Why does nearly everyone of you never criticize the hate crimes of black supremacists? The "black lives matter" movement has advocated hate crimes including white genocide, innocent whites have been murdered because of the hate crime propaganda of your brothers. That's double hate crimes! Why do you not renounce that? Why are black supremacists allowed to spread propaganda on this site, while white people are not allowed to address your racist black sites? Why should blacks be allowed to get away with murder, advocacy of murder and circulation of pictures of blacks wiping their asses on the US flag? That flag represents a government of traitors whose power is "black-racistly" brought to bear ONLY on enemies of black racism! The Confederate Flag represents civil rights for white people. If you are as objective as you pretend, why don't you denounce black hate crime? Does that mean that you agree with murder of whites as justified black supremacy privilege? Race criminality law was supposed to apply to all, not just whites. No more special privileges for blacks! We are the majority and we should demand that every BLACK HATE CRIME be punished!
Speaker John Boehner,
Respectfully Sir, it is incumbent upon you to immediately defund the FCC.
This is an issue of the civil rights of every American.
The corruption and lawlessness has gone too far!
There was no public input.
There was no Congressional input.
The FCC Chairman refused to appear before Congress prior to his "vote" on this regulation.....
Yet no one on the Hill is charging him with Contempt of Congress...
Sir, I strongly urge you to READ the Gettysburg Address, review what brought our Nation to that point and why President Lincoln said what he did.
As Speaker of the House of Representatives it is your job to defund this entire administration if necessary in order for the law and Constitution to be followed - not litigate and not require American Citizens and States to constantly litigate simply to receive the Rights they are guaranteed under our Laws and Constitution!
This is a requirement Sir - not an option. How you choose to go about it is your business, but this must be done.
SFC (USA Retired) Aubrey Mason
San Antonio, Texas
Texas Governor Greg Abbott
This is article about a school classroom in Denver that had the classmates dress, act and go to a mosque to experience their religion... (their parents were livid that it happened )this presentation addresses that in more detail and why our children are being brainwashed into believing that America is bad. Please take the time to watch this speaker if you haven't seen it before, it is excellent and definitely an eye opener. Then forward this to everyone in your address book, so we can educate other Americans!!
One more reason to fight Common Core! Watch ALL of this video and get involved….
A breath of fresh air in our corrupt world!
THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES - THANKS TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - IT'S A LITTLE LONG (10 to 12 min) BUT WELL WORTH THE TIME - MIND BOGGLING -
Be proud of her!!
This presentation is extremely interesting and quite frightening as to what is happening in the USA today. Much food for thought.
This lady is Brigitte Gabriel the Founder and President of Act! for America. She is well worth listening to.
This lady has her facts straight and has a passion about what she is talking about.
Something for all parents and grandparents to be aware of.
EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH THIS!!!
I am speechless!
This woman should be heard by every North American and people of the world!
This is a brutal Eye Opener. She is not reading from a TelePrompter either
Please watch and listen. Very frightening, infuriating, and informative.
Click here: TaboolaArticle
Bill de Blasio Old Youngd
Bill de Blasio was born Warren Wilhelm, Jr., on May 8, 1961.
He first changed his name to the hyphenated Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm, adding his mother’s maiden name.
In 2002, he dropped the “Warren” and the “Wilhelm,” and changed his name for a second time to what it is currently, Bill de Blasio.
Bill de Blasio was the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2000.
Bill de Blasio was a fervent supporter of the Marxist Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980′s, a government that was backed by the Communist Soviet Union and Cuba.
At the height of Cold War tension, while still a student at New York University, de Blasio toured the Communist Soviet Union in 1983.
His first job was in 1984 with the NYC Department of Juvenile Justice.
Bill de Blasio received a master’s degree in International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, the same school attended by Barack Obama.
Bill de Blasio ran Democrat New York Congressman Charlie Rangel’s re-election campaign in 1994.
In 1994, Bill de Blasio married a lesbian activist, Chirlane McCray(google Chirlane McCray confirms this). She is a black. The newlyweds honeymooned in Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba.
In 2009, de Blasio’s election campaign to be NYC’s third “Public Advocate” was supported by the pro-Communism, Working Families Party.
Both of de Blasio’s parents were communists, leading historian Ron Radosh to describe him as a “bona fide red diaper baby.” , who was elected in 2013 with a whopping 72% of the vote.
The leftist mayor is accused of fostering an environment that led to the tragic execution-style racial assassinations of two NYPD officers on Saturday.
INTRO: With "common law" grand juries currently gaining popular attention,and various attempts to "institute" and apply these occurring across the country, these issues are obviously increasing in frequency, and should be examined. Some current examples are the case in Dixie County Florida, where Terry Trussell is facing 14 felony charges for "Impersonating a Pubic Officer" and "Unlawful Use of Simulated Legal Process", among other charges, now facing the possibility of the remainder of his life behind bars, or the Nevada common law grand jury claiming to have proved the "missing" 13th Titles of Nobility amendment was actually ratified by Virginia and thereby an actual amendment to the Constitution, or National Liberty Alliance's own "Quo Warranto" (pdf) petition to various federal judges.
ARE SO-CALLED "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURIES VALID?
Some have claimed that Common Law Grand Juries are supported by the Constitution itself, and even cite Supreme Court decisions, particularly United States v Williams (1992), as supporting these ad hoc common law grand juries. However these claims do not appear to have any actual truth to them.
The only place the U.S. Constitution specifically references "common law" is the 7th Amendment, where it is an incidental reference in regard to legal suits, and then is only to affirm the right to trial by jury, not affirming the "common law" as any sort of guiding philosophy of this country, nor referencing "common law" grand juries in any way.
In 1992, Antonin Scalia made citations to the Grand Jury in United States v Williams, and referenced a few Supreme Court cases in doing so:
United States v. Chanen (1977, citing Nixon v. Sirica, 1973): "the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”
Scalia also stated: “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…”
Scalia there also indicated:
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “
Of note, all of the above references are specifically to “Grand Jury” and nowhere particularly indicating “common law grand jury”, thereby not serving to validate those common law grand juries, contrary to claims. In fact the idea of an ad hoc common law grand jury being formed entirely independently of the the judicial system is undermined by Scalia’s above statement, “in the courthouse and under judicial auspices”. These Supreme Court references in no way serve to validate “common law grand juries”, as they are currently being envisioned and formed, but rather provide cause to question their validity.
The claim is made that these common law grand juries actually have precedent in American history, which is somewhat true, but overall inaccurate. During America's early history, when there were municipalities or districts without any established court of their own, circuit judges would indeed travel from district to district and rely on the presentment "charges" of such common law grand juries in order to hold trials. However these grand juries were not formed from hand-picked jurors, resulting in a stacked jury, nor did they involve claims of absolute authority above any existing courts, as is currently being done. There is no validation for what is currently being done in America's past, or Britain's common law either.
Attorney Leo Donofrio, who led two of the earliest court challenges to Obama's qualification to hold the Presidency in New Jersey and Connecticut, has also been an early proponent of using Grand Juries to pursue government wrong-doing. In fact Donofrio wrote an early article titled "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government", in which citizens use these Grand Juries to counter and correct government wrong-doing and corruption. However Donofrio later removed that article from his blog when a Georgia Grand Jury, allegedly inspired by Donofrio himself, indicated it had authority to confiscate people's property, and even take their homes, which would be criminal acts.
That article is still available on the Internet "Wayback" archive site here:
The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
Take note, in that article title Donofrio specifies that it is the "Federal" Grand Jury that is the 4th branch of government, not just any Grand Jury, and notably not "common law".
Donofrio then wrote an article titled, "The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned" in which Donofrio made the following clarification of his previous discussion of FEDERAL Grand Juries:
My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.
