I support an immediate action of Civil Disobedience: Do not pay taxes, Escrow the money. Without their cash influx the snakes in government will soon die.
They cannot prosecute 10M people, it will bring government to an abrupt halt. When it hits the fan I support
former military Generals Patraeus or McCrystal. These are men who have served our country honourably, have an intense hands-on history of organization and leadership of such magnitude.
A coup, yes. It will take an earth shaking event to dismantle Congress, take the president as a traitor and give America a new lease on life. I do not foresee men of this calibre becoming tyrants. I want only to rescind any and all Obama dictates.
Men of this stature could easily create a cabinet of responsible individuals to guide our nation back on track to the constructs of our Constitution.
I would happily take my chances under such circumstances.
All Posts (28884)
Sort by
A knee-jerk reaction in response to the school shootings by one sick, lonely and bullied boy is unacceptable. His mother was at the center of this 'perfect storm'.
Using this event as a rallying point to have government intrude further into our lives, deny our civil rights, points directly to all the signs of a totalitarian governments first actions against the country's citizens.
Take a much harder look at the lives of 2 generations of turn-key children playing video games where the most 'kills' wins.
Where are the Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, after school sports, required physical education, required national military service. Get these young people back into the light of day, physically healthy and more socially adept.
Get them out of the 'basement' environment where the only time they are winners is when they score the most kills. That's the problem. Not my guns.
I expect support of my civil rights to gun ownership without further encroachment by an already out-of control-government.
Leigh C. Frederick
Addendum:
The plan to sell Egypt, a Muslim controlled country hostile to the United States,
our latest technology F-16 Fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks is treasonous.
Those technologies will immediately be shared with Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. And most probably Cuba and Venezuela.
Let’s keep our eye on the ball and concentrate on these issues of national security.
What must our ‘allies’ think of this decision? Not much.
I write my Senators on a very regular basis. For me, in NC, my elected officials have responded in a timely manner. Read more at freeamerica1776dotcom.
Patriot Voices Radio, a spin-off of the popular ‘We Pick Rick’ radio from the Republican presidential primary, debuted on Tuesday, January 29! This regular hour-long broadcast is an exciting way for you to keep up on the latest news from Patriot Voices!
Click here to listen to a podcast of our January 29th debut show: A recap of last week’s March for Life and discussion about our current efforts to defeat Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Rick Santorum joined the conversation, as well as Nadine Maenza, Patriot Voices' executive director, and Shelley Ahlersmeyer, Patriot Voices' national grassroots director.
How to Listen:
- Listen to live shows on this page by clicking on the play arrow on the show player below or listen live at Blog Talk Radio
- If you have trouble with the link or have a question for our host or guests, dial: (347) 857-3462. Tell the operator whether you'd like to speak with the host or just listen.
- On-demand podcasts of past shows are available by clicking on the show player below or at Blog Talk Radio.
During live shows we invite you to join our online chat.
Stay tuned for our next live shows: February 12th and 26th!
By Oscar Y, Harward
The USA is in a recession and/or a depression. Many Americans are searching for jobs in the ‘private sector’, yet Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and many Republicans In Name Only (RINO) are coordinating with Capitol Hill Democrats to scrap a near perfect ‘legal Immigration’ system; new legislation to open more ‘illegal immigrants’ to take more of our American jobs while these same ‘illegal immigrants’ are increasing American taxpayers’ more cost for their education, food assistance, healthcare, housing, etc.
Speaker John Boehner, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Republicans should be focusing on requiring the lawless elected and appointed government officials to obey the Constitution, our US Code, and our ‘legal immigration’ laws; not ignoring and/or disobeying our laws. For now, these GOP leaders are following and granting more ‘lawlessness’, rather than leading Americans under our Constitution and US Code.
Please explain to me and many others. What is wrong in requiring ‘illegal immigrants’ to follow our ‘immigration’ laws that have worked very well for more than 200 years; and to stop ‘illegal immigrants’ from stealing and/or purchasing a fraudulent Social Security and/or Driver’s License, etc., prior to and/or after their arrival?
Furthermore, how are Boehner, McConnell, his RINO Republicans, and his Liberal Democrats going to prevent more ‘terror’ from being approved to relocate and live in our neighborhoods?
Back on the economic issue, under the Obama administration’s ‘political policies’, our economy may get even worse with increasing unemployment and more snowballing inflation;
however, Obama can always blame it on G.W. Bush and the main-stream Medias will follow.
Speaker John Boehner, Sen. Mitch McConnell, his RINO Republicans, and his Liberal Democrats continue to spend as if America has ‘unlimited Federal funds’. Boehner, McConnell, and his RINO Republicans continue to negotiate away more of taxpayers’ Federal money and our Constitutional freedoms. They say one thing, only to continue to negotiate and spend (y)our taxpayers’ money on a ‘credit card’ leaving more and more debt to our children, their children, etc.
