does Obama, The Clinton's, Lance Armstrong And Manti Te'o All have in Common ?
With all the attention of the latest news about all of those mentioned in the title of this article, you probably have guessed; “lying.” While the “jury” is still out about Manti Teo's imaginary girlfriend and whether he really believed she existed, well I'm not so sure we will ever really find out. I can tell you that beyond all these folks lying, America has a problem. I kind of touched on this subject matter in previous article entitled; “Lying, When Is It Ever Allowed ? “ (http://blackroberegimentpastor.blogspot.com/2012/08/when-is-lying-ever-allowed.html). There is the root issue however of lying and how well people lie these days that has yet to be identified. Indeed, many people in America and around the world have rejected Jesus Christ and the Bible and thus has created a vacuum or sorts. That “vacuum” is of lack of morality and has led to what can only be described as an American society and as well, a world problem with pathological liars everywhere.
As what my friend Bill Windsor, who is a documentary film producer and director of Lawless America(I've mentioned Bill in a few articles now) has sadly found by his work with some self-proclaimed “victims” of abuse, corruption and other horrible crimes... not everyone tells the truth. I don't know Bill well enough to say for sure, but I feel confident at this point, and after meeting him; it would seem Bill is much like me, he is willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That attitude of openness to everyone and willingness to want to see the best in people has gotten me in trouble in the past. Bill has also seemingly suffered like I have because, well... people can and do lie and are just so convincing sometimes and we fall prey to those who appear to be sincere(yep...”looks can be deceiving). I don't think wanting to believe people's stories regarding personal or other matters on the onset is such a bad thing. I am however tired of getting “burned” by the liars.
I have seen people in my lifetime, and without a bat of the eye, a flinch in the face, or absolutely no crack or variance in their voice; tell some of the most outrageous of lies(and get away with it !). There are people with hearts so black that they have actually become expert liars. Now, I'm not talking about someone who is simply in denial or in the need for acceptance whether someone else is telling the truth, No---What I am sharing about are people who willfully, deceitful and make a conscious effort to destroy someone, or something. It can be a marriage partner, a co-worker, a friend, an associate, whomever. The bottom line is that there are actual people in this world who are lying their butt's off just so they may gain an upper hand and or destroy someone/persons or something.
Folks, it's getting mighty scary out there in relation in who we can trust and believe. As some of you have shared with me publicly as well as in private; the so called “Church” is not immune from bold-face liars as well. There are many wolves in the pulpits that if you were not knowledgeable of the Bible, you could really start believing many of their half-truths that they spew every Sunday morning. That's the thing as well... These are dangerous times, many Christians don't know their Bibles and they get caught up with these wolves quite easily(2Cor. 11:14). Sadly, it would seem in fact, that Christians who do get confronted with Biblical truth in regards too wrongly taught(usually feel good, touchy-feely, “mo' money” theologies) not only willing refuse to acknowledge error, they willingly protect the wolf who taught the willful error as well !
What can be said about “protecting” evil and enabling wicked acts by anyone in society; in or outside the Church ? I mean the Bible is full of “Do Not's” and “avoids” regarding keeping away from evil/wickedness and the like. I could also rattle off a couple dozen Bible Scriptures right here proving my point(s), but I won't. I will just state “for the record” that we as people who know better, must expose this gross sin and attitude that is so prevalent in our wold today. Obama, the Clinton's many people like them just lie and lie and the cannot and be allowed to influence us nor our families. It's like these type's have an auto pilot “lie button” switch on them somewhere. With a straight face these people lie and have no intention of stopping. The news media, whole segments of society, and others willingly enable such lies by not only not holding liars like them accountable, and what is even more sick is that these enablers know the lying occurs but actually encourage that twisted immoral act and want our children to act the same way!
What could we as a nation and a world ever do with so many liars and enabling of evil ? I mean we cannot incarcerate millions of liars can we ?. That would cost trillions of dollars and would take years and years of work to eradicate. Besides, you cannot legislate an evil heart. Haven't we learned that with our drug laws ? If people want to kill themselves, murder their minds, ruin their children's minds and ruin their own family relationships with drugs, we can make all the laws we want but that won't stop people. Should we just give in to sin and wickedness then allow “legalization” of drugs, and other harmful things like lying to become also to become “legal”? No... That would only enable sin and wickedness and God's judging hand would be even heavier upon us than it already is. The issue as all problems are; that what we suffer is a matter of the heart. Here's the issue in a nut shell...our world has many sick hearts and that needs mending. Only one person can mend a heart and His name is Jesus Christ of the Bible. Truth be known; If we focused on what the Bible said instead of self serving desires, we would already have dealt properly with these liars(probably as children)long ago and we wouldn't have this pervasive problem(s) plaguing our society and world as we now see it.
Healthy people don't need to lie, they don't need drugs or alcohol, they don't need to steal, kill, maim or murder. Healthy folks don't enable evil acts as well. In fact, healthy people know how to set healthy boundaries and say “no”(when the heck was the last time you heard that word in a healthy context ????). In our entitlement and relativistic driven societies, when was the last time you actually did hear a parent, a citizen or a government agent(like a judge or a cop) for that matter say “no” to evil and wicked behaviours? I am looking at the rems of video files sent to me with factual allegations that judges and cops(and others like them) have, and continue to partake in immoral and even illegal behavioir... all gone unchecked of course. There is little to no accountability for liars and evil doers in our world any longer including those who are supposedly people put in authority over us. In fact, for the most part, the majority of folks around us just keep voting in the same(type) of bad people who lie,cheat and steal on a regular basis, just as if there was nothing wrong with “lying, cheating or stealing.” What does that say about us ? Yes... I said “us” because many of “us” who grumble, complain but “we” do many of the same(or similar) things that those whom we complain about ! Like I said, “many are sick” but won't admit to it. The Bible calls that behaviour as being “hypocritical.”
There once a time when a man's word and a handshake on a promise was all that was needed in this world. That time however is long-gone. Many people today will shake your hand and promise you things that they never have any intention on keeping(anyone got a Filipina Migration Marriage Scammer in their life ?). We should have all along done what the Christian Bible teaches us, and that is to keep (force ourselves if necessary)ourselves and others in being accountable. Lying must be brought to a place once again where it is viewed as unacceptable behaviour and there must also be consequences for that bad behaviour. So, the days of looking the other way, or burying your head as what most supposed “Christians” do, is as it always has been; completely and Biblically speaking-unacceptable.
What is your intention in making sure that liars and those who willfully act in sinful and wicked acts like lying, especially for leaders of our government, media, and others who are influential among us are held accountable ? I hope and pray it is more than with typed or empty words or rhetoric. I also hope to see you standing or sitting at my side, whether on the streets or in the offices, but vividly in some form of action against those who need to be confronted of such pathologically and willful evil behaviours as lying.
Learn to say “No” in a healthy way and no longer tolerate lies.
Isn't that right Nenette ?