The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution. And I am a true believer in the Constitution. Are you?
Here Donofrio indicates that there is no such authority for people to independently form their own "common law" Grand Jury, under the belief they might prosecute "at will".
Unfortunately we have very extreme, ill-formed, and even dangerous beliefs held by these common law grand jury proponents, none of which are valid.
The National Liberty Alliance indicates (pdf) that the source of authority for these common law grand juries is the common law itself, stating, ""The Common Law is the jurisdiction that our founders set in motion when creating the United States of America" and "Common Law is Natural Law, America was founded on Common Law." None of these claims are even remotely true. This country's original foundation in British common law, did not involve any separate jurisdiction, and that common law was not actually relied on by the Constitution, which brought the United States of America into existence, but rather profoundly rejected by that Document. Furthermore, "common law" is not at all the same thing as Natural Law and, in fact, the two considerations are entirely separate from one another, even by definition! While the States originally utilized some terms, principles and practices inherited from British common law, that common law was never a founding principle of this country, and the Constitution in no way relied on common law.
George Mason, "Father of the Bill of Rights"
Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788
"The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it's codified now."
Justice Antonin Scalia, Federalist Society address, Nov 22, 2008
Perhaps the biggest irony of NLA's "Quo Warranto" asking "by what authority" those federal judges act, is questioning the very authority by which NLA itself demands those judges fill out their questionnaire, and demands they provide a "surety bond", or else provide their detailed financial statement, with the obvious presumption being that NLA itself will act entirely illegally to confiscate that bond, or those financial assets, when NLA deems they have not adhered to unspecified common law principles that do not exist, and are not a part of this country!
The Nevada "Superior Court Common Law Venue" indicates its own jurisdiction to to be "Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction", and prominently declares ahead of its findings that, "Its decision cannot be reviewed by any other court of the land." Oh really? It is impossible that a grand jury formed in 2014, without any authority under law, to have any "original" jurisdiction at all, much less "exclusive" jurisdiction. Furthermore, every single American should be disturbed by any group willing to declare itself entirely UN-contestable, above any law and court, and unable to even be questioned, much less challenged.
"COMMON LAW" VERSUS "NATURAL LAW"
There is a gross misunderstanding of what the "common law" is on the National Liberty Alliance site, and by "common law grand jury" proponents generally. The Common Law is not something sacrosanct in this country, and is NOT at all synonymous with our own understanding of Natural Law unalienable rights.
British common law is nothing more than the cumulative decisions, practices and general principles of the British courts that were never codified into law. That's it!
In fact that British common law is founded on Feudal philosophy of noblesse oblige wherein a person is born into a position in society with obligation to those above them. British common law actually also uses the term "Natural Law", in representing this "natural" feudal obligation to those above oneself in society, as discussed at length in Lord Coke's decision in Calvin's Case, 1608. It is "natural" for persons to be subservient to those above them. These feudal common law principles result in the doctrine of "Perpetual Allegiance," an indelible obligation to Crown, country and one's superiors that can never be broken, never severed by one's own choice, unless by death itself. As Americans, we specifically rejected that feudal common law doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance in the War of 1812.
These common law foundations are entirely antithetical to our own Natural Law understanding of rights being innate to the individual, unalienable, and coming from "Nature's God", certainly not allowed us by others in a caste society.
Under British common law, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man from that divine Crown through the judiciary. The King is viewed as both head of the Anglican church and state as well. By this, under common law, anyone in disagreement with the state is viewed as a hostile, with Jews being recognized as enemies with no real standing in Court, and having little assurance as to property rights.
Natural Law is recognized, by definition, as being entirely outside of man-made Positive Law. That man-made Positive Law consists of "statute", those laws that are codified and written down, and those things that are not codified as any singular law but still recognized as directing principle, "case law", with this generally including what is referenced as "common law." However "common law" is not necessarily recognized as being binding. Common Law is a part of that man-made Positive Law, and entirely outside of Natural Law.
Natural Law and Common Law really have nothing to do with one another.
Given these facts, the claim that "common law" grand juries have some overriding authority, and are founded in American principles protecting individual rights, is a stunning ignorance demonstrating a failed understanding of both this country, as well as the issues these groups claim authority regarding.
IMPLICATIONS OF "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURIES BEING VALID
If such a thing were ever recognized, it would eventually result in citizen's grand juries being formed at a whim, and "stacked" with people intending to reach a pre-ordained conclusion, resulting in presentments or indictments for things that really are not all that legitimate. Someone might even be criminally charged for eating a pastry into the shape of a gun.
Then there's always the old cliche, "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich."
Imagine the pure Hell that would be unleashed if the angry mobs in Ferguson could legitimately form their own "common law Grand Jury", and then pronounce a true bill presentment charging Officer Wilson with First Degree Murder, overruling the previous Grand Jury, and the Missouri State Attorney would then be obligated to follow up on that charge, by arresting and trying Wilson for his very life. This could still happen despite a Grand Jury having already resolved that there was no evidence to charge Wilson.
Why wouldn't a grand jury formed by and from the angry mobs of Ferguson be valid? There is no special process involved in forming or validating those "common law" grand juries, and certainly everything inviting them to be "stacked" with people of whatever belief. That "angry Ferguson mob" could form their own "common law" grand jury, every bit as legitimate as any other common law grand jury.
Seriously, pause and consider if this were true, any group of people could go off and form their own legitimate "common law" grand jury, and suddenly you yourself might have to answer to that jury's charges in an official court of law.
Or WORSE! If they can do their own charges (presentments), why not their own convictions too? We might have to answer to some unknown body of people, formed under unknown terms, acting entirely outside of the legal system, perhaps not even convening inside a courthouse, perhaps with a serious grudge against us for whatever reason, and they would be able to actually put us on trial for something, anything, perhaps having us fight in their fabricated court for our very lives!
If such things were allowed, none of us, not-a-one, would ever be safe from wild charges coming out of nowhere, or trials for our very life, liberty, and property in "no holds barred" makeshift courts in the middle of nowhere. No one would ever be truly safe.
This is not how we fix things. It is how the justice system and society itself would become forever broken, subject to mob rule, and America lost in absolute Anarchy, never to be a Republic again.
Swilling beer, smoking dope and leering at porn, the other side of hate preacher 'Andy' Choudary
The British live 'like animals in a jungle' with their alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography.
That is the stated view of Anjem Choudary, the preacher of hate who this week insulted the families of dead soldiers and branded their marching comrades as cowards.
The extremist wants Britain to be brought under Sharia law, with women forced to wear burkas and put to death for adultery.
Yet before he grew his beard and turned to fundamentalism, Choudary, 41, was very much the life and soul of the party at Southampton University.
Big night out: The university law student Anjem Choudary's reading list extended to this soft-porn title
New identity: Choudary, centre, moved to radical Islam soon after qualifying as a solicitor
Photographs obtained by the Mail suggest 'Andy' - as he was then known - should be inflicting on himself the 40 lashes he prescribes for drunkenness.
As well as downing cider and lager, the cleric is shown playing drinking games with cards, clearly forbidden under his strict Islamic laws, and holding a cannabis joint between his lips before smoking it.
And the woman on the cover of the Mayfair pornographic magazine he is looking at is certainly not wearing a burka.
On the evidence of friends from his student days, Choudary had sex with numerous white Christian girls.
Under his version of Sharia law, he should be stoned to death for sex outside marriage.
High time: Choudary with a beer and joint, and right, swigging a cider in one go
One former friend said: 'I can't keep a straight face when I see "fundamentalist Muslim Anjem Choudary" in the papers attacking the British for drinking or having girlfriends.
'When I knew him, he liked to be called Andy, would often smoke cannabis spliffs all day, and was proud of his ability to down a pint of cider in a couple of seconds.