Conservative Republicans all across America are becoming more disgusted with the Senate and Congressional Party leadership. The GOP leadership of today is joining Democrat Party’s policies by duplicating their Liberal political policies in more recent years.
It is time to say ‘NO MORE” to Liberalism. Quit negotiating with Liberal Democrats as if you are defenseless and indecisive children. Save our nation! Americans are waiting!
As a teen in the 1960s, I idolized Jim, my slightly older street smart cousin who lived in a tough area of Baltimore. Murders were common at the bar on the corner from his home. I was Jim's nerdy naïve preacher's kid cousin who visited from suburbia. Sleepovers at Jim's home in the city were exciting. “Downtown, where all the lights are bright...” You know the song.
Walking from the Yakamee joint, “Casanova” Jim coached, “Just say you love them”. While I wanted my experience to go beyond the stimulation of excessively close slow dancing to Marvin Gaye songs at unchaperoned dark basement parties, lying to a girl to have my way with her did not set well. Doggone home training! I was nagged by the truth that it is wrong to use someone solely for my pleasure, not caring about how it affected her.
“Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6) In college, I tried to muzzle my conscience with drugs and alcohol. Fortunately, I did not produce any children out of wedlock.
Tom, another cousin of mine, had babies all over town which destroyed his life. He was incarcerated numerous times for non payment of child support. In those days, serial impregnaters were considered dishonorable men.
Today in 2013, the liberal Oxygen channel planned to celebrate dishonorable behavior as representative of the “hip” modern black experience with a new reality show titled, “All My Babies' Mamas”. Canceled due to public outcry, the star of the show was a rapper whose serial sperm donating produced eleven babies by ten women.
“All My Babies' Mamas” is characteristic of liberals' typical bigotry of lowered expectations regarding minorities. Liberals accuse black conservatives who reject liberal racist stereotypes of being traitors to their race, trying to be white and “sellouts”.
Long suffering courageous black conservatives offer blacks “real” empowerment; liberation from crippling victim-hood and entitlement mindsets. Due to liberals' resentment/hatred for America and traditional values, they are repulsed when black conservatives encourage blacks to get an education, work hard, revive traditional black community morality and go for their dreams.
In the 1950s, most black kids grew up in two parent households. Today, most black kids grow up fatherless as a result of liberal policies that destroyed the black family.Only half of black males graduate high school. Clearly, something is wrong in the black community and it “ain't” the white man's fault.
For decades, liberals (Democrats, Hollywood and the media) have been and continue serving blacks excrement while calling it filet mignon. For example: In the name of compassion, liberals routinely demean and even undermine the intellect and character of blacks. Liberals insist standards must be lowered for blacks to get the job or pass the test. Americans are required to show a photo-ID to board an airplane, cash a check and countless other situations. And yet, liberals say showing a photo-ID to vote is racist and disenfranchises blacks.
Will someone please tell me what the heck is so challenging about us blacks finding our way to acquire a photo-ID? By the way, I am black and I have one – a photo-ID. I guess liberals think I am remarkable; similar to the apes in “Planet of The Apes” discovering that Charlton Heston, a human, could speak.
Any suggestion of blacks performing on an equal playing field with whites or blacks assuming personal responsibility for their lives and behavior is deemed racist by liberals.
I suspect Oxygen was shocked by the public outcry against, “All My Babies' Mamas”. Liberals think: What's up with that? Oxygen is cool showing that they “be” down with the hood and in-tune with authentic blackness in America. Oxygen probably considers “All My Babies' Mamas” to be the modern urban version of “Ozzie and Harriet”. Okay, so the show promotes lax-ed morals and husband-less households which breed crime, school dropouts, gangs and poverty. Only out-of-touch fuddy duddy Uncle Tom black Conservatives and racist white Conservatives would find the show objectionable.
Liberals (Democrats and the media) have been peddling crap and pimping government programs that cripple blacks for years. And yet, liberals are thought of as heroes to blacks while they beat up on black conservatives for spreading the truth that blacks are diverse, self-reliant, bright and capable of much more.
By the way, political consultants say to win elections, Republicans/Conservatives must get with the program. They say we must embrace the new “amoral” culture and liberal thinking that produces shows like, “All My Babies' Mamas”. I say, “Balderdash!”
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
LloydMarcus.com
There Is A Dream Called America… so fragile it can only be whispered.
- Posted by Ronald A. Nelson Col.USA (Ret) on November 3, 2011 at 12:32am in Town Hall
- View Discussions
There is a dream called America… so fragile one can barely whisper it, I fear it may not survive the winter. Come, let us whisper now; that this dream may yet find spring.