Rev. Paul P. Waldmiller~Black Robe Regiment Pastor
By Oscar Y. Harward
The radical ‘left’ in politics and the ‘mean-stream’ Medias are manipulating Americans on proposed changes in laws to outlaw our rifles, shotguns, pistols, and its’ accessories. Their ill-promoted campaigns are to deceive Americans that all hunters, sportsmen/sportswomen, and/or others will not be affected by their legislation; but only to eliminate victims of all guns.
Our Founding Fathers were well aware most men were hunters who went out to kill wildlife in providing meat to feed themselves and their families. Hunting for food with guns was no concern for creating the Second Amendment.
Read the US History http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm! The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was and is to make sure Americans were never to be denied adequate weapons to compete in a battle against a ‘mutinous government’.
Who should or would want to own a weapon with a magazine that holds 40 cartridges? Anyone who wishes to protect himself/herself, his/her family, our Constitutional freedoms, and wishes to maintain whatever is necessary for these protection(s), and/or when any of us foresee the potential(s) who may decide to overrule our Constitutional freedoms and when mutinous government official(s) have weapons with a magazine that holds 40 cartridges. This is when you and I must demand that we, too, be allowed to compete in the battle with weapons against any individual(s), group(s), government(s), etc. for the protection of our lives, our families, and our Constitutional freedoms.
Look around. Talk to your family, friends, and neighbors. Many are now in fear of a potential mutinous government right here. Many elected and appointed officials are ignorant, ignoring, and/or disobeying our Constitution, US Code, and many other laws as they choose; without even being investigated, arrested, and/or prosecuted.
Do not be misled by the ‘left’ in politics and/or by the ‘main-stream’ Medias. Become more educated by our Founding Fathers. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
We must keep and protect our Second Amendment. It was and is intended to protect Americans from a mutinous government.
KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE BALL! The Second Amendment’s intent was and is to protect Americans from a ‘mutinous government’, not just allowing sportspersons to hunt for wildlife.
A look at Agenda 21 in the United States
On June 9, 2011, an Executive Order established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, EPA, Housing, Health, Education to name just a few.
The order covers 16% of the American population who lives in rural counties because they “supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_juUVKKBw-k
Executive Order 13575 of June 9, 2011
Establishment of the White House Rural Council
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to enhance Federal engagement with rural communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:
- Section 1. Policy.
- Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
To enhance the Federal Government’s efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.
- Sec. 2. Establishment.
- There is established a White House Rural Council (Council).
- Sec. 3. Membership.
(a)
The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive branch departments, agencies, and offices:
(1)
the Department of the Treasury;
(2)
the Department of Defense;
(3)
the Department of Justice;
(4)
the Department of the Interior;
(5)
the Department of Commerce;
(6)
the Department of Labor;
(7)
the Department of Health and Human Services;
(8)
the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(9)
the Department of Transportation;
(10)
the Department of Energy;
(11)
the Department of Education;
(12)
the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(13)
the Department of Homeland Security;
(14)
the Environmental Protection Agency;
(15)
the Federal Communications Commission;
(16)
the Office of Management and Budget;
(17)
the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(18)
the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
(19)
the Council of Economic Advisers;
(20)
the Domestic Policy Council;
(21)
the National Economic Council;
(22)
the Small Business Administration;
(23)
the Council on Environmental Quality;
(24)
the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs;
(25)
the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.
(b)
A member of the Council may designate, to perform the Council functions of the member, a senior-level official who is part of the member’s department, agency, or office, and who is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government.
(c)
The Department of Agriculture shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.
(d)
The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council.
- Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council
- The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:
(a)
make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;
(b)
coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;
(c)
coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and
(d)
identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.
- Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a)
The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council. Each executive department and agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.
(b)
Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)
authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii)
functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c)
This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d)
This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Image credit: Will Lovell
A recent article in Washington Post appeared with the innocuous title, “What we need: Smarter growth plans.” The author is Roger K. Lewis, a practicing architect and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Who can possibly object to “smarter growth plans?” Except that “smart growth plans” is the euphemism used by the United Nations for its Agenda 21, a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty.
Roger K. Lewis suggests that “smart growth” was designed by market forces driven by “green building.” He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the radar of the American people’s understanding of the complex negative ramifications for our economy and our liberties.
I have not met Americans who think, “sprawl-producing planning, zoning and mortgage templates are obsolete” as the author claims. Would Americans willingly give up their land and homes with or without compensation in exchange for a move to a densely populated high-rise, with no parking garages, no access to cars, like rats fenced in a grey concrete maze?
Communist “social engineering” confiscated land and homes for agriculture. People were forced to move into many-storied, tiny cinder block apartments without any compensation for the land or homes bulldozed. They were forced to commute by bicycles or public transit.
Lewis deems subdivision developments with low-density, detached, single-family homes as outdated. He calls the areas educationally dysfunctional and unsafe. American suburbia was built, he says, on four assumptions that have lost validity today:
- Unlimited supply of land
- Inexpensive and inexhaustible supply of oil
- Homogenous land use
- The American dream to own and inhabit a mortgaged house.
I am not sure on what research Lewis based his conclusions, but we have huge domestic oil reserves if permits were issued to drill. We also have a vast land mass. Some areas have 70 or less inhabitants per square mile. Americans still want to own their own home and want to live in a homogeneous community of other homeowners. Just because power hungry bureaucrats at the United Nations have decided to “preserve” land and the environment for the future of the planet and its animals, neglecting the future of humans, does not mean Americans agree to this vision.
“Much of America’s land cannot and should not be developed.” Who are you to decide for us, Mr. Lewis and why? Last time I checked we were free people who determined their own life choices.
“Dependency on oil and limitless use of cars pose daunting environmental, economic, and geopolitical problems.” Who is going to decide the limit to our car use? Is it going to be done by law, more regulations, or executive order?
A handful of environmentalists, the EPA, and the United Nation’s dictators, using faulty debunked data from the University of East Anglia or phony research are trying to separate Americans from their land use, cars, trucks, and the open-wide roads.
Lewis continues his Agenda 21 fallacy. “The traditional nuclear family—mom, dad, two to three kids and one or two pets—is now a minority of America’s households.” I am positive that this man is not describing America that I know and see every day. His statements continue, “Today a majority of households are people, young or old, living alone; couples or sets of unrelated individuals of various ethnicities, ages and tastes.”
Agenda 21 and Mr. Lewis suggest building high-rises in “designated areas within municipalities where new development and re-development is feasible and desirable.”Affordable housing is a priority and so are environmental standards.
It is obvious that “smart growth plans” or Agenda 21 designed by United Nations will affect our future choices in how we live and where. EPA will be involved and will twist the arms of those who do not adopt “smart growth plans,” denying grants to states and cities and levying other penalties. By the time Americans realize the implications of Agenda 21“smart growth,” they will lose their homes and lands with no compensation. At least people who lost property under Eminent Domain have been compensated.