'And he was ruthless with girls. When he briefly worked as an English teacher for foreign students in London, he'd pull one of them every few days, sleep with her, then move on to another.
'If Sharia law was introduced, he would have been whipped and stoned to death many times over.'
Choudary, who was born in South-East London to a market stall-holder of Pakistani descent, has become one of the faces of extremist Islam.
But in his days as a law student, he experimented with LSD, hallucinating and laughing hysterically for more than 20 hours.
After he qualified as a solicitor, however, he swiftly moved into ever more radical Islam.
Former acquaintances said this was possibly because he was angered by his failure to land a well-paid job with a big City law firm.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161909/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope-leering-porn-hate-preacher-Andy-Choudary.html#ixzz3ElwT7mui Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
If You Place or Post Ads Online You Need To Read Our Article Article At Project N Search -
Being a Tea Party member places a HUGE target on your back. The tax exempt scandal proved that the IRS will go to great lengths to deprive honest Americans their constitutional rights. I contacted the IRS Criminal Investigation Unit on May 9th, 2014 and informed them that I could verify whether President Obama was a tax fraud in 1 minute! The IRS sent me a letter on May 20th, 2014 stating that my Whistleblower Form 211 didn’t contain an original signature. This was a blatant lie on behalf of the IRS. I suspect the IRS “lost” my signed original in the same manner they lost Lois Lerner’s emails. I mailed a second “signed” Form 211 on May 30th, 2014. The IRS has never launched an investigation to determine whether Barack Obama committed a felony by willfully failing to pay his federal taxes.
5 WAYS TO PROVE PRESIDENT OBAMA COMMITED FRAUD!
Chairman Dave Camp of the Joint Tax Committee can request Barack Obama’s IRS Account Transcript for 1990. At a minimum, this would confirm that BO failed to pay social security taxes on his book advance and currently owes the U.S. Treasury between $43,000 and $130,000.
Congress can subpoena Barack Obama’s social security earnings records for 1990. Don’t worry about the CIA trying to redact these records. If 1990 isn’t available, then subpoena every year from 1991 through 2014. Records can be altered but computer forensics will leave a complete picture of the fraud.
American Center for Law and Justice Attorney Jay Sekulow can file a lawsuit to obtain the release of Barack Obama’s social security records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Subpoena Harvard Law School financial aid department to verify timing of $43,000 in student loans from 1988 through 1991. Did BO defraud the federal government by pleading poverty on his student loan applications after he was flush with cash after receiving a $75,000 book advance?
Congress can extract Barack Obama’s 2006 Senate Financial Disclosure Report. Did President Obama submit a fraudulent report by failing to report an outstanding federal tax liability approaching $40,000.
5 REASONS I BELIEVE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS A FRAUD
Barack Obama would have needed to write out a check to the Internal Revenue Service for $26,490 just four and ½ months after receiving his $75,000 book advance in November of 1990. BO’s personal accountant may have filed an amended tax return in later years but he would have conveniently forgotten that the book advance required BO to pay the IRS $8,370 in social security taxes.
Barack Obama was incompetent when he prepared his 2001 tax return. He made 10 math errors, prepared three different versions, claimed phantom income of $21,000 and overpaid his taxes by $7,300.
BO remembered grass falling from his grandmother’s apron in the book Dreams From My Father. How is it possible that BO could recall events that happened 25 years ago but can’t remember the content of his speech he read five minutes earlier without the aid of a teleprompter?
Barack Obama accumulated 17 parking tickets while attending Harvard and paid just two in February of 1990. Nine months later BO received a $75,000 book advance but made no attempt to pay his delinquent parking tickets.
Barack Obama received book income of $1.5 million in 2005. Why did BO wait to pay his delinquent Harvard parking tickets just two weeks before announcing his candidacy for President in 2007?
I’m the only Certified Public Accountant that has been involved in an Impeachment Trial of a presiding Governor in the last 70 years. If I’m wrong about President Obama being a tax fraud I will personally pay my way to Guantanamo Bay. Let the water boarding begin!
The Stupidity of the Impeach Now Movement
Why I have maintained that attempting to impeach the man in the White House is down right stupid is really simple; however, the explanation takes a little time as it involves education. Try to remember that a failure to convict on the articles of impeachment will render it impossible to do so at a later date., for any reason.
Impeachment is not a finding, it is an indictment. After the indictment comes the trail. Impeaching BOH would be easy. The house presents a Articles of Impeachemnt, the votes are counted and he is impeached. Then comes the problem. The trial. That is conducted in the Senate only and the judge is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as mandated in our constitution. Even Dirty Harry cannot refuse to hold that trial and the president can't use an executive order to make it go away. He must be tried if the house impeaches, BUT, and it is a big but, as things stand now the senate would never vote to convict. So we wait. Thank goodness some of the politicians are being smart. Not too many I agree, but there are some.
If we can take control of the senate with just a few votes over a simple majority there MIGHT be a chance. Here is the full process and some comments on that process:
In the Senate
The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction. (note: 67 senators have to vote for conviction)
The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "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." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to constitutional lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:
Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
There are obvious land mines in this process. One of those is when the senate retires to consider it's verdict. The prosecuting attorneys are excluded because they are not senators. How about the defense attorneys? Any defense attorney, selected by the president remember, that is a member of the senate is going to be part of that closed session. Just one reason it has never resulted in conviction. Then there is the seeming fact that one of the things a person serving a full term in the senate seems to misplace is his, or her, conscience. It just seems to get lost, somehow.
So what do we need to impeach and convict this usurper? It appears that we need about 56 conservatives to be elected to the senate. I don't see that happening, do you? However let is be positive. The next session of congress is convened and Dirty Harry is relegated to senate minority leader. The conservatives and the swell of grass roots conservatism convinces a few more liberals that their interest in power is best served by getting BOH out of the White House. Just might happen. Sure can't happen as things stand now.
San Diego evangelical minister, James L. Garlow, says if history books are not distorted by today’s revisionistic tendencies, President Obama’s legacy should be that he’s responsible for “morally and economically destroying a wonderful experiment called America.”
In this two part video interview with Daily Caller, Pastor Garlow also says that President Obama’s Attorney General has brought the nation “legal anarchy.”
Garlow says, “I do not recall in my lifetime anything remotely close to what we are seeing. For the law enforcer in Washington D.C., the chief in America, to tell the Attorneys General across the states that you don’t have to enforce the law if you don’t like it. That is beyond anything I was taught in school. Rule of law and consent of the governed has been lost.”
Raised on the plains of Kansas, Pastor Garlow has written 12 books, having been a Wesleyan church leader in Texas for 13 years before he came to lead Skyline Church near San Diego, CA in 1995.
Courageous in the public square and a leader in the battle to protect traditional marriage from the secular humanists in California, Garlow has felt the wrath of the militant, vile left for his leadership roles, yet he continues to take strong stances for his beliefs.
Dear Mr. President, members of Congress, judges, FBI agents, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, IRS, Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, law enforcement officers, and anyone acting in any capacity for the government who think their job is to keep us down, keep us in our place, keep tabs on us, keep their hand in our pockets, keep inciting racial discord, keep spending money, and the rest of you government lackeys who never actually worked for a paycheck:
It’s time for us to have a conversation. You don’t know me, even though you have sifted through my email, listened to my phone conversations, oversaw my blog and Facebook posts, taxed the hell out of me, never once actually acted on any of those letters, phone calls or emails I sent you expressing my opinion about upcoming bills, or how you govern the country. Let me tell you a little about myself before we get to the meat of the matter.