A great wind has risen in the midst of this dream… bringing havoc upon this placid and pleasant place. A troublesome storm blows hard upon the foundations of liberty and the American dream. Will there be men of cause, too stand against this tempest course; too, hold high liberty’s light, that others may rally to her fight?
Will there yet be found a people, whose dreams are fixed upon that crown… That freedom may yet abound? Or, has the sound of furry, brought low the hope of liberties call, to one and all? I say arise and no more whisper liberty’s song… But raise an anthem, to silence the wind and with the blood of tyrants… let us, refresh the tree of liberty, once again.
There is a dream called America… So fragile it can only be whispered. Let us no more in silence speak, but with one voice, fix fast this dream… That, our progeny may sing… of Spring renewed, of summers long and Autumns… anew. Send now winter’s worst… for our dreams, our hopes, our whispers, are no more silent… Loose now the fragile trappings of liberty, from the yoke of tyranny.
Let this dream called America, become our vision… Let, the wind of tyrants no more lay hold of hopes long suffered, too deny liberty and our progeny, their dreams. Come let us whisper no more, but with new found reason, let us raise the anthem high… and shout, that those who yet can not hear… may join this chorus clear. Let us lift the curtain, upon our dreams… That liberty may ring, and our children sing, long… of liberty certain.
RA Nelson
COL. USArmy
1SG... one can't ignore someone with a foot in your door and his hands going for your throat... Obama needs to be exposed for what he is... not ignored. It is time that Boehner wakes up to the daunting task laid at his feet... a task, if ignored that will certainly bring great pain to us all.
It is time that Boehner schedule 'Impeachment' hearings for Obama and several of his key minions... starting with Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, and Timothy Geithner. Open impeachment hearings for these three individuals will create the National forum necessary to expose the vast corruption that has creped it's way into our system of Government.
Attorney General Eric Holder is a prime target for impeachment... an ideal candidate to expose the core of Obama's plans to subvert the Constitution: the corruption of our legal system. All governments operate by force of law. Corrupt governments rule, thru the corruption of the law.
Elena Kagan, should follow promptly on the heals of Holder. She represents the very worst kind of judicial activism and amoral character, currently holding our Courts in contempt of the people and their Constitution. She and those like her are examples of the worst kind of 'Judicial Activist' todays corrupt courts have to offer.
Then on to Timothy Geithner, the wizard of diabolical machinations, who works the alchemy of the Bankster clan within Obama's Administration. A corrupt tax cheat, has been given the keys to the US Treasury and our children's inheritance. He and his minions have set the financial world on end; laying claim to heretofore unknown heights of financial irresponsibility.
No other Secretary of the Treasury has worked such alchemy... creating faux gold out of thin air with the stroke of a pen. This wizard of financial prestidigitation works in the shadows, with cunning lightening he loots our National treasury. He can make trillions appear in one hand, only to see them mystically vanish... upon the stage in a cacophony of financial discord... All while, Congress muses at his wizardry.
Once the lynch pins of corruption in Obama's Marxist cabal are exposed... Boehner can move on too the President. The National Media will be hard pressed to ignore such open political theater... and if the stage is set properly the House Republicans may well be able to capture the 'Bully Pulpit' and with it the nations ear... Something, they have not been able to do for several years.
Time doesn't wait... and history has now placed our nation at a cross road. What direction will she take, this America... this shinning City set upon a Hill? It now rests with the captains of our destiny to helm the ship... too, bring her full tilt... too, set a course for safe harbors, or too be forever lost in a sea of distress. Let us encourage those who helm the ship to abandon their reckless course and too once again bring us too calm seas.
Start the IMPEACHMENT process... mount the 'bully pulpit' and expose the corruption that runs deep in our government. Let us start anew this spring with a good house cleaning.
Over and over again, that there's no such thing as a New World Order "conspiracy," you'll successfully keep believing it! I'm just not sure how sticking your head in the sand helps anyone, including your family, community, or country.
He International Monetary Fund (IMF) walked off with America's economic sovereignty. We literally took a gigantic step toward global governance, and toward global control by global economists of our monetary and financial regulatory system ... Our Declaration of Independence has been repealed."
Belgian Prime Minister and first E.U. President Herman Van Rompuy discussed global governance in a press conference last fall , proclaiming 2009 as "the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet."
Also last year, US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said he was "quite open" to Chinese proposals for the development of a global currency run by the IMF. While he later tried to retract his statement, we all know how the game of politics is played ... Geithner and his boys are still "quite open" to a global currency.
Let's not forget too, about the proposed global bank tax. Which includes giving the United Nations world taxing authority.