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist.
“Sustainable development” is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is “sustainable de-growth,” plain and simple. The focus is “low-income agriculture” and to set limits on the developed world.
United Nations and its affiliates believe that first world countries polluted significantly during their development while urging third world countries to reduce pollution thus impeding their growth. Implementation of“sustainable development” would revert our society to a pre-modern lifestyle.
ICLEI wants to keep the environment as pristine as possible through “ideal-seeking behavior.” These euphemisms are not clearly defined in terms of what or who will evaluate or set the standards for this “ideal-seeking behavior.”
Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure to manage, count, and control assets. It is not concerned with protecting the environment or the world’s resources. Agenda 21 wants change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new approaches. The “desired future state” should be to pursue “economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity.”
“Social equity” is the new euphemism for “social justice” the Marxists in our government have been using a lot lately. Who gave them the authority and the mandate to initiate such change? I do not remember the American people being asked through a referendum whether we wanted our way of life to be fundamentally changed according to mandates set up by the United Nations. How will population growth control be achieved in order to protect the precious environment?
Image credit: Johann Dreo
There are four tiers to UN’s “sustainable development” plan:
- Environmental sustainability
- Economic sustainability
- Socio-political sustainability
- Cultural diversity.
In 2001 UNESCO, in The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, stated that cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity in the sense of a more satisfactory, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence. Who is to decide the level and quality of the population’s satisfaction, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence? Human needs must be met while preserving the environment for the future. Again, who will decide what our needs are in order to preserve the future?
In February 2011 in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI attended a United Nations conference as representative of the interests of local governments. “In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Protection) is working to make cities more livable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations.” Last time I checked, global warming has been debunked as a hoax and UN rapidly changed its name to climate change, continuing the attempt to fleece developed countries. In addition, who decides these international climate negotiations and why? What are we negotiating? Carbon credits?
In October 2009 in Bangkok, ICLEI stated, “local governments are offering national governments our partnership in the fight against climate change.” ICLEI wants local governments to collaborate with national governments to fight against climate change, the very change that has been scientifically debunked.
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states clearly, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation, …No State shall,… enter into an Agreement or Compact with another State or with a foreign power…” The counties and cities that are members of ICLEI in the U.S. through its national organization are attempting to implement foreign policy, which our Constitution forbids. What mayors and municipal governments are doing is plain unconstitutional.
“Mayors and local governments set forth the following commitments to implement sub-national, national, and international frameworks by providing resources, authority, and mandate to carry forward climate protection roles and responsibilities.”
There is no law or act of Congress to authorize the aiding and abetting of foreign policy globalism by state and local governments. We have to protect our sovereignty by banning cities and counties to be members of ICLEI, an organization that promotes United Nation’s Agenda 21/“smart growth” which is detrimental to American economic interests, liberty, and sovereignty.
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or Law impairing the obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” -Article 1, Section 10, The United States Constitution. That Section of the Constitution prevents membership of states, cities and counties in an organization called International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)…
But I’ll bet many of you reading this live in a city, town, or county that belongs to ICLEI because ICLEI has more than 600 active members throughout the United States. Those members are cities, counties, and states, not individuals. Westchester County is a member of ICLEI. Think we have a problem? To see if your city, town or county is affiliated with ICLEI go here: http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/members/member-list
Gun Dealers Have Problems With Credit Card Processors
Story posted 2013.01.24 at 10:00 PM CST
by Chris Cannon
LEIPER'S FORK, Tenn. - A Williamson County gun dealer recently learned a credit card processing company no longer wants to do business with him.
"We go through all the hoops and all the steps and at the end of the day it's still a struggle to get the same services anybody else would," said Nick McMillan.
He owns Leiper's Fork Firearms. It is a small gun dealership McMillan runs out of his home.
"We're set up like a business, just like every other small business out there," he said.
McMillan is a has a federal firearms license and is heavily regulated by both the state and federal governments.
But McMillan received an email from Intuit Payment solutions informing him the company was no longer interested in processing his credit card sales.
"They either reviewed several accounts, or it was a company wide policy, because I wasn't the only federal firearms license dealer that got pushed out the other day," McMillan said.
In the email the company wrote "Intuit does not support the services you are providing" and then the reason stated was firearms, ammunition, gun parts and accessories sales not sold in a face-to-face environment with the credit card being swiped.
McMillan does not know the exact reason behind the policy change, but speculated the nationwide gun debate may be behind the move.
"I think companies like this are so afraid of any negative publicity they'd rather not participate," McMillan said.
The small business owner said the move by Intuit will not stop him from selling guns.
"Intuit Processing isn't my only option, I am set up with another company that's a lot more friendly to the industry," said McMillan.
He does feel as if the company is discriminating against federally licensed gun dealers.
"It's up to them who they provide the service to, at the end of the day, which is fine. But, it does seem like we get discriminated against a little bit," McMillan said.
NewsChannel 5 tried contacted Intuit to get a comment about the company's email to McMillan. No one from Intuit returned messages.
email: ccannon@newschannel5.com
Contact Intuit Payment Systems on their Twitter account to Protest ! @GoPayment
The 2nd. Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all of our other freedoms and liberties are protected and reinforced. Without it, the rest are just hollow words with no way of enforcing them except trough legal action which is and will always be violated by those that do not prescribe to the law.
There are only 2 methods to get anyone to take action, reason and force and if you cannot force me to act then you must reason me with your argument. The progressive socialists have been manipulating a segment of the population in this Nation for well over 100 years through their arguments that create an emotional response that forces a controlled reaction that obscures intellectual action. They use the heated moment of emotional response to get their myopic misanthropes to jump and then propagate the discord with a continual barrage of Pavlovian response words that they have ingrained into the modern populace through the media and educational systems they control.
They also understand that they have a very narrow window to motivate this group because after about 3 weeks even the average double digit modern American who redefines the term low information citizen, starts to lose the emotional motivation and moves back towards complacency, more concerned with their daily doldrums and escaping their pitiful existence than staying engaged in their masters rage.
So once you remove the rhetoric that is always flamed by emotion, the progressive socialists hatred of the 2nd. Amendment becomes what is in the first paragraph, the teeth that bite back when you infringe on all of the Bill of Rights.
How can you have freedom of speech, religion or gathering or to redress grievances with government if they do not respect those rights as is evidenced by the attacks of the progressive socialists against all of those freedoms for far too many decades? (yes I know I left out freedom of the press they no longer deserve that freedom because they are complicit in their guilt to deny us ours) How can you keep your property rights and to be free from illegal search and seizure if there is no fear of a force reprisal? How can there be enumerated powers liming the power of government both state and federal and placing that power with their bosses WE THE PEOPLE if they do not fear the reciprocity of that decision or action?