I am Mrs. Nobody, and I am Mrs. Everybody. You have passed me on the street and never noticed. I am pretty unremarkable, except, you see, I am not. I have spent most of my years as a student, a wife, a mother, a worker, a boss, a small business owner, an artist, a cook, a blogger, a reader, a Christian, a dog lover, a really lousy singer who likes to sing along to oldies, and a patriot. Recently, I achieved possibly the highest honor in my life with the birth of a little smiling girl and a happy laughing boy. I became a grandmother.
That essential spark we humans carry inside us was fanned again into flame, as each new generation tends to do for us. We settle down into life and we become somewhat complacent until something rocks us, something so exciting and holding such promise for the future, so that naturally, as new parents and grandparents, we are stirred to passion and concern for our world and the world we will leave for our beloved children and grandchildren.
Maybe that’s why you guys are so big on abortion, because you don’t need all those new kids upsetting the status quo you have going on, but I digress.
Back to our conversation. Several years ago I made the comment to my friend Yatz that if I were in the Army, I’d probably be a cook. I said that for a number of reasons, and on a number of levels it has meaning to me. At the time, it was pretty self deprecating, and meant to be, but I have had some time to think it over and I have decided you government jerks (I wanted to use the term pricks, but I thought better of it. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are in on this letter too) had better be afraid of us cooks.
This is going to be a chain of thought list here, in no particular order of occurrence or ranking of abuse. It’s Mother’s Day when I am writing this, and I have better things to do than lay out a history lesson and formal outline of your abuses. You commit them faster than I can keep up anyhow.
You allowed my fellow Americans to die in Benghazi, and you didn’t even go to the security meetings while you schmoozed and boozed and slept and sent your minions out to lie and deceive, you stood in the way of military assistance, and then you flung your heinous, evil, “What difference does it make?” comment in the face of wives, children, mothers, fathers, friends, the world, and, oh, yeah, me. You sent the IRS to harass and persecute me when you stood in front of the Tea Party.
You are allowing veterans to die and fudging the numbers to cover your sorry, worthless, lemme say that one again, worthless butts. You are arresting parents at school board meetings who question your agenda. You are driving armored Hummers in my small town, you “peace officers.” You are harassing gun owners, you are attempting to use every tragedy, every nefarious method you can connive to take away or abridge my right to own and carry a gun, you are forcing me to pay for abortions and birth control, you are fighting my freedom of religion on every front, especially against my Christian brothers and sisters serving in the military.
A months-long Watchdog.org analysis of political influence on the admissions process at UT Law found there’s some truth, after all, to the old line about who you know mattering more than what you know. We found dozens of Longhorns who don’t know enough to be lawyers but know somebody important in the Legislature.
Two of those mediocre students are legislators themselves.
Some have connections to the leadership circle of House Speaker Joe Straus, others to powerful state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, who’s already been caught three times trying to pull end runs around the admissions process.
Wallace Hall, a University of Texas regent, cited dozens of emails and letters that he obtained in a records review to support claims that some members of the Legislature abused their positions to influence admissions decisions.
Barely two weeks after Hall began his investigation of influence peddling last June, the Legislature launched proceedings to impeach him. The correspondence Hall saw has been kept from the public, as have the conclusions of an inquiry into favoritism conducted by Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa.
This Watchdog.org review of the record is meant to shine the available light on a process shrouded in secrecy by education privacy laws and by top school officials reluctant to embarrass powerful politicians, some of whom happen to be their friends.
Watchdog.org found a pattern of overlapping political influence and underwhelming performance on the bar exam. Any single one of the cases we describe could have an alternate explanation, such as personal problems that derailed studies.
Taken as a whole, however, they offer clear evidence that political influence is the reason dozens of students who are unable to pass the bar are getting into the state’s top law school.
Wherever it’s possible to tell this story without using the names of people who are one or two degrees removed from public life, we’ll do so, for reasons of privacy. We will provide a complete list of names to any university official interested in a review.
Until now, the most striking piece of evidence for the favoritism charge is the result of the February 2014 bar exam, published by the state Board of Law Examiners. UT is usually near the top of the list, with a passage rate for first time takers of about 95 percent. In February, UT’s 59 percent pass rate was dead last in Texas.
That could be a fluke. But we’ve found two dozen reasons to think it’s not.
The purpose of this article is to encourage the discussion of an alternative perspective regarding the true intent and underlying framework of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting correct and proper interpretative process thereof. In order to protect all relevant parties the correct perspective that should be utilized when attempting to properly interpret the U.S. Constitution is to consider Constitutional Law as merely a body of knowledge that is a special and unique subset of Contract Law.
Our position is that the U.S. Constitution is actually a tri-lateral contract between the various branches, departments, agencies and officials of the Federal government, the group of 50 states and various territories, and the totality of all U.S. citizens and legal residents. All three of these groups of aggregated parties have mutually negotiated, either directly or indirectly through their representatives, the original provisions, together with multiple added or amended provisions, while citizens and resident aliens have simultaneously, temporarily and partially surrendered or subordinated a portion of their individual inalienable and common law rights based solely upon their mutual and collective reliance upon the negotiated protections contractually agreed upon, promised, and therefore guaranteed, by their respective State governments, and subsequently the Federal government.
Because many of the rights of the citizens and legal residents are inalienable rights, and the rights of the Federal government and the various States are not inalienable, but merely delegated, there must be a hierarchical interpretive process that maintains the superiority of the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents above the delegated rights of the various States and the Federal government. In addition, because the rights of the citizens were first partially delegated and partially subordinated to the rights of the States, and then subsequently to the Federal government, the rights of the States are, by rule of law, contract, common law, natural law, and common decency, superior to the rights of the Federal government.
When any parties agree to the existence, or establish the existence, of any right or set of rights in any contractual relationship they must always recognize that an appropriate set of naturally corresponding responsibilities also mandatorily coexists. If during the life of the contract there ever appears to be an actual or alleged imbalance between these negotiated, common law, and/or inalienable rights, then there exists the possibility that this imbalance presumptively demonstrates that one party to this special and unique contract is presumably in material breach of the contract through a potentially illegal and/or abusive set of actions, and in order for the contract to remain valid there must exist a set of remedies that will allow the aggrieved party, or parties, to be made whole and restored to an appropriate position and experiential level of inalienable rights.
A set of imbalances can be created by one party in an attempt to impose their will upon the other parties to an agreement. It appears that, during the last 100 years, that the Federal government has gradually, and is currently at an exponential rate, successfully and unilaterally amending the terms of this special and unique contract and has reduced, modified, and/or stolen significant inalienable rights from citizens and legal residents in their attempt to increasingly gain an imbalanced level of superior rights and powers while reducing the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents and promoting mere privileges to the level of alienable rights to persons who are unconcerned with the rule of law and therefore will, unwittingly, assist the Federal government in their pursuit of additional power.
All three branches of the Federal government are guilty of this attempted, and significantly successful, power grab of rights without a corresponding set of increased responsibilities, including the failure to insure the protection of the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents.
The Supreme Court has done so by misinterpreting the true intent and underlying framework of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting correct and proper interpretative process. As a result their opinions have misaligned the natural political order and the original constitutionally created balance of legitimate rights and responsibilities and have therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, assisted and enabled the Legislative and Executive Branches in their own attempts to further unilaterally modify the tri-lateral contract by further shifting man created rights to the Federal Executive Branch while unilaterally, illegally and deceitfully modifying and reducing inalienable rights.
Many citizens of the various states inherently understand that something is not right with the Federal government and the manner that it is operating while others are now beginning to understand exactly what constitutional principles are being violated by the various branches. In order for the contractually agreed upon U.S. Constitution to continue to be a valid agreement between the parties it must be interpreted in a manner that allows all parties to have the necessary level and types of remedies that correspond to their specific level of rights inherent in this special and unique contract. Below is listed a summary of certain contract law principles that should be the basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution and protecting the rights of the citizens and legal residents.