As the gun rights battle heats up we have to wonder just how ridiculous our elected officials and the liberals will get. In this news report, http://news.yahoo.com/video/gun-tell-school-153418910.html a Missouri official wants people whom have children in school to be required to inform the schools that they are in fact a gun owner and if they dont inform the schools then face a fine. A law like that in my opinion would be like a sex offender having to tell the neighborhood that they was convicted of a sex crime and where they live. It would treat gun owners like criminals.
Next we have Senator Dianne Feinstein gun bill that list 120 guns she wants banned. Of course she would come up with something as ridiculous as this. Senator Feinstein has a long history of wanting Americans unarmed. Looking at the list it appears Senator Feinstein wants us to have only muskets and if given her way those would probably also be banned.
President Obama recently signed twenty three executive orders pertaining to gun control. Most of the executive orders is just political grand standing, but not all of them. Your doctor~patient confidentiality is no more. With an executive order Doctors are now encouraged to ask patients about the guns they own and of course turn that information into the government. Also we can see Obama is taking a tactic to look at gun violence and ownership as a mental disease issue. Now I can see how ridiculous this can get with these executive orders. You go to see a doctor for a bad cold. The doctor puts in your file that you have a brutal chest cold. Later on down the road the ATF shows up at your door step and confiscates all your weapons saying you have been determined your not fit to own guns. You try to fight it and find out the government gleamed from your records that a doctor your previously visited claimed you was brutal. Then as an individual you can spend thousands upon thousands defending yourself and you might get yourself temporarily removed from the list but you will never ever get your guns back. Thats how ridiculous the government can get with this.
Yet with the liberals attitude torwards gun ownership we shouldnt be surprised at this mentality. Various places on the web you can interact with others and discuss the issues. A lot of the website with news storys usually allow comments. Some of the liberals on these sites goes off the deep end and try everything to confuse the issues. Some of them like to bring up that if Americans gun rights shouldnt be restricted then whats to keep people from having atomic bombs, smart cluster bombs, grenades, and the ability for chemical warfare. Now thats ridiculous.
Simply put our second amendment rights are being attacked on various levels. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of shall not be infringed does our elected officials dont understand?
when we watch the news these days, gun owners are the constant targets of people who hate us. Why do they hate us ? its actually very simple......they want americans bank accounts ,our property, and our freedom. They hate the fact that the only real reason they cant just take these things is because of our right to bear arms. The right that the founders of this once glorious nation gave us so long ago. They gave us this right because they had stood against tyranny and knew that some day we would have to stand again..they knew we would need the right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia to protect the security of our free state, to be able to stand against a tyrannical authoritarian government be it foreign or our own......u didnt know?......thats right...The 2nd amendment was put there for us to have the right and ability to defend ourselves, our rights, and our country from tyranny....not so we can hunt deer and have shooting compitetions..(although i do enjoy those freedoms as well) ........ The mainstream media will lead you to believe its all about the hunters and sportsmen. They say why does a hunter need high capacity mags or semi autos, And use that as an excuse to take our only real means of defense.
They will say just about anything or air any story to make guns and gun owners look bad. In fact the more Obama and Biden push for our guns, the more shootings they put on the news to make us look bad and them look good. There has been more media coverage on shootngs and guns in the last 4-5 months than there has in years. Is it a coincidence that this happens at the same time obama ramps up his attemps to take our guns?...I think not.... Its a massive propaganda machine with one goal.....Remove our defense and destroy the american way of life..
If enough people wake up and simply say" no your not taking my rights" we can put a stop to this, But if we dont we are doomed for a socialist take over that is already in progress. Until people and the media stop blaming the real problems on inatimate objects (guns), and start dealing with the real issues ( bad parenting, lack of morals ,anti depressants, mental issues, the desensetising of our youth by every form of media ......ect ) the list goes on and on...Unless we adress these issues, we will fall
The real 2nd amendment is our most important right, without it we have no real way of defending our other rights, our families, our property and our country.... A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...........so stand against the tyranny and the socialist regime. Tell them your not gonna take my guns, my rights ,or my country...Get your family ,your friends, and your neighbors to stand with you. Its not to late to stop this . We still have a chance to save our rights!!
There is not one positive thing the oBUMa Administration has done to help America. In fact every law this man has illegally passed, trying to pass or actions he has taken caused one or more of the following: 4 Brave Americans killed who should still be alive, Weakened the U.S.A., Destroyed our Economy, Pushed Radical Muslim Agenda while taking away rights from Christians, Held us back from energy independence, stealing billions of tax dollars by investing them in his pet Green Job Scams only to have them go bankrupt and return the money to his campaign fund, Global Warming Cash Cow Lie, Ruined the Worlds Best Health Care, Lied to suit his needs just to name a few! Please don't bother mentioning Bin Laden, who murders 1,000's of Americans, makes our country look weak, finally
after ignoring 7chances to kill him, he gives Seal Team 6 the brave ones put in
place long ago by Bush to kill him & then oBUMa who would have you believe he was Rambo and did
it all himself, first worry? To give him a proper burial of course!