The left wants us unarmed because Conservative America does not respond to their dogma, does not accept their agenda for America, does not jump to their emotional argument. Conservative’s function through fact based logic and reasoning based on that. We read, we watch, we learn, we observe, we gather information from multiple sources and then create our own conclusions based on empirical methodology that leads us to a definitive fact based summation. We do not accept the emotional argument without facts, we do not accept because talking heads say so, we do not blindly agree because media personalities decry, we do not aimlessly accept because entertainers tell us to.
We are very much of the Midwest mindset so eloquently associated with the residents of Missouri SHOW ME!
So if the progressive socialist ruling class in the District of Corruption can’t reason with us which they know they cannot because our core DNA is kryptonite to their rhetoric; then they must force us. And they fear the truth of that action will present the one picture that will perfectly and permanently identify who and what they are and what they really are trying to accomplish with their agenda. The total subjugation of the United States and the end of all ENUMERATED POWERS in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
Now I know that 90% of those that will read this understand the implications and I am proud to say that more than 100 million Americans are now armed. But remember our freedoms and liberties that have already been lost have been removed more by slow erosion than outright ban. The DC socialist progressives know that the last time this was done the Dems paid dearly and lost the house and senate in 1994 midterm elections forcing Clinton to have to paly nice with others and find other activities to occupy his time in office.
We have to constantly remind all elected officials at all level’s of government that not only do elections have consequences but so does defense of our rights and their fidelity to defending those rights as defined by our Founding documents.
I do not hold much faith in the 2 party political system that we now suffer at the hands of as many of you know. Their track record is undeniable and it is anything but pro-liberty or pro-freedom and I will continue to espouse my mantra that IT IS TIME TO END THE TWO PARTY POLITICAL REIGN OF TERROR IN AMERICA!
Again back to the original idea of this writing is the only way you can force action is by reason or force and for 158 years we have reasoned with the 2 party ruling class elites that we have elected; WELL AMERICA HOW’S THAT WORKING FOR YOU?
One of my life long hero’s said that “ insanity is doing the same thing the same way each and every time and expecting different results” Albert Einstein
And you don’t have to be a Quantum Physicist or Rocket Scientist to figure that one out!
ps. (it doesn’t hurt either)
In Freedom,
Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.
Vice Chmn./Pres. Conservative Party-FL.
10. "No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." –making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009 (Obama later called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize)
9. "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances." -–after saying he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepared to take office, Washington, D.C., Nov. 7, 2008 (Obama later called Nancy Reagan to apologize)
8. "The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." –in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009
7. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..." –in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying "your Christian faith," which Obama quickly clarified, Sept. 7, 2008
6. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009
5. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008
4. "The Cambridge police acted stupidly." —commenting on a white police officer's arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge, Mass., at a news conference, July 22, 2009. Obama later had to convene a "Beer Summit" at the White House to help tamp down the controversy stirred by his remark
3. "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." –speaking at a San Francisco fundraiser about his troubles winning over some small-town, working-class voters, April 11, 2008
2. "One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard." –mispronouncing "Corpsman" (the "ps" is silent) during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2010 (The Corpsman's name is also Christopher, not Christian)
1. "I've now been in 57 states — I think one left to go." —at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon, May 9, 2008
WASHINGTON — During a lengthy and at times emotionally wrenching news conference, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California on Thursday announced legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammuniti
The bill, which Ms. Feinstein introduced in the Senate later in the afternoon, would exempt firearms used for hunting and would grandfather in certain guns and magazines. The goal of the bill, she said, is “to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”
Surrounded by victims of gun violence, colleagues in the Senate and House and several law enforcement officials, and standing near pegboards with several large guns attached, Ms. Feinstein acknowledged the difficulty in pursuing such legislation, even when harnessing the shock and grief over the shooting of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., last month. “This is really an uphill road,” Ms. Feinstein said.
Since the expiration of a ban on assault weapons in 2004, lawmakers have been deeply reluctant to revisit the issue. They cite both a lack of evidence that the ban was effective and a fear of the gun lobby, which has made significant inroads at the state and federal levels over the past decade in increasing gun rights.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, recently said that he was skeptical about the bill. Ms. Feinstein immediately called him to express her displeasure with his remarks.
Many lawmakers, including some Democrats, prefer more modest measures to curb gun violence, like enhanced background checks of gun buyers or better enforcement of existing laws.
One such measure has been introduced by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will begin hearings next week on gun violence. Among the witnesses will be Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association.
“Senator Feinstein has been trying to ban guns from law-abiding citizens for decades,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for Mr. LaPierre. “It’s disappointing but not surprising that she is once again focused on curtailing the Constitution instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing our broken mental health system.”
More legislation is expected to arise over the next week or two, and some of it will have bipartisan support. Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, have agreed to work together on gun trafficking legislation that would seek to crack down on illegal guns. Currently, federal law does not define gun trafficking as a crime.
Mr. Kirk is also working on a background check proposal with Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, who is considered somewhat of a bellwether among Democrats with strong gun-rights records.
Mr. Leahy’s bill would give law enforcement officials more tools to investigate so-called straw purchasing of guns, in which people buy a firearm for others who are prohibited from obtaining one on their own.
Ms. Feinstein was joined on Thursday by several other lawmakers, including Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York, who will introduce companion legislation in the House, and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who emotionally recalled the day when the children and adults were gunned down in Newtown. “I will never forget the sight and the sounds of parents that day,” he said. Several gun violence victims, relatives of those killed and others gave brief statements of support for the bill.
Ms. Feinstein’s bill — which, unlike the 1994 assault weapons ban, would not expire after being enacted — would also ban certain characteristics of guns that make them more lethal. More than 900 models of guns would be exempt for hunting and sporting.
Such a measure is vehemently opposed by the N.R.A. and many Republican lawmakers, as well as some Democrats. “I don’t think you should have restrictions on clips,” said Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has said he welcomes a Senate debate on guns. “The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you can go hunting, it was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here.”
Proponents of the ban argue that in spite of claims to the contrary, the 1994 measure, of which Ms. Feinstein was a chief sponsor, helped curb gun violence. “The original bill, though flawed, had a definite impact on the number of these weapons faced by the police on streets and used in crimes,” said Adam Eisgrau, who helped write the 1994 ban while serving as Judiciary Committee counsel to Ms. Feinstein. The new bill, with more explicit language on the types of features on banned weapons, “is far more respectful of firearms for recreation uses,” he said.
Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were among the proposals unveiled by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week. Mr. Biden took the campaign for tougher gun laws to the Internet on Thursday in an online video chat that was part of an effort by the White House to build public support for its guns package. Mr. Biden, who developed the plans embraced by Mr. Obama, will host a round-table event in Richmond, Va., on Friday, and officials have said that Mr. Obama will travel at some point to promote the package.
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United State.
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America 's ability to put a man in space.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company n which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
First President to hide his medical, educational, and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Qur'an tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.