Fiduciary Duty - Because States have partially delegated various rights of their citizens and legal residents to the Federal government they therefore have the fiduciary duty to protect these persons and proactively insure that the Federal government is not allowed to operate in a manner that unilaterally breaches the tri-lateral contract through the usurpation or eliminate of the various inherent rights of their citizens.
Adhesion Contract - Whenever a Federal law or regulation can not be interpreted in a manner that protects the inalienable, natural, or common law rights of a citizen or legal resident of the various states or territories in a manner that maintains their rights at a level that is superior to the inferior rights of a Federal or State government then that law or regulation is invalid and void. Otherwise the U.S. Constitution is invalidated and voidable.
Material mistake of fact - Whenever the basis of a law or regulation is based upon an alleged fact that is incorrect, or later is proven or becomes untrue, then that adopted law or regulation is void, not merely voidable, and the Supreme Court, and all inferior courts, are without the authority to refrain from holding that said law or regulation is void.
Fraud in the inducement - Whenever a Federal legislative act or agency promulgated regulation is publically presented, whether verbally or in writing, by an elected or appointed official, in a manner that is untrue or misleading and is subsequently proven to be untrue, then that adopted law or regulation is void, not merely voidable, and the Supreme Court, and all inferior courts, are without the authority to refrain from holding that said law or regulation is void.
What’s wrong and disturbing about this picture?-You Decide:
Juggalo Couple Arrested In Colorado After Feeding Child Marijuana!-Posted on National Report-On January 4, 2014:
Glenwood Springs, CO–A Colorado couple has been arrested and charged with child abuse after feeding their five-year old daughter large amounts of marijuana. 23-year-old James Dolby and his wife 21-year-old Debbie Dolby were arrested in their Glenwood Springs apartment Friday evening when police officers received a call from a concerned neighbor.
The couple, self-professed “Juggalos”, are being held tonight without bail and are being charged with felony child abuse.
Detective Andrew Donnelly was first on the scene and reported a strong odor of marijuana in the residence. Upon questioning the couple, Mr. Donnelly observed the child in a comatose state and proceeded with arresting the young parents.
The child was taken to Glenwood Springs Community Hospital and tested positive for large amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psycho active chemical in marijuana. The child will be held for further testing and will be released to family members following an evaluation by the Department of Human Services.
Juggalos have earned themselves a reputation as violent criminals, bent on undermining the laws and social values of American culture. The FBI have even officially classified them as a dangerous gang in 2011. Allegedly, fans of the rap group Insane Clown Posse are also responsible for the manufacturing of much harder narcotics such as methamphetamine. Police officials are still unsure if the couple are involved in any of the other gang related activities that Juggalos are known for.
The arrest comes just days after Colorado opened it’s doors to the legal distribution of recreational marijuana. Many in the area fear this will not be the last case of child abuse related to the legalization of the drug.
Feds Raid Colorado Pot Shop!-Posted on National Report-On January 4, 2013:
New York to be 21st state to allow medical marijuana!-Posted on CBS News-By Associated Press-On January 5, 2014:
World’s first legal recreational marijuana sales begin in Colorado!-Posted on The Denver Post-By John Ingold-On January 1, 2013:
In a historic swirl of commerce and cannabis, the world’s first stores licensed to sell marijuana legally to anyone 21 or older opened in Colorado on Wednesday.
From Telluride to Denver, thousands of people cheerfully stood in lines for hours to buy legal marijuana after presenting nothing more than identification.
Marijuana activists hailed the day as a watershed in their effort to overturn anti-cannabis laws. Store owners — several of whom said the turnout exceeded even their own ambitious expectations — feared running out of supply.
Police reported no problems with the crowds, and government officials marveled at the calm.
“It’s 8 a.m.,” she said. “I’m going to do it.”
The first customer was 32-year-old Sean Azzariti, an Iraq war veteran who campaigned for marijuana legalization and said he uses cannabis to alleviate symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Under a canopy of cameras, Azzariti bought an eighth of an ounce of the marijuana strain Bubba Kush and a package of marijuana-infused candy truffles.
“We did it!” a beaming Azzariti said at the end of the purchase.
The cost was $59.74, including $10.46 in tax. At the bottom of the receipt was the message “Thank you for your purchase!”
“I’m confident these businesses will perform and be a good example of how states can regulate marijuana,” activist Mason Tvert said just prior to the store’s first purchase. “Today, there will be people around the country buying marijuana. But only in Colorado will they be buying it in stores like this one.”
Concerns of foes
Opponents of legalization bemoaned the day as the beginning of what will be a disastrous venture for Colorado. Drug-treatment professionals said recreational sales will lead to increases in marijuana addiction among adults and kids. They compared the nascent recreational marijuana industry to the tobacco and liquor industries and said they expected it to spawn similar harms.
Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug-policy adviser, said that Wednesday marks the dawn of “Big Marijuana.”
“In any addictive industry, such as this one, the only way to make money is off of addiction,” he said Tuesday.
While marijuana sales remain illegal under federal law, no place in the world — not even Amsterdam — has gone as far as Colorado to legalize and regulate sales of marijuana. The law allows state residents to buy up to an ounce of marijuana and out-of-state residents a quarter-ounce.
Later this year, Washington state will launch a marijuana industry similar to Colorado’s. The U.S. Department of Justice has decided not to block legalization in either state, so long as the states implement strict regulations on the stores.
In a statement Wednesday, Colorado U.S. Attorney John Walsh said federal authorities “will be monitoring Colorado’s efforts to regulate marijuana closely.”
“Colorado’s system is still very much a work in progress,” he said.
Investigators from the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division made compliance checks at stores throughout the day. In Denver, city officials kept an eye on things, too.
Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown said he was “pleasantly surprised” by the large, mellow crowd he encountered during a visit to Medicine Man dispensary in Denver, where lines wrapped around the building and into a parking lot.
“It’s kind of a relief, frankly,” he said. “This could have gone a lot of different ways. So far, so good.”
“What I love about it,” Denver Councilman Albus Brooks said, “is the peacefulness of the crowd ... and the diversity.”
Denver police said they issued two citations for public marijuana consumption, although a spokesman couldn’t say whether those tickets were connected to marijuana sales.
A night-long drive In Telluride, Lucas DaSilva of Georgia drove through the night and slept in his car with his dog, Marley, before settling at the front door of the Telluride Green Room about dawn. A few hours later, he emerged from the store $180 lighter but holding 6 grams — about one-fifth of an ounce — of African Queen, Acapulco Gold and Bubble Gum strains of cannabis and several marijuana-infused edibles.
“I’m at a loss for words,” he said, then, with arms outstretched, yelled, “Happy New Year!” — prompting cheers from the line.
“This is history I just made,” he said. “I can’t believe it. Such a blessing.”
At 8 a.m., the lines of customers outside most stores were fairly short, but they lengthened as the day went on. By midafternoon, customers at BotanaCare in Northglenn said they waited as long as five hours to make their purchases. At LoDo Wellness, in Denver, the line stretched down the block, with a wait of about three hours.
Building owner Donald Andrews gazed at the line and called out, “It is a thing of beauty!”
A jump in pricesStores were charging $30 to $50 — and sometimes more — for an eighth of an ounce of marijuana, which is slightly to significantly higher than prices for medical marijuana. At least one store had increased its prices for opening day. For fear of running out on opening day, several stores, including 3D Cannabis, imposed added limits on how much customers could buy.
Standing in line outside 3D Cannabis, though, Brandon Harris, 24, didn’t much care about the price, the limits or the wait. He and friend Tyler Williams, also 24, said they had driven 20 hours straight from Cincinnati to be in Denver for the first day of sales. Now that they’re here, Harris said, they’re not going back home.
“We’re staying,” he said. “We’re going to become residents.”