That's right to the very same people that commit countless atrocities: killing Christians, women, children for no reason, without a blink of reservation. Doubt me? Then please explain why oBUMa & his LibLoserDemDestruct SocialisticRacist Cronies are exempt from these illegal laws he has passed, yet we(Americans) despised by oBUMa have to follow them or be arrested. I now would like any liberal to
tell me with a straight face oBUMa isn't trying to destroy America and he is a
devout Christian.
after ignoring 7chances to kill him, he gives Seal Team 6 the brave ones put in
place long ago by Bush to kill him & then oBUMa who would have you believe he was Rambo and did
it all himself, first worry? To give him a proper burial of course!
That's right to the very same people that commit countless atrocities: killing Christians, women, children for no reason, without a blink of reservation. Doubt me? Then please explain why oBUMa & his LibLoserDemDestruct SocialisticRacist Cronies are exempt from these illegal laws he has passed, yet we(Americans) despised by oBUMa have to follow them or be arrested. I now would like any liberal to
tell me with a straight face oBUMa isn't trying to destroy America and he is a
devout Christian.
Fate is on our side as shown by the folowing (and many other instances in our country's history).
Dinner with Hitler...
In 1933, a beautiful, young Austrian woman took off her clothes for a movie
director. She ran through the woods... naked. She swam in a lake... naked.
The most popular movie in 1933 was King Kong. But everyone in Hollywood was
talking about that scandalous movie with the gorgeous, young Austrian woman.
Louis B. Mayer, of the giant studio MGM, said she was the most beautiful
woman in the world. The film was banned practically everywhere... which of
course made it even more popular and valuable. Mussolini reportedly refused
to sell his copy at any price.
The star of the film, called Ecstasy, was Hedwig Kiesler. She said the
secret of her beauty was "to stand there and look stupid." In reality,
Kiesler was anything but stupid. She was a genius. She'd grown up as the
only child of a prominent Jewish banker. She was a math prodigy. She
excelled at science. As she grew older, she became ruthless, using all the
power her body and mind gave her.
Between the sexual roles she played, her tremendous beauty, and the power of
her intellect, Kiesler would confound the men in her life... including her
six husbands, two of the most ruthless dictators of the 20th century, and
one of the greatest movie producers in history.
Her beauty made her rich for a time. She is said to have made - and spent -
$30 million in her life. But her greatest accomplishment resulted from her
intellect... and her invention continues to shape the world we live in
today.
You see, this young Austrian starlet would take one of the most valuable
technologies ever developed right from under Hitler's nose. After fleeing to
America, she not only became a major Hollywood star... her name sits on one
of the most important patents ever granted by the U.S. Patent Office.
Today, when you use your cell phone or, over the next few years, as you
experience super-fast wireless Internet access (via something called
"long-term evolution" or "LTE" technology), you'll be using an extension of
the technology a 20- year-old actress first conceived while sitting at
dinner with Hitler.
At the time she made Ecstasy, Kiesler was married to one of the richest men
in Austria. Friedrich Mandl was Austria's leading arms maker. His firm would
become a key supplier to the Nazis.
Mandl used his beautiful young wife as a showpiece at important business
dinners with representatives of the Austrian, Italian, and German fascist
forces. One of Mandl's favorite topics at these gatherings - which included
meals with Hitler and Mussolini - was the technology surrounding
radio-controlled missiles and torpedoes. Wireless weapons offered far
greater ranges than the wire-controlled alternatives that prevailed at the
time. Kiesler sat through these dinners "looking stupid," while absorbing
everything she heard...
As a Jew, Kiesler hated the Nazis. She abhorred her husband's business
ambitions. Mandl responded to his wilful wife by imprisoning her in his
castle, Schloss Schwarzenau. In 1937, she managed to escape. She drugged her
maid, slipped out of the castle wearing the maid's clothes, and sold her
jewelry to finance a trip to London. (She got out just in time.
In 1938, Germany annexed Austria. The Nazis seized Mandl's factory. He was
half Jewish. Mandl fled to Brazil. Later, he became an advisor to
Argentina's iconic populist president, Juan Peron.)
In London, Kiesler arranged a meeting with Louis B. Mayer. She signed a
long-term contract with him, becoming one of MGM's biggest stars. She
appeared in more than 20 films. She was a co-star to Clark Gable, Judy
Garland, and even Bob Hope. Each of her first seven MGM movies was a
blockbuster.