January 24, 2013 - 7:19 am
Politico reports on a new Obama-led, top-down effort to build a “grassroots” effort to turn red Texas blue. The effort will be built around some of the usual suspects, including shadow party honcho Matt Angle, and some new ones astroturfed by Obama’s personal political force, Organizing for Action.
Republicans in the state should and will take the new effort seriously, for three reasons: It will be well-financed, and some of its top officers will have learned quite a bit from losing so many races, so consistently, for so long. No Democrat has won a statewide race here since 1990. The third reason is the most significant: As Texas grows, more blue-state refugees move here and the state’s demographics are changing rapidly. So far those demographics have not changed the state’s voting patterns. It’s redder today than it was 10 years ago, with more Republicans elected to local and higher offices overall than ever before. The Democrats failed to mount a serious challenge for the open Senate seat last year, a sign that if anything that party’s atrophy has not been remedied.
Democrats involved in the turn-Texas-blue effort have, at last, begun to admit that their racist strategies have not paid off for them.
Democratic Houston Mayor Annise Parker said her party couldn’t afford to wait passively for population change to turn Texas blue. Instead, they should dig in for a longer, harder campaign to make it a swing state.
“We have been waiting in Texas for a very long time for the Latino vote to come into its own and turn the tide. But many of us have decided that we can’t wait for that. We have to do the old-fashioned work of going out and talking to Texans,” said Parker, who didn’t rule out a statewide campaign “when I am done [being] mayor.”
This has been the Democrats’ problem for a generation. They refuse to admit that the state’s conservative, small-government policies have helped Texas become the economic powerhouse that it is. They refuse to acknowledge that they lose because their values are wildly out of step with the majority of the state. They refuse to acknowledge that their policies would be as bad for Texas as they have been for California. They run on race and gender, not issues, and when they lose, they blame the majority of Texas who vote against them, not themselves.
And they refuse to learn. Take their approach to last year’s open Senate seat.
The party fielded a strong candidate for governor in 2010, former Houston Mayor Bill White, only to see him lose by 13 points to incumbent Gov. Rick Perry. Two years later, Democrats recruited retired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez into the open-seat Senate race, presenting him as a candidate who could appeal to conservative voters and energize Latinos. Sanchez withdrew several months later after raising a paltry sum for the race.
Sanchez flopped, and Texas Republicans nominated Ted Cruz, who went on to win and is already a massive star after just a few weeks in Washington. Sanchez would never have resonated with the state’s majority. It has nothing to do with his skin color or name (obviously, as Cruz won the seat) but because of his role in the Abu Ghraib scandal and because Democrats wanted to run him solely based on his skin color and his Hispanic name.
Some Democrats admit that race and gender are what they have tended to focus on, not qualifications or issues.
“We do need to have a good team, and we do need to have a good ticket. We’ve had too many go-it-alone candidacies that just weren’t able to do it on their own,” [Democrat consultant Ed Espinoza] said. “Coordination should focus on things like who can raise money, who can build structure and who can build votes. Too often we say, ‘Well, this person’s brown, so they can win brown votes, and this person’s a woman, so she can win women’s votes.’”
To any reasonable person not imbibing the leftist Kool-Aid–
Obama Administration Silent After Egyptian Constitution Restores Slavery
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, December 1, 2012, 10:43 AM
It’s no secret that Egyptian slavery is as old as the pyramids.
It’s also common knowledge that Barack Obama’s ancestors owned slaves.
Slaves in Africa – in the early 20th century.
So it’s really no surprise that he helped usher in a radical Egpytian regime that is restoring slavery.
According to the AP Egypt’s new constitution has dropped its ban on slavery:
Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.
The Obama administration declined to criticize Egypt’s constitution despite its slavery clause.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN THE WHITE HOUSE (NAMES & BIO’S DISCLOSED)
This Is The Fifth Different Article We’ve Brought To Your Attention On Obama’s Close Ties With His Muslim Brothers In The Muslim Brotherhood – More And More Are Opening Their Eyes To The Facts – When Will You Wake Up America?
Bob Beauprez 01-17-13
A recently published report by Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine identifies six American Islamist activists that are connected to the Obama Administration as Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.
The Dec. 22 story suggests that the influence of these six MB operatives is “tantamount to a turning point for the Obama administration from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world as well.”
The article was translated in full (read here) and separately summarized by John Rossomando of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (here). Founded in 1995, IPT is considered by many to be among the world’s most comprehensive data centers on radical Islamic terrorist groups.
The following is from Rossomando’s text:
The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.
Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization, which the magazine identifies as a Brotherhood “subsidiary.” It suggests that Alikhan was responsible for the “file of Islamic states” in the White House and that he provides the direct link between the Obama administration and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011.
Elibiary, who has endorsed the ideas of radical Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, may have leaked secret materials contained in Department of Homeland Security databases, according to the magazine. He, however, denies having any connection with the Brotherhood.
Elibiary also played a role in defining the Obama administration’s counterterrorism strategy, and the magazine asserts that Elibiary wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power but offers no source or evidence for the claim.
According to Rose El-Youssef, Rashad Hussain maintained close ties with people and groups that it says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America. This includes his participation in the June 2002 annual conference of the American Muslim Council, formerly headed by convicted terrorist financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.
He also participated in the organizing committee of the Critical Islamic Reflection along with important figures of the American Muslim Brotherhood such as Jamal Barzinji,Hisham al-Talib and Yaqub Mirza.
Regarding al-Marayati, who has been among the most influential Muslim American leaders in recent years, the magazine draws connections between MPAC in the international Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure.
Magid heads ISNA, which was founded by Brotherhood members, was appointed by Obama in 2011 as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security. The magazine says that has also given speeches and conferences on American Middle East policy at the State Department and offered advice to the FBI.
Rose El-Youssef says Patel maintains a close relationship with Hani Ramadan, the grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and is a member of the Muslim Students Association, which it identifies as “a large Brotherhood organization.”
While the Rose El-Youssef article is largely unsourced, “ex-FBI agents who have investigated the Brotherhood’s influence operations inside the U.S. confirm some of those named in the story have come under scrutiny,” according to a separate published report by Investor’s Business Daily thatspecifically identified Alikhan, Elibiary, Hussain, and Magid.
“The level of penetration (by the MB) in the last three administrations is deep,” former FBI special agent John Guandolo is quoted as saying by IBD. “For this president it even goes back to his campaign with Muslim Brotherhood folks working with him then.”
Guandolo says the MB has placed operatives and sympathizers inside the U.S. military, as well. The government has ID’d hundreds of Brotherhood and Hamas fronts inside the U.S. but has shut down only a few due to political pressures, according to Guandolo in the IBD report.
“The Muslim Brotherhood controls about 500 organizations that are overt NGOs (Non-Government Organizations),” Guandolo said. “That means they’re running thousands of covert organizations we don’t know about and nobody’s monitoring.”