Staff writers Sadie Gurman, Steve Raabe, Zahira Torres, Eric Gorski and Jason Blevins contributed to this report.
Colorado governor signs recreational marijuana regulations into law!-Posted on Reuters-By KEITH COFFMAN-On May 28, 2013:
(Reuters) - Governor John Hickenlooper on Tuesday signed into law measures to regulate the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado, including blood-level limits for motorists and setting up a voter referendum to impose a tax on the non-medical sale of cannabis.
Colorado House of Representatives Assistant Majority Leader Dan Pabon said the legislation reflected the “will of the voters” who charged lawmakers with setting up the regulatory system after approving legalization in a vote last November.
One of the bills signed by Hickenlooper calls for a referendum in November on setting a 15 percent excise tax and an additional 10 percent sales tax on marijuana sales.
Other measures included in the legislative package are setting blood limits for driving while under the influence of marijuana at 5 nanograms per milliter, and limiting purchases of marijuana to non-Colorado residents at one-quarter of an ounce.
“The laws ... signed today put the health and safety of our kids front and center,” said Pabon, a Democrat. “They drive a stake into the heart of a large black market while creating a regulated, legitimate industry.”
House Republican leader Mark Waller, who sponsored the driving-under-the-influence legislation, said Colorado is in “new and foreign territory” in implementing its marijuana laws and it was vital to add a public safety component.
“Equipping law enforcement with the tools they need to ensure people make safe decisions behind the wheel is critical to maximizing public safety,” he said.
Voters in Washington state also approved legalizing recreational marijuana use last November.
Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which ran the campaign for the Colorado pot legalization ballot initiative, said it is “only a matter of time” before other states follow the lead of Colorado and Washington.
He said Colorado’s retail marijuana stores were expected to open in early 2014.
Colorado and Washington are among nearly 20 states and the District of Columbia that allow the use of medical marijuana. The federal government still lists it as a dangerous narcotic and it remains illegal under federal law to take the drug for any purpose.
After the Colorado legislature passed the bills, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Denver said the Justice Department was considering what its response will be to the marijuana legalization movement.
In Washington state, the Liquor Control Board is required to establish regulations for the state’s recreational marijuana industry. Earlier this month the agency released a set of draft rules that said marijuana must be grown indoors and tested for contaminants and potency. Licenses to grow, process and sell the drug would each cost $1,000 per year on top of a $250 application fee under the proposed guidelines.
(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Bill Trott)
SOROS REMAKES AMERICA INTO NARCO NATION!-Posted on News With Views-By Cliff Kincaid-On December 7, 2012:
As more states embrace legalization of marijuana—a pet cause of George Soros for decades—the British publication The Independent has published a groundbreaking series of articles by journalist Patrick Cockburn on how his son went insane smoking the drug.
Cockburn and his son Henry, who was treated for psychosis and partially recovered, have written an article in which Patrick Cockburn is quoted as saying his son played Russian roulette with cannabis “and lost.”
Henry, who smoked marijuana daily for seven years and was in mental hospitals for about eight years as a result, says, “When I reached a mental hospital, called St Martin’s, I spent three hours walking around the lunch tables trying to listen to my shoes. I thought my shoes were talking to me.”
Patrick Cockburn spent months speaking to the experts in the field and reports on the substantial evidence linking sustained marijuana use with mental illness. One expert, Sir William Paton, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, reveals “that even limited social use of cannabis could precipitate schizophrenia in people who previously had no psychological problems,” and noted that “smoking a single joint could induce schizophrenia-like symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia and fragmented thought processes.”
“Three-quarters of consumers may take cannabis with no ill effect but the remaining quarter, the genetically vulnerable, play Russian roulette,” Cockburn says.
The added significance of the series of articles by Patrick Cockburn is that he is a left-wing media figure—the son of Marxist author Claud Cockburn—and might be predisposed to believe that marijuana is, as the liberal media constantly tell us, a relatively harmless drug or a substance with “medical” qualities. But he knows the harm it causes firsthand through what it did to his son.
AIM noted back in 2004, in a special report on George Soros, the main financier behind the drug legalization movement, that although marijuana is depicted by the media as a “soft” drug, it has “extremely negative consequences.” The book, Marijuana and Madness, cites studies and evidence from around the world, some of it going back 40 years, linking the use of marijuana to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and psychosis.
In a previous article for the left-wing publication Counterpunch, Patrick Cockburn took issue with a report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy which played down the dangers associated with marijuana. “They fail to make clear that for people genetically susceptible to psychosis the risks involved in taking cannabis may be lethally high,” he noted. “Cigarettes and alcohol, whatever harm they cause, do not, at a young age, send you mad.”
The Global Commission on Drug Policy is funded by the Open Society Institute of George Soros.
In this country, the case of Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell stands out as a case study of the harmful effects of the drug. Bedell, who shot and wounded two guards at the Pentagon in March of 2010, was a psychotic pothead who hated a government that he believed was standing in the way of his desire to use, grow and glorify marijuana. He virtually worshipped the drug. “I’m a cannabis enthusiast,” he proclaimed.
John Podesta, head of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP), had suggested on ABC News that the taxing and legalization of marijuana on a national basis could be a way to pay for Obama’s health care plan.
“The pro-cannabis lobby says that the so-called ‘war on drugs’ has failed and legalization or regulation should be tried, though critics argue that no government would ever license a drug that sends at least two percent of its consumers insane,” Cockburn reports.
In the first of Cockburn’s articles, “Is this the ‘tobacco moment’ for cannabis?,” the veteran foreign correspondent suggests a connection between marijuana use and psychotic episodes that is comparable to the scientific recognition that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer and other illnesses.
In addition to the dangers of mental illness, Cockburn notes that a major study finds a drop in intelligence associated with heavy marijuana use.
Cockburn’s articles on the link between marijuana and mental illness become increasingly relevant as the public in the U.S. comes to grips with the fact that voters in the states of Washington and Colorado on November 6 passed ballot measures legalizing marijuana, in violation of federal law. Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette has introduced federal legalization that would amend the Controlled Substances Act to assert that federal law does not preempt state laws.
In response, a group called Save Our Society From Drugs, has said, “Many concerned citizens, community groups, law enforcement agencies and elected officials are concerned how these laws will impact their communities, states and the nation, and are urging the Obama Administration to take action by clearly communicating and enforcing federal drug policies.”
The group added, “Keeping marijuana illegal is a treaty obligation under the 1961 International Convention on Narcotic Drugs and is supported by the two other Conventions: the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Drugs and the 1988 Anti-Trafficking Convention. Allowing state marijuana laws to supersede federal drug laws violates our treaty obligations.”
It said, “Marijuana legalization will significantly impact our environment, school scores and drop-out rates, accident and vehicle fatality rates, employee productivity, and healthcare and treatment costs.”
But the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance is rallying behind the DeGette bill, saying it would “end federal marijuana prohibition and allow states to set their own marijuana policy without federal interference.”
The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power!-Posted on Accuracy In Media-By Cliff Kincaid-On October 27, 2004:
How many times have we heard or read stories about Vice President Dick Cheney’s old firm, Halliburton, and its alleged influence over the government? A public company with more than 100,000 employees, Halliburton had revenues of $13 billion in 2001. However, George Soros is a human Halliburton who will be in a position if John Kerry is elected president to pull the strings. He is reportedly worth $7.2 billion. But his role in buying the White House for John Kerry has received generally positive coverage. Soros, we’re told, is a “philanthropist” committed to “democracy.” The Republican Party, by contrast, is supposed to be run by fat cats and Big Business, such as those at Halliburton.