But Kiesler cared far more about fighting the Nazis than about making
movies. At the height of her fame, in 1942, she developed a new kind of
communications system, optimized for sending coded messages that couldn't be
"jammed." She was building a system that would allow torpedoes and guided
bombs to always reach their targets. She was building a system to kill
Nazis.
By the 1940s, both the Nazis and the Allied forces were using the kind of
single- frequency radio-controlled technology Kiesler's ex-husband had been
peddling. The drawback of this technology was that the enemy could find the
appropriate frequency and "jam" or intercept the signal, thereby interfering
with the missile's intended path.
Kiesler's key innovation was to "change the channel." It was a way of
encoding a message across a broad area of the wireless spectrum. If one part
of the spectrum was jammed, the message would still get through on one of
the other frequencies being used. The problem was, she could not figure out
how to synchronize the frequency changes on both the receiver and the
transmitter. To solve the problem, she turned to perhaps the world's first
techno-musician, George Anthiel.
Anthiel was an acquaintance of Kiesler who achieved some notoriety for
creating intricate musical compositions. He synchronized his melodies across
twelve player pianos, producing stereophonic sounds no one had ever heard
before. Kiesler incorporated Anthiel's technology for synchronizing his
player pianos. Then, she was able to synchronize the frequency changes
between a weapon's receiver and its transmitter.
On August 11, 1942, U.S. Patent No. 2,292,387 was granted to Antheil and
"Hedy Kiesler Markey," which was Kiesler's married name at the time.
Most of you won't recognize the name Kiesler. And no one would remember the
name Hedy Markey. But it's a fair bet than anyone reading this newsletter of
a certain age will remember one of the great beauties of Hollywood's golden
age ~ Hedy Lamarr. That's the name Louis B. Mayer gave to his prize actress.
That's the name his movie company made famous.
Meanwhile, almost no one knows Hedwig Kiesler - aka Hedy Lamarr - was one of
the great pioneers of wireless communications. Her technology was developed
by the U.S. Navy, which has used it ever since.
You're probably using Lamarr's technology, too. Her patent sits at the
foundation of "spread spectrum technology," which you use every day when you
log on to a wi- fi network or make calls with your Bluetooth-enabled phone.
It lies at the heart of the massive investments being made right now in
so-called fourth-generation "LTE" wireless technology. This next generation
of cell phones and cell towers will provide tremendous increases to wireless
network speed and quality, by spreading wireless signals across the entire
available spectrum. This kind of encoding is only possible using the kind of
frequency switching that Hedwig Kiesler invented.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr>
We need another "Hedy" VS Obama NOW...
You need some work done be in plumbing or electrical or any tradesman jobs do not hire a union guy of a union shop to do your work !
no one else available postpone the work !
Make the unions bleed
Despite Harm to the Environment and the Economy, Fiscal Cliff Deal Fuels Continuing Corporate Welfare
The new year began with “fiscal cliff” midnight drama and fantasy, and the wind-production tax credit (PTC), despite its negative impact on our environment and economy, packaged as a job creator and measure to save the planet, made its way into H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 –– a piece of legislation that was hyped as for the American people, yet it included a number of key tax extender provisions for special interest groups. “Congress extended wind energy tax credits worth billions of dollars in the last-minute deal hammered out by Congress to avoid the fiscal cliff, a move decried by free market organizations as corporate welfare,” writes the Washington Free Beacon.
Crammed through in the dark of night behind closed doors –– where the Senate was given minutes to read the bill, and the House caved under White House threats –– and with support of many Republicans –– the looming and controversial (PTC) that many high-powered energy corporations have taken advantage of, rely heavily upon, and were fiercely lobbying for, was revived once again.
"The wind industry hired a team of heavyweight lobbyists with cozy connections to Capitol Hill and the Obama administration to ensure the survival of the tax credit, the Washington Examiner’sTimothy P. Carney reported," more specifically K Street firm McBee Strategic Consulting, of which I've found over and over in my green corruption research.
NOTE: “The Lucky Seven Stimulus Authors” are those that helped craft the 2009-Recovery Act and have financially benefited, of which I have already covered General Electric, John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins, Senator John Kerry, which I wrote about last week. I have given mention to billionaire George Soros as well as the left-wing organization the Apollo Alliance, with TJ Glautheir and McBee Strategic Consulting topping off my list. Full report soon to be released.
“Congress first enacted the wind energy PTC in 1992 and has renewed it seven times since,” even as part of the 2009-Recovery Act. The Institute for Energy Research counts the hidden realities of the PTC extension, noting that "The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the one year extension will cost American taxpayers over $12 billion." "But that figure doesn’t begin to represent the full cost of wind power,” including the detriment to ratepayers. And if Big Wind gets its way over "the next six years, then the PTC would cost over $50 billion."