Communications Confirm White House Sympathy with Brotherhood
In a follow-up piece published January 8, Rossomando exposes a chain of communications documenting that, “The Obama Administration repeatedly ignored and downplayed advance warnings that the Muslim Brotherhood would resort to violent and undemocratic tactics if it came to power” following the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in February, 2011. Below are but a sample of the many examples given by IPT and Rossomando of MB sympathetic communications uncovered:
For example, a Sept. 20, 2011 State Department cable obtained by the IPT reports on a Muslim Brotherhood representative telling the U.S. embassy in Cairo that the “MB (Muslim Brotherhood) was not the extremist organization the West feared.”
Such assurances have been reflected in comments from Obama administration officials, including the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence.
In an April 15, 2010 cable, U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson reported that Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie had “reaffirmed the MB was a non-violent” movement.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper similarly described the Muslim Brotherhood in February 2011 as “largely secular” and said that it “eschewed violence.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton listed the Brotherhood’s alleged commitment to nonviolence as among the reasons the State Department planned to expand its contacts with the group in a June 30, 2011 statement.
Rossomando’s source for much of the documentation is Michael Meunier, a Christian leader of the Egyptian opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the regime of President/Dictator Mohammed Morsi.
Last month Meunier publicly criticized ”the Obama administration’s role in helping the Muslim Brotherhood ascent to power in Egypt.” Meunier said for some time, he and many other Christian leaders had been “publically and privately warning members of Congress and the administration of the danger the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) poses and about their desire to turn Egypt into a theocratic Islamic fascist country. Yet we were ignored.”
Meunier traces the development of the cozy relationship between high ranking Democrats and the Muslim Brotherhood beginning even prior to the Obama Administration. In April 2007, while the Bush Administration refused to dignify the Brotherhood with a meeting, Steny Hoyer – then the Democrat Majority Leader of the House of Representatives – met in Egypt with Saad el-Katatni, the MB’s parliamentary leader.
Once the Obama Administration was in place, the romance developed further. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Senator John Kerry, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and newly nominated to be Secretary of State, met with MB officials.
After Obama’s new Ambassador Anne Patterson arrived in Cairo in July, 2011 as the new Egyptian government was being formed, “a stream of meetings, as well as public and private contacts followed,” according to Meunier.
The Administration’s bias was immediately apparent. Ambassador Patterson “seemed to favor the Brotherhood and the hard line Salafis at the expense of the secular players in Egypt,” Meunier says diplomatically. “In fact, she has turned down requests for meetings from heads of political parties and other secular politicians, myself included, who oppose the Brotherhood.”
“The MB used these high-level meetings to tell the Egyptian people that the U.S. is supporting them and does not object to their rule,” Meunier said. “Many of us reached out to U.S. officials at the State Department and complained that the U.S. policy regarding the MB was putting the secular forces in Egypt at a disadvantage because it seemed to be propping (up) the MB, but our concerns were dismissed.”
Rather than heed the advice and warnings of Christian leaders like Meunier that were seriously committed to fostering an infant secular democracy in Egypt following the 2011 revolution, the Obama Administration willingly acceded to the false assurances of the Brotherhood – an organization whose motto is ”Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Meunier and his fellow Christian opposition leaders were not alone in warning about the Brotherhood. On February 10, 2011 as the Egyptian revolution raged, FBI director Robert Mueller testified before the House Intelligence Committee that“obviously, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here (in the U.S.) and overseas have supported terrorism.” Hamas is the most infamous offspring of the Brotherhood.
At the same hearing, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, made the prescient observation; “I’m concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood is using peaceful protests in Egypt for a power grab, and our government doesn’t seem to grasp their threat.”
But, the warnings of Meunier, Mueller, Myrick and countless others didn’t mesh with the political agenda already in place among the key players within the Obama Administration.
As a result Egypt, the largest nation in the Middle East with over 80 million people, is being transformed “into a theocratic Islamic fascist country,” exactly as Meunier had warned.
On a larger scale, with the U.S.-Brotherhood relationship in Egypt as the obvious example, Islamists in Iran, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Afghanistan – and, yes, even in the United States – can only be encouraged by the thought of a second term for Barack Obama.
Bob Beauprez is a former Member of Congress and is currently the editor-in-chief of A Line of Sight, an online policy resource. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr. Beauprez was a dairy farmer and community banker. He and his wife Claudia reside in Lafayette, Colorado. You may contact him at: http://bobbeauprez.com/contact/
Effort to abolish local sheriffs a stealth federal power grab?
Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security is supplying its federal law enforcement division with 500 million rounds of hollow point bullets.
Credits:
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.
The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.
When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.
And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.
In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.
And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.
Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan, including the infamous 'Agenda 21' that has raised the alarm among some citizens.
The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?
Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration. Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law. The EPA's recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.
And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.
The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.
When is this socialistic pig going to go away? When will the people of this nation wake up and see what his true goals are? He will not be happy till he completely destoys this country.
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN USURPING THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS TO COMENCE WAR UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE I
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.
I.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:
Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.
3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.
4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”
5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”
6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”
7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.
II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE
9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.
12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.
13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.
14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:
[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority
…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.
16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:
In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.
17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.
18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.
20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed:
This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.
21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”
22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He amplified: “I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”
23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating:
Formal war is not necessary—it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace.
But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve.
24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed:
We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.
Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.
25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power “To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power “To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden attacks.”
26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.
27. Mr. George Mason was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id.
28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id.
29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare—in place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.
30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.
32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”
34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.
35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not — under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.
The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.
36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court:
There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.
38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:
The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:
Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.
40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:
There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).
42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)
43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: “The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.”
44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution:
It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.
They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.
That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.
I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.
I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.
If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.
45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”
46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
III.
USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA
47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.
48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?
Secretary Gates: Probably so.
Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?
Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?
Secretary Gates: Presumably.
49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.
50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.
51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.
52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.
53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.”
54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”
55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added).
56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.
57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.
59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.
60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.
61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.
In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
I AM A RETIRED NURSE , I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE 90% OF THESE DRUGS THAT ARE GIVEN TO THESE YOUNG KIDS HAVE VERY BAD SIDE EFFECTS. THEY EFFECT THE OLDER PEOPLE BADLY TOO BUT IN DEFERENT WAYS THAT YOU THE PUBLIC SELDOM HEAR ABOUT. THESE KIDS NEED PERENTS , SUNSHINE, BASEBALL GAMES STARTEING IN FIRST GRADE THRU 12 TH GRADE , THEY NEED AFTER SCHOOL WORK THEY DO NOT NEED VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES 6 TO 14 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK IN A HOUSE WHERE THE ADULTS SCREAM AT THEM ,TELL THEM HOW STUPID AND SORRY THEY ARE. THE GUNS ARE NOT TOO BLAME FOR THIS INSANITY . TOO MANY DRUGS , TOO FEW GOOD LOVEING PERENTS , TOO FEW REPUTIBLE DOCTORS WHO WILL TELL THE BAD PARENTS THE TRUTH " NO YOUR CHILD DOESN'T NEED MEDS. THEY NEED LOVE AND GUIDANCE." " THEY NEED DISCIPLIN ,LOVE AND RESPECT ," IF THEY ARE TOUGHT THESE THINGS THEY WILL LIVE THESE THINGS. THEY WILL QUIT KILLING OTHERS AND THEIR SELF. GOD BLESS ALL THE KIDS AND HELP THE PARENTS TO UNDERSTAND THEY CAN DO BETTER WITH GODS HELP.