Soros may be the biggest political fat cat of all time. Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests. He is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. His power is such that his statements alone can cause currencies to go up or down. Other people suffer so he can get rich. But journalists don’t want to examine the questionable means by which he achieved his wealth because they share his goal of electing Kerry and the Democrats. Curiously, once he made his fortune he became a global socialist, endorsing global taxes on the very means he employed to get rich ? international currency speculation and manipulation.
The media consistently ignore the fact that this so-called “philanthropist” has had several brushes with the law as he has laid siege to national economies and currencies. Hard-working U.S. businessmen understand how Soros has made his money. In protesting a Soros appearance hosted by the University of Toledo, Edwin J. Nagle III, president and CEO of the Nagle Companies, highlighted “the immoral and unethical means by which he achieved his wealth.” He added, “I certainly didn’t see included in his bio the stories on how he collapsed whole country’s currencies for his own self interests so that many may suffer.”
Here, Soros signed a consent decree in United States District Court, in a Securities and Exchange Commission case involving stock manipulation, and was fined $75,000 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for holding positions “in excess of speculative limits.” Stories about Soros rarely, if ever, mention any of his legal problems.
George Soros’ real crusade: Legalizing marijuana in the U.S!-Posted on The Washington Times-By Kelly Riddell, The Washington Times-On April 2, 2014:
Billionaire philanthropist George Soros hopes the U.S. goes to pot, and he is using his money to drive it there.
With a cadre of like-minded, wealthy donors, Mr. Soros is dominating the pro-legalization side of the marijuana debate by funding grass-roots initiatives that begin in New York City and end up affecting local politics elsewhere.
Through a network of nonprofit groups, Mr. Soros has spent at least $80 million on the legalization effort since 1994, when he diverted a portion of his foundation’s funds to organizations exploring alternative drug policies, according to tax filings.
His spending has been supplemented by Peter B. Lewis, the late chairman of Progressive Insurance Co. and an unabashed pot smoker who channeled more than $40 million to influence local debates, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The two billionaires’ funding has been unmatched by anyone on the other side of the debate.
Mr. Soros also donates annually to the American Civil Liberties Union, which in turn funds marijuana legalization efforts, and he has given periodically to the Marijuana Policy Project, which funds state ballot measures.
Lewis, who died in November, donated to legalization efforts in his name and through the ACLU and the Marijuana Policy Project, on which he served as the chairman of the board. Lewis‘ estate declined to comment for this article.
“The pro-legalization movement hasn’t come from a groundswell of the people. A great deal of its funding and fraud has been perpetrated by George Soros and then promoted by celebrities,” said John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under George W. Bush. “The truth is under attack, and it’s an absolutely dangerous direction for this country to be going in.”
Mr. Soros‘ Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects, according to 2011 tax returns, the most recent on file for his charitable organizations.
David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011.
Mr. Soros did not respond to a request to be interviewed.
‘A question of when’
In his book “Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve,” he said the U.S. policy of criminalizing drug use rather than treating it as a medical problem is so ill-conceived that “the remedy is often worse than the disease.”
Although Mr. Soros didn’t outline an alternative in his book, he wrote that he could imagine legalizing some of the less-harmful drugs and directing the money saved from the criminal justice system to treatment.
“Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education,” Mr. Soros said in a 2010 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. “Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I’d much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration.”
“Drug use, the use of any substance, is a health issue and we shouldn’t be throwing people in jail for health issues,” said Bill Piper, the alliance’s director of national affairs in Washington. “The No. 1 reason why people with substance abuse disorders don’t seek help is because they’re afraid of getting arrested.
“From a constitutional and legal perspective, states can legalize marijuana if they want, and there’s nothing the federal government can do,” he said. “State after state decided to end the prohibition of alcohol and forced the federal government to change federal law.
“What we’re going to see over next decade is states repel marijuana prohibition and then the federal government following suit. It’s not a question of whether it’s going to happen; it’s a question of when.”
Drug Policy Alliance Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann said in an email that funding levels from Mr. Soros “have bounced around a bit over the years but it’s roughly $4 million per year (i.e., 1/3) of DPA’s general operating budget.”
“Other funding comes from other wealthy individuals (including quite a number who agree with Soros on little apart from drug policy), foundations and about 25,000 people making smaller contributions through the mail and Internet,” Mr. Nadelmann said in the email.
Mr. Soros and Lewis, with help from the Drug Policy Alliance and Marijuana Policy Project, helped 2012 ballot initiatives that legalized the recreational use of marijuana in Washington state and Colorado. Federal law still outlaws possession, use, sale and distribution of the drug.
Mr. Soros, Lewis and their various nonprofits provided 68 percent of the funding that went to New Approach to Washington, the group that mobilized signatures to get the initiative on the state ballot and then promoted it.
The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, a grass-roots group that supported pot legalization in Colorado, was established by the Marijuana Policy Project and was 67 percent funded by nonprofits associated with the two billionaires. The campaign then bankrolled Moms and Dads for Marijuana Regulation, a seemingly unassociated group of pro-legalization parents that in reality consisted of only a billboard and a press release, according to state election records.
“The other side has so much money, it’s incredible, and the bulk of it is coming from a handful of people who want to change public policy,” said Calvina Fay, executive director of Save Our Society From Drugs, whose organization was the largest donor to Smart Colorado, the initiative opposed to legalization.
“When we look at what we’ve been able to raise in other states, they raise millions. We’re lucky if we can raise $100,000. It’s been a process of basically brainwashing the public. They run ads, put up billboards, get high-profile celebrity support and glowing media coverage. If you can repeat a lie often enough, the people believe,” Ms. Fay said.
Other states line up
Mason Tvert, co-director and spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project’s Colorado campaign, disagrees.
“There simply is no grass-roots support for maintaining marijuana prohibition,” he said. “Anyone who suggests otherwise is just not paying attention. They’re railing against a public policy that most Americans support.”
“Not that we would turn away Mr. Soros‘ money in the future,” he said. “There are countless people that want to make marijuana legal, but only so many people who can afford to make it possible.”
Those people are turning out to make the 2014 election cycle look much like the 2012 cycle in Colorado and Washington, state election records show.
- In Alaska, the grass-roots Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol has emerged with the help of funding from the Marijuana Policy Project, which gave the campaign its first big contribution of $210,000.
If history repeats itself, then a few months before the election in Alaska, the Drug Policy Action group, the political arm of Mr. Soros‘ Drug Policy Alliance, will start contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to help fund a media blitz and drive voters to polls to help support the measure.
- In Oregon, New Approach Oregon has collected enough signatures to get a legalization initiative on the ballot and has cashed its first checks: $96,000 from Lewis before he died last year and $50,000 from Mr. Soros‘ Drug Policy Alliance, according to state election records.
- In Florida, Mr. Soros has teamed up with multimillionaire and Democratic fundraiser John Morgan to donate more than 80 percent of the money to get medical marijuana legalization on the ballot through its initiative “United for Care, People United for Medical Marijuana.”
Calls to Tim Morgan, John Morgan’s brother who is handling press inquiries, were not returned.
The Marijuana Policy Project and Mr. Soros‘ Drug Policy Alliance aim to support full legalization measures in 2016 in Arizona and California — where they have funded and won ballot initiatives for medical marijuana use — and in Massachusetts, Maine, Montana and Nevada, Mr. Tvert said.
The Marijuana Policy Project also is “focusing a lot of time and resources passing bills” in Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, where it considers legalized marijuana to be a realistic prospect in the next few years, he said.
Mr. Soros also is putting money into studies that show economic benefits from marijuana legalization.
In Colorado, the Drug Policy Alliance helped bankroll the Colorado Center on Law and Policy’s study that found marijuana legalization could generate as much as $100 million in state revenue after five years. That research was widely considered to have influenced the election.
Calls and emails to ACLU headquarters in New York were not returned, but its website says that “removing criminal penalties for marijuana offenses will reduce the U.S. prison population and more effectively protect the public and promote public health.”