Unknown to the American public is another green government freebie blowing out of the stimulus package. The 1603 Grant Program –– a relative of the PTC, which is part of President Obama’s trillion-dollar spending spree –– is administered by the Treasury Department, where billions in favored-businesses are given tax-free cash gifts. This program was also touted as a jobs creator (of course saved and supported), yet most of the so-called green job gains are temporary.
According to energy.gov, “The Section 1603 program was created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support the deployment of renewable energy resources. The 1603 program offered project developers the option to select a one-time cash payment in lieu of taking the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) or the Production Tax Credit (PTC), for which they would have otherwise been eligible.”
Last week, the Energy and Commerce Committee released an “in-depth report on its ongoing investigation into the implementation of President Obama’s green energy stimulus spending,” exposing a shocking detail; “foreign corporations have received approximately one-quarter of $16 billion spent on 'Section 1603' renewable energy stimulus program.”
The report, “American Taxpayer Investment, Foreign Corporation Benefit,” states that as of December 5, 2012, “nearly $16 billion in federal funds (ironically, the same amount as the Department of Energy’s 1705 risky loan portfolio) has been awarded under this program,” of which “approximately $10.8 billion (68%) of the total amount in Section 1603 grants awarded was for wind and another $3.8 billion (24%) was for solar projects.”
Furthermore, “President Obama’s FY 2013 Budget proposes extending the Section 1603 grant program for another year, to include property with a construction start date of 2012.”
What’s funny is that as I was preparing my Big Wind findings, at the end of December 2012 I had downloaded the 1603 awards spreadsheet, which records 8275 awards, totaling $15,964,130,442. Moreover, tucked neatly inside the fiscal cliff deal is where we find the 1603 again ––– now part of the two-month delay on sequestration. This means that there was no “immediate reduction in 1603 cash grants from the Department of Treasury. However, this 1603 reduction can still happen on March 1, 2013 if Congress does not enact another extension or strategy to avoid sequestration.”
Now we know President Obama's priority for his second term –– he's dead set on pushing a fierce and radical climate change agenda and funding green energy with taxpayer money, no matter the cost or consequences. So, we’ll anticipate March; follow the president’s budget; and watch for future requests for stimulus funds as well as earmarks tucked away in unread legislation coming down the green pipeline, but for now we'll go back in time to the president’s job council…
Lewis Hay Chairman and Chief Executive officer of NextEra Energy, Inc.: Part of President Obama’s Multi-millionaire, Billionaire Jobs Council Club
Lewis “Lew” Hay, III is executive chairman of NextEra Energy, Inc., and it is estimated by Forbes, that CEO “Hay earns nearly $10 million in total compensation from NextEra.” Despite the fact that Hay was actually a “major political contributor to Sen. John McCain in 2008,” he quickly learned which side his power company could generate the title of the "Third Largest Recipient of DOE Risky Loans." Hay too joined wealthy Democratic donors on Obama’s Jobs Council in 2011, along with the other two I have tackled in this series, “Spreading the Wealth to Obama’s Ultra-Rich Job Council” –– Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt CEO of General Electric has raked in $3 billion and counting, meanwhile John Doerr, along with his “climate buddy" Al Gore's, VC firm Kleiner Perkins is tied to at least $10 billion of stimulus funds. Both General Electric and Doerr were key contributors to what went into the 2009 Stimulus.
In my opening, I had stated that “NextEra Energy’s Green Money” was at least $2.3 billion, but that’s just from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 1703 Loan Guarantee Program, of which I recorded in another green energy, crony corruption post last summer. We’ll revisit the DOE and Big Wind, but for now there is more you should know about NextEra…
NextEra Energy, Inc. is one of the oldest, third largest, and arguably one of the most solid power companies in the world, with “2011 revenues [that] totaled more than $15.3 billion.” And NextEra Energy Inc. has two primary subsidiaries:
- Florida Power & Light is the third largest electricity producer in the US, of which a September 2009 report states: “it's a political dynamo, making millions in political contributions and lobbying assiduously to achieve its goals."
- NextEra Energy Resources is the largest generator of energy from sun and wind resources in North America. The company also has the third largest fleet (8) of nuclear powered electricity generating plants in the United States.
NextEra: Biggest User of the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit
As a follower of NextEra, I found a fascinating analysis by John Fund of the National Review Online which states, “Begun 20 years ago to spur the construction of wind-energy facilities that could compete with conventional fossil-fuel power plants, the tax credit [PTC] gives wind an advantage over all other energy producers. But it has mostly benefited conventional nuclear and fossil-fuel-fired electricity producers. The biggest user of the tax credit is Florida-based NextEra Energy, the nation’s eighth-largest power producer. Through skillful manipulation of the credits, NextEra from 2005 to 2009 'paid just $88 million in taxes on earnings of nearly $7 billion,' Businessweek reports. That’s a tax rate of just 1.25 percent over that period, when the statutory rate is 35 percent.”
Wind Turbines Kill 440,000 Birds Each Year
Moreover, Fund gives us an astonishing and heartbreaking look at the “carnage inflicted on Mother Nature," quoting Paul Driessen of the Washington Times, "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese, and other birds every year in the U.S., along with countless insect-eating bats.”
Sadly, Fund states, “The actual numbers are probably far higher. The turbine blades of the nation’s 39,000 windmills move at 100 to 200 miles per hour and can mow down anything that gets in their path.” “Over the past 25 years, turbines at Altamont Pass, Calif., alone, have killed an estimated 2,300 golden eagles leading to an 80 percent drop in the golden-eagle population of southern California.”
Ironically, when you read the fine print, as exposed by the Manhattan Institute, who calculated “The Real Costs to Taxpayers in Subsidizing Big Wind,” –– federal taxpayers (under former President Bush and now Obama), in effect, are subsidizing the killing of federally protected birds.”
Where are the environmentalists and Rachel Maddow screaming bloody murder? The chirps are light, and prosecution is non-existent because our “federal government looks the other way as wind farms kill birds, but haul oil and gas firms to court” –– all the while the Obama administration protects Big Bird at all costs.
But then again, Big Wind, to many like the Telegraph, is the most corrupt industry in the world –– “without the lies it tells as a matter of course and without the cosy stitch-ups it arranges with regulators and politicians at taxpayers' expense, it simply would not exist.”
Much more to this huge Big Wind story–– continue reading...
Here are the rest of the topics I've covered:
- Gone With the Wind: Wind Energy Grants Gone Overseas and to the Politically Connected, Including NextEra
- NextEra: A Gust of other Stimulus Grants
- NextEra: Third Largest Power Company in the World is the Third Largest Recipient of Risky Loans
- A Twister of Sweetheart Deals Found in the Department of Energy’s Four Risky Wind Projects
This was Part Three of "Spreading the Wealth to Obama's Ultra-Rich Job Council: The Green Five"
Part One, 10/31/12 DOE Emails Prove White House Pressure on $1.3 Billion Loan to General Electric Wind Project
Part Two, Bank of Obama: John Doerr and Al Gore of Kleiner Perkins, The Mother of All Green Energy Stimulus Money Winners
Stay tuned for the final installment where we take a look at Billionaire Penny Pritzker as well as Richard Dean "Dick" Parsons, Former Chairman of the Board of Citigroup, Inc –– both part of Obama’s Multi-millionaire, Billionaire Jobs Council Club.
Signing off for now, THE Green Corruption blogger...
- Text smaller
- Text bigger
The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.
The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a “natural born citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.
The relevant Obama admission
At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.
This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.
The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
This helps explain why the definition of “natural born citizen” as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems. If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation. Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen. Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.
While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president’s citizenship be “natural born.” A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen. “Natural born” simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.
Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: “The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama’s presidency constitutionally legitimate?”
There are multiple circumstances that create “citizens at birth.” Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language. But they didn’t.
In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be “natural born citizens,” but the words “natural born” were repealed in 1795. Congress never again legislated the definition of “natural born citizen,” and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.
The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.
Origin of the natural born citizen clause
The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance. It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Jay underlined “born” which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth. The “natural born” requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity. One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.
An important historical definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a 1797 translation of the “Law of Nations,” a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the “Law of Nations”:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child’s birth. That was made clear by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Perkins v. Elg.
It appears from James Madison’s notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms “native” and “natural born citizen” synonymously. Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel’s text. Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to “punish … offenses against the Law of Nations.”
In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”
Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …
It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.
If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn’t have been eligible since he doesn’t fit the Minor Court’s standard for a natural born citizen.
The strange case of Chester Arthur
The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor. Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.
Arthur’s deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration and age. He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.
Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur’s eligibility until recently. Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible. This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.
Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama’s eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn’t known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.
In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:
Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.
It’s ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn’t be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.
Chester Arthur’s true eligibility defect doesn’t appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog. Clearly, Chester Arthur’s deception cannot serve to validate anyone’s presidential eligibility. He got away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that’s not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.
Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. …”
While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.
A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous. His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.
The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens. This is not a political issue. It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review.
[For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, “What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?” by John Greschak.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/04/134881/#EQeRw8uwGbKO6Bo1.99
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). |