Hallowed be thy name! Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done!
The Tea Party points to the flaws in our government, and there are many. I'd like to point out something Tea Party has missed—and the very reason Obama was reelected. President Obama, in his inauguration speech, made it clear that his intention is to act according to the collective will of the people who voted for him. He will attempt to crush the Republican Party for good and leave himself the ruler. Obama, the man of peace--no more wars and no more individual rights. Nice work if you can get it.
I’d like mention the Founding Fathers. They gave the individual the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to protect individual rights, as distinguished from government entitlements. But those rights I mention are utterly worthless unless the individual acts—himself or herself—to stop Obama and those who voted for him, those who hold government entitlement higher in value than personal responsibility and self-reliance. (Our children are learning fom them to have none of either.)
Obama has the power of government entitlements to buy votes. Naturally, the cost of government entitlements, as far as Obama is concerned, is not on the table to be discussed. What happens after he bankrupts the nation? History tells us. We all depend on Obama and progressive liberals. If you never ate steak, you wouldn’t mind eating bugs.
Case in point: The individual has the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which gives him or her the authority to be heard in a meaningful way in a meaningful place. The IRS cheated me out of $900 of my property. I went to a lawyer. The lawyer told me to forget it. The legal cost of taking the IRS to court would be many times the amount I was cheated and the courts refuse to compensate the legal cost we, the hard working Americans, incur. So the lawyer was right, of course, if you hire a lawyer—but wrong if you plead your own case.
Under the Fifth Amendment, If you have a personal stake in the outcome, this gives you the right to be heard. Your right to the fruits of your labor, under the law of all times, supersedes government entitlements. But who is audacious enough to take the IRS to court on his own. People who knew me thought I’d lost my mind. Since the people have not demanded the right to exist on their own labor, the courts hold that government entitlements come first; your right to exist on your own work second.
That filthy rich, heartless candidate Romney apologized for bringing up the fact that the half of the nation that depends on government would vote against him. Some say that is why he lost the election. It dumbfounds me how the American people are thinking.
In my book, In Earth as It Is in Heaven 2012: an Explanation for the underlying Mechanics of Creation, I give the individual, not only the Constitution, but the Bible as sources of personal power. According to the majority opinion, I did a heartless, terrible thing. I challenged in court those who depend on government. I was judged by government and the people to be a serious danger to compassionate, God-loving people. I tried to get out of paying my “fair share” of the tax burden. I federal judge called me into his chambers and gave me a tongue lashing. I can’t help it. I’ve always been a non-conformist.
Jesus said in the Lord’s Prayer, “in earth as it is in heaven,” followed by, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6). When the authorities demanded that Jesus tell them when his god would appear, said Jesus, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say Lo here! or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17). The authorities want me to know that God speaks to them. They pray to the Almighty in heaven. The kingdom of God is not in heaven. The kingdom of God is internal, if you believe in Jesus as your savior and redeemer. If you believe God is in heaven, God is whatever the authorities tell you God is.
Says authority: What difference does it make what you think? What do you and I know? We are nothing. The collective will of the people is all that counts. Clinton and company are letting the future take care of itself. It does not matter what they do, and Republican politicians are largely noble weaklings.
You can be right, folks. It makes no difference what you say. Your words are wasted. So don’t look to Washington. Washington is the fox watching over the henhouse. We Americans are in serious trouble. For the sake of those to come, we must act now. I can tell you that the authorities are phonies! I can tell you from personal experience with them, the authorities could not fight their way out of a paper bag, and the rest of the world knows it!
In my book you will learn that by acting on my constitutional and God-given rights, I forced the Federal Government to eat crow on the front page. I’ve been rewarded many times. After the fact, from the Bible I learned that Jesus was there the whole time, and I don’t accept religions’ doctrines and dogmas.
The universe is nothing like you’ve been taught. If you want to know how something works you take it apart. Quantum physicists now find that what was thought to be an objective world is in fact contingent upon the observer. Since authority would just as soon you didn’t know this, authority diverts your attention to such as guns. Everyone’s worked up over guns.
The observer interacts with matter. Consciousness, the substance of this newfound reality, has fundamental existence. It is the quantum mind that is the basic reality. The mind, or the soul, take your choice, represents quality, as distinguished from quantity. In the Bible, you are from dust to dust, quantitatively, but with an immortal soul (Genesis 2). Your quality has no time limit, no space limit. With quantum theory, science has discovered proof that we exist as something more than matter, and that objective reality is not the true fabric of reality. Those scientists that push this “nonsense” are trying to smuggle God into physics. What a laugh! It is not nonsense. It makes good sense. I don’t have anything to lose. The authorities have a lot to lose. That’s why the status quo remains.
Obviously, we evolved from the ape family, but not in our qualitative part. In Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image,” this is in reference to our qualitative part—our conscious awareness.
Jesus said there would be signs in the sun, moon, and stars (Luke 21), and with reference to distress among the nations. When this occurs, Jesus said the kingdom of God would be there. We are moving away from the Age of Pisces, whose symbol is two attached fish swimming in opposite directions. It’s a perfect fit. We are moving into the Age of Aquarius, whose symbol is the water-bearer. We can wonder why the authorities are telling us to look to them for our answers. The kingdom of God is in you and I, authorities meant to be our servants.
We are here to do God’s will. In the Age of Aquarius we become our brother’s keeper. Only a fool would rule out all others like us in the universe. But we have the majority who don’t want to be confused by the facts, who will be sitting at the switch when the train rolls by. All aboard! It’s time to move on.
RUBIO MUST DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM HIGH OFFICE.
By J.B. Williams
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams234.htm
January 20, 2013
If so-called “constitutionalists” were better acquainted with the Constitution (Charters of Freedom), they
would not be supporting Marco Rubio for an office he is not eligible to hold and they would have already removed Barack Hussein Obama from the office he currently holds fraudulently. Marco Rubio is in the unique position to solve our nation’s greatest problem, to remove a foreign agent currently assaulting America from within the Oval Office and set the nation back on a constitutional course towards freedom and liberty. Rubio has an opportunity to be a true American hero. Will he be?
Because Rubio was dragged into the political spotlight by Tea Party folks in desperate search of new conservative leadership, and because he shares in common with Obama, constitutional ineligibility for the
offices of president and vice president under Article II requirements, he is uniquely positioned to bring down the most anti-American regime to ever hold political power in the United States.
Unlike “birthers” who are trying to disqualify Obama on the basis of his unconfirmed place of birth (native born
status), which is still in question due to Obama’s fraudulent efforts to hide his real past and true identity, using nondisclosure and forged documents to remain a total mystery, -- true “constitutionalists” who have studied the matter completely and allowed the facts to emerge without partisan purpose, know the whole truth.
1) The foundations for America are stated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Pay particular attention to the parts highlighted.
IN
CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Contrary to contemporary teachings by revisionists, the legal precepts for everything our Founders created is NOT "British common law" which we separated from via the Declaration and the American Revolution. It is "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as stated in the preamble to our nation’s founding document, The Declaration. Just as freedom and liberty are “natural rights” inalienable by men, so is the right of Natural Born Citizenship.
2) Revisionists claim that Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution. However, the US Constitution does not have a definitions section; therefore, it provides no definition for any of the words or terms used in that document. Of course, as the Charters of Freedom were written in plain simple English so that any citizen could read and comprehend their rights and the limited functions of the government bodies they were to form, no definitions were needed. Everyone alive at the time knew the true meaning of every word and every term, including Natural Born Citizen. But 236 years later, dumbed down by revisionist propaganda, Americans may have to do a little homework to rediscover basic truths.
3) During that period in history, the framing of the Charters of Freedom, our Founders left a perfect record of their concerns and intents in the Federalist Papers. Anyone not able to comprehend the simple English carefully crafted in the Charters of Freedom can study the thoughts behind those words in the Federalist
Papers. If you do not know the Federalists Papers, you do not know the Constitution.
4) There is no guess-work or ambiguity… We know from reading the correspondences of our Founders, that they borrowed the concepts for the Charters of Freedom (Natural Law - Laws of Nature - God's Law - inalienable Law of Nations) -- from the internationally recognized authority on the subject at the time, Vattel, recorded in French and later translated to English, The Law of Nations, written on the inalienable laws of nature respected by all nations and inescapable by man. [Most of the Founding Fathers were as fluent in French as they were
English.] Included, was the term Natural Born Citizen, a citizen by the laws of nature, not the laws of man, in fact, inalienable by the laws of man.
In Vattel's Law of Nations, he defines the term Natural Born Citizen, not in one sentence, but in several sections, 211 – 233 of Book One. One truly seeking the truth about our Charters of Freedom and Natural Born Citizenship should read the entire Law of Nations, it is a brilliant work on Natural Law and it is in fact the cornerstone of the Charters of Freedom created by our Founders.
But in short, Vattel defines Natural Born Citizen as follow;
NOTE: "Birthers" mistakenly (or intentionally) cherry-pick a single sentence from several sections on the subject, discarding all else, including the actual definition. - "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - This is NOT the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It is only a general statement affirming that natives are born in country and naturals are born of citizen parents.
Vattel goes on to define Natural Born Citizen and the reasoning behind it...
* "As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
** "The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
*** "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
This is why Barack Hussein Obama is a total fraud, constitutionally ineligible for office. Unfortunately, so is Marco Rubio, among others.
If Marco Rubio is the great “American Son” he portrays himself to be, the great young constitutionally conservative leader that so many Tea Party folks hope that he is, he must take a stand for the U.S. Constitution
and America right now, as only he can do. Because many of his loyal followers have such high hopes for his political future, Marco Rubio can secure that future by taking the stand that only he is positioned to take right
now.
Unless and until so-called "constitutionalists" get Article II right, they can forget every right they think they have....because if Article II does not exist in force or affect, neither does any other part of those founding
documents that protect the Natural Rights of all American citizens.
I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and become the great leader he wants to be, the leader so many believe him to be. I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and tell ALL Americans that he is ineligible for the offices of president and vice president, as the natural born son of a Father who was a citizen of Cuba (not the United States) at the time of his birth.
Man-made statutes generously gave Rubio and many others like him, American citizenship, via the 14th Amendment, our immigration and naturalization amendment governing the citizenship rights of immigrants through naturalization, or native born rights.
Rubio is a citizen of the United States by way of man-made laws, not Natural Law. Likewise, no matter whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his natural birth Father was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama’s Father could not confer to Barack Hussein Obama II that which he did not possess, U.S. Citizenship.
Marco Rubio can solve this entire issue and much more. He can stop Obama’s Marxist march off the cliff and save the country he claims to care about deeply, as well as freedom and liberty in America. He can do so by standing up before the nation and the world, proclaiming himself ineligible for high office and demanding that Barack Hussein Obama be immediately removed from office and charged with high treason for the most horrific fraud ever perpetrated on the American public and the world.
If Rubio refuses to do so, he is NOT what so many had hoped. He will be nothing more than just another political fraud seeking personal gain at the expense of the U.S. Charters of Freedom and the future of freedom and liberty, not just here, but throughout the free world.
If Article II no longer matters, nothing in the Charters of Freedom matters anymore. I call upon Marco Rubio to take a stand and end this nightmare. Stand and tell the people the truth Mr. Rubio, or become just another disappointment to the people, pandering to the captive Tea Party audience but no less complicit in the massive
fraud.
DO IT NOW… Before a second fraudulent inauguration!
I have sent this call for action directly to Marco Rubio and I call upon you to do the same.
JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a
twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is
co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com
I grew up in the 60's and 70's and remember America as a pretty
happy place...What happened,It was okay to have a few hippies
talking about peace and love and it was kind of funny when they
talked about the Man.We always knew there where good people that
made sensible decisions and would keep the country headed in the right
direction...What happen to these people,here it is 2013 and the hippies
are running the country,anything they complain about we change so they
are happy (For about 2 seconds)Our country is no longer the America we once knew,no more
pledge of allegiance,we take God out of our Schools and then wonder
why kids are growing up without a sense of value for Human life.How are you
to raise kids any more,you cannot scold them or spank them,they have no
fear or respect for adults and grow up feeling everyone owes them something.
I am sick and tired of this New America...I'm sick and tired of this lying
President,I'm sick and tired of hearing about Gay rights,I'm sick and
tired of hearing about paying your fair share...I would like to see this country
split,Left and right...2 countries,one east of the Mississippi and one west.
Conservatives all living together working hard and being successful while
the Liberals all march on their little capital demanding Free Stuff....Which side
would you want to live on?.Conservative Children would say the Pledge of allegance
every morning and dress properly in school,they would learn respect and manners,
they would grow up with a sense of values and morals that would last them throughout
their life.They would learn how to work for what they want without complaining.
Liberal children would only go to school if the felt like it,they would dress like bums,
and prostitutes,they would always demand free things and place the blame on
someone else...I'm serious,I would love to see a civil war between Conservatives and
Liberals..I'm hoping it happens and soon.America is to great a country to let a bunch
of whining liberals tear apart everything we worked so hard for and many died for
just so they are happy which in fact is funny because there is no such thing as a happy
liberal.Liberalism is a disease and it's spreading like the Black Plague....Wake up
America before it's to late.