Last year, Mr. Soros, via donations from his Open Society Foundation and the Drug Policy Alliance, helped fund Uruguay’s effort to become the first country to legalize the commercialization of pot. He also offered to pay for a study to evaluate the ramifications of the experimental legislation, which he has said will reduce overall drug use and help fight illegal drug trade, according to news reports.
Senators Unveil Bill To Legalize Federal Medical Marijuana!-Posted on Freedom Outpost-By Jonah Bennett-On March 11, 2015:
Letter to our NM U.S. Representative Michelle Lujan-Grisham (re: Shadow Party’s alleged agenda to take down America)!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On February 13, 2015:
Obama is the Manifestation of a Multi-Generational Soviet Plot to Destroy America!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On April 2, 2014:
Brainwashing in America: ‘WHY FEW DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY”! (Part 1)-Posted On Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On March 21, 2014:
Who Is George Soros?
Who owns our supposedly fair and balanced airwaves and news outlets?
Americans – Like Nazi Germans – Don’t Notice that All of Our Rights Are Slipping Away (Part 21)!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On March 8, 2014:
Letter To My NM U.S. Senator Regarding George Soros’ Anti-American Agendas!-Posted on We The People USA-ByJake Martinez-On August 9, 2011:
Letter To My NM U.S. Congressman Regarding George Soros’ Anti-American Agendas!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez-On August 10, 2011:
Nearly 80 percent don’t trust the government!
Where Is America Today?
Is it time to call for Obama’s resignation!
Washington Times Calls for Obama’s Impeachment!
A Republic, If You Can Keep It!
The Fightin Side of Me!
When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty!
Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts, please copy website and paste it on your browser. Sure seems like any subject matter that may be considered controversial by this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide:
“Food For Thought”
Hello: When Are Americans Going To Wake Up?-God Bless America!
Thanksgiving being over it's House cleaning time.
Being the Leader in my house, I make all the rules and am in charge of carrying out all, and enforcing Punishment with needed. This Position comes with Great Responsibility and Great Moral Judgement, however the pay is only in the understanding that every leader is allowed to be in power under the Authority of God.
I do get to Clean my house as I see fit. Knowing that even as the Boss my 10 year old will reap the benefits of seeing that being a good leader is to be a Great Servant. This precept is laid down by the Lord Jesus when He Washed the Disciples feet at the Last Supper, then on the Cross when giving His life for our sin.
I say these things because the United States of America NEEDS A House Cleaning NOW!!!
We have a so called leader that,even as a supposed expert in Constitutional Law, seems to never have READ the Constitution. My 10 year old has pointed out several times in her studies that Obama has not followed the Law and should be "Put in Prison or Kicked out of being President".
I only teach the child, she didn't need to be told what to think. We don't waste any time with Liberal news outlets or outright lies from anyone.
If she ask me a question I simply State the Facts and let her decide.
In the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America States Thus:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The results of the actions of our current Dictator putting himself before both God, AND We the People can easily dealt with through these very words from the Constitution for the United States.
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.
If Breaking the Laws, laid down by both the founding Fathers, God, and the Congress of the united states, by making laws by himself as he has been doing since elected, and Lying directly and Knowingly to every America, is not enough for impeachment of this criminal We the People are in Bad Shape.
When I clean my house I Throw Out The Trash.
When America cleans her house the, same needs to be done.
If it is only necessary to teach O'bummer the Constitution, my 10 year old is ready for an "intelligent" student. If O'bonehead has been "Educated Above his intelligence" maybe it's just what's needed.
God Bless America, my fellow Patriots.
HISTORY MAKING “STATE LEGISLATIVE SEMINAR” - Article V “Conference Call” for State Legislators Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - 9 PM est
- PLEASE SEND THE FOLLOWING VERY IMPORTANT INVITATION TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS. SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS. ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO ATTEND THIS “LEGISLATIVE SEMINAR” CONFERENCE CALL ON DECEMBER 3, 2013.
REMEMBER THIS DATE - FOR STATE LEGISLATORS ONLY - INVITE OTHER LEGISLATORS TO JOIN US ON THIS HISTORIC CALL
Charles Kacprowicz will be hosting this Legislative Seminar for the benefit of State Legislators only. Charles is America’s leading Article V Constitutional scholar with over 40 years experience advancing Article V Amendments through Congress and Conventions.
TITLE: State Legislators must not abdicate their Article V Sovereignty. Delegates are Ambassadors of their State Legislatures – they are not free agents. How the “SOVEREIGNTY AND STATES RIGHTS AMENDMENT” and “DELEGATE RESOLUTION” will allow State Legislatures reclaim our Constitutional Heritage safely, predictably and successfully!
We will be discussing the fact that our Constitutional Republic hangs in the balance and the State Legislatures alone have the authority to reclaim our heritage. State Legislatures are the final arbiters in “ALL” Constitutional matters. You will learn how the SOVEREIGNTY AND STATES RIGHTS AMENDMENT will empower the Legislators to Countermand and Rescind Federal laws and regulations when they are onerous to the States.
Topics for discussion will include:
1. Constitutional sovereignty
2. National sovereignty
3. State sovereignty
4. Delegate Resolutions (duties and obligations of delegates at the Convention)
5. The dangers of Martial law
6. Protecting Article IV, 4 privacy rights
7. Countermands and Rescissions of Federal Laws and Regulatory Rulings that are onerous to the States (current and retroactive)
8. State enforcement provisions in the Amendment for State Legislatures (violators of the Amendment can be prosecuted under State laws in the absence of Federal action)
INVITE STATE LEGISLATORS TO THIS HISTORY MAKING “CONFERENCE CALL “
Day: Tuesday Evening
Date: December 3, 2013
Time 9:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time
Dial in Number (712) 432 1500
Access Code: 685816#
Single Amendment Conventions
P.O. Box 523
Spruce Pine, NC 28777-0523
(828) 783 0599
SOVEREIGNTY AND STATES RIGHTS AMENDMENT: http://citizeninitiatives.org/sovereignty_states_rights_amend.htm
LETTER TO LEGISLATORS: http://citizeninititives.org/Letter_to_Legislators.pdf
ARTICLE V “CALL” ON CONGRESS FOR THE “SOVEREIGNTY AND STATES RIGHTS AMENDMENT CONVENTION”:
DELEGATE RESOLUTION FOR SOVEREIGNTY AND STATES RIGHTS AMENDMENT: http://citizeninitiatives.org/Delegate_Resolution_Sovereignty_States_Rights.htm
OBAMA WORSHIPS LENIN (see Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of Socialized State) More later. Have to prepare for major surgery, may not survive. MaryACollins@att.net.
Protest of Privilege
This title is similar to the blog that I will quote from.
I used “of” versus “and”. I want to draw to attention to “Privilege ABUSED”.
Of Protests And Privilege
The blog is a little long with some minor typos, but definitely worth reading.
Here is my takeaway
= = = =
……. small protests turn into larger ones. Independents like bikers and truckers suddenly organize themselves loosely in protest and the media stomps all over it, attempts to steal or change the message, and the oligarchs in Washington DC plot and plan how to make any protest “hurt”.
Our “betters”, our “rulers” have overplayed their hand. The [ “y”] live lives of ease and seeming entitlement only because we the people have placed at great trust in their hands. They have clearly betrayed that trust and are in need or “correction” and “re-alignment” with the principles of the Constitution (which they currently ignore) and the Rule of Law which if applied correctly would see some of those “rulers” jailed and even hanged for treason.
= = = = = =
Obama and his ilk/gang/supporters will find, like humpty dumpty, that they cannot be put back together again………
Note: this page contains paid content.
Please, subscribe to get an access.