Posted on November 8, 2012 at 9:32am by Tiffany Gabbay - The Blaze
Just hours after President Barack Obama secured a second term in the White House, the United States supported the U.N. in its bid Wednesday to reignite talks over an international treaty regulating the $70 billion global conventional arms trade, according to Reuters:
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.
The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.
A U.S. official said Washington?s goals have always been the same.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout, the official said.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms." [REALLY]
According to Reuters, U.S. officials have also acknowledged - albeit in private = that the treaty would not infringe on domestic gun ownership or sales and would only affect exports. Reuters adds:
The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.
The U.N. General Assembly?s disarmament committee wasted no time after Obama's re-election to approve a resolution calling for renewed talks March 18-28. The votes to hold new talks passed overwhelmingly. Diplomats allege that the vote was actually slated to take place prior to the U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Hurricane Sandy.
Is a deal a mere months away? According to Reuters, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran all abstained from voting on the treaty. China, however, voted in favor. Meanwhile, Britain, France and Germany joined China and the U.S. in support of the treaty. The measure, which goes before the General Assembly for a formal vote is expected to pass. [OUCH]
Court Rules Motorists Can Be Detained For Paying By Cash at Toll Booths
Using cash increasingly seen as suspicious activity
Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com
September 24, 2012
"Under FDOT policies in place at the time, motorists who paid with $50 bills, and occasionally even $5 bills, were not given permission to proceed until the toll collector filled out a "Bill Detection Report" with data about the motorist's vehicle and details from his driver?s license. Many of those who chose to pay cash did so to avoid the privacy implications of installing a SunPass transponder that recorded their driving habits," reports TheNewspaper.
"They were likewise unwilling to provide personal information to the toll collector, but they had no alternative because the toll barrier would not be raised without compliance. FDOT policy does not allow passengers to exit their vehicle, and backing up is illegal and usually impossible while other cars wait behind."
The three-judge panel dismissed the suit, ruling that detaining motorists in order to record details about people who paid by cash was not a constitutional violation and that the state and the contractor could subject motorists to such treatment because, "In Florida, a person?s right and liberty to use a highway is not absolute."
This is merely the latest example in a growing trend of authorities treating people who use cash to pay for goods, bills or services as suspicious. Given that the use of cash cannot be used to track purchases or movements of individuals, extra layers of bureaucracy and intimidation are becoming institutionalized in order to dissuade people from using hard currency as part of the move towards a cashless society.
Friends,
If history of UN Agenda 21 is any harbinger, An executive order that is made in the lame duck session of congress and not overturned by Romney / Obama will move the U.S. into the same compromising situation as Agenda 21 is currently imposing. Look into Agenda 21, which cities are trying to get out from under agenda 21?
Now we'll see laws or REGULATIONS, little by little, encroaching on gun owner rights. Every bill now has to be read to prevent the loss of gun rights.
www.Beforeitsnews.com American Sovereignty
U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban
The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns. The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms. Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.
http://bonfiresblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/linedivider3-green.gif
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/United-Nations-flag-SC.jpg
The United Nations Small Arms Treaty passed in its second session. The Media was silent over its passage. According to the UN's press release, Concluding its two-week session today, the second United Nations conference to review the 2001 Programme of Action on trafficking in small arms and light weapons adopted a consensus outcome document that highlighted the international community's renewed commitment to preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade.
The document's adoption represented a major achievement for delegations, who had failed to agree on a final outcome at the first review conference, held in 2006. "We accomplished something great today," said U. Joy Ogwu (Nigeria), President of the Conference, formally known as the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
According to the text, Member States renewed their pledge to rid the world of the scourge brought upon it by the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and their excessive accumulation and uncontrolled spread in many parts of the world. They also committed to mobilizing the necessary political will and resources to implement the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument, with the aim of achieving clear and tangible results over the next six years, through 2018.
Further by the text, States emphasized that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons continued to sustain conflicts, exacerbate armed violence, undermine respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law, aid terrorism and illegal armed groups, and facilitate increasing levels of transnational organized crime, as well as trafficking in humans, drugs and certain natural resources.
Read More at thedailysheeple.com.
A quote attributed to Henry Ford: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." That is my belief as well.
The actions of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve, the Obama administration, with the blessings of nearly every elected and appointed official just sealed the demise of the U.S. dollar by launching an indefinite round of creating digital money, backed by nothing, for the purpose of buying our own debt. Doing so ultimately makes our paper money worth less and soon to be worthless. In other words, it will take more money to buy food, gas, clothes, school supplies and pay for all goods and services.
Everyone with U.S. dollars in pension plans, savings and retirement accounts are about to lose much, if not all of their savings. Why? Because by creating more digital money from nothing will significantly devalue the dollar to the extent that it will take more and more of them to pay for the same goods and services yesterday, last week, last month and last year. We are witnessing a state sanctioned Ponzi scheme that is nearing its end, as the process will ultimately collapse upon itself. It is now a mathematical certainty.
I must be clear that this is not a Republican-Democrat issue as both sides of the political divide are equally responsible for our coming demise. Furthermore, the financial fraud did not begin with Obama, but was accelerated by his policies and every elected official who has remained silent, regardless of their political affiliation. Nonetheless, the biggest benefactors in the short term, meaning until or after the November 2012 U.S. elections, are the incumbent politicians, including but not limited to Obama.
The financial end-game
What we are seeing here is the orchestrated attack on the American dollar by our own government officials and elected leaders. But why? As an investigator, I could not figure out the motive of our own leaders deliberately tanking our economy. Is it greed? Well, that's part of it, as much of the money being pumped into the economy is winding up in the coffers of the "too big to fail" (too big to jail, apparently) banks and financial institutions. They are controlling the money supply and by doing so, the population.
There is an overriding aspect that exceeds greed as a motive, and that's power. Unbridled, evil and unchecked power by a group of globalists and a compliment of co-conspirator bankers who bring down countries by debasing their currencies.
When the news yesterday that U.S. automaker General Motors wanted out from under government control and the U.S., under Obama, said no, the plan that is afoot began to become even clearer. I immediately recalled a book (found during my research) titled The Vampire Economy by Guenter Reimann. Written in 1939, Mr. Reimann explains how under Hitler, the Nazis steamrolled the German economy through the very tactics we are seeing today. They destroyed their own economy at the expense of the private sector, and nationalized the remaining portion of the economy.
Perhaps even more disconcerting is that The Vampire Economy is the subject of a book originally published in 1956 by Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski titled Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. The work reads like a blueprint for the globalist agenda we are seeing playing out today.
Therefore the motive for the complete destruction of the American dollar, it would appear, is to create a global currency to replace the defunct dollar, deliberately destroyed at the hands of those in power today and in recent years. In addition to greed, the motive is ultimate power and control.
The means is through the implementation and subsequent debasement of a fiat currency, done under the cover (or perhaps through) maintaining perpetual war, much like what has been detailed in the two books referenced above. War and the more recent threat of terrorist activities also provides the opportunity to implement a authoritarian or even totalitarian form of government, which we see taking place in the form of 360 degrees of surveillance, the implementation of the NDAA, and other measures that will become useful during the coming economic collapse.
In summary, we've been set up, and continue to be set up, by every elected and appointed official in power on a national level today.
by Douglas J. Hagmann
This Is The Government: Your Legal Right To Redeem Your Money Market Account Has Been Denied - The Sequel
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/19/2012 19:05 -0400Two years ago, in January 2010, Zero Hedge wrote "This Is The Government: Your Legal Right To Redeem Your Money Market Account Has Been Denied" which became one of our most read stories of the year. The reason? Perhaps something to do with an implicit attempt at capital controls by the government on one of the primary forms of cash aggregation available: $2.7 trillion in US money market funds.
The proximal catalyst back then were new proposed regulations seeking to pull one of these three core pillars (these being no volatility, instantaneous liquidity, and redeemability) from the foundation of the entire money market industry, by changing the primary assumptions of the key Money Market Rule 2a-7. A key proposal would give money market fund managers the option to "suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets." In other words: an attempt to prevent money market runs (the same thing that crushed Lehman when the Reserve Fund broke the buck). This idea, which previously had been implicitly backed by the all important Group of 30 which is basically the shadow central planners of the world (don't believe us? check out the roster of current members), did not get too far, and was quickly forgotten. Until today, when the New York Fed decided to bring it back from the dead by publishing "The Minimum Balance At Risk: A Proposal to Mitigate the Systemic Risks Posed by Money Market Funds".
Now it is well known that any attempt to prevent a bank runs achieves nothing but merely accelerating just that (as Europe recently learned). But this coming from central planners - who never can accurately predict a rational response - is not surprising. What is surprising is that this proposal is reincarnated now. The question becomes: why now? What does the Fed know about market liquidity conditions that it does not want to share, and more importantly, is the Fed seeing a rapid deterioration in liquidity conditions in the future, that may and/or will prompt retail investors to pull their money in another Lehman-like bank run repeat?
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley, National Review:
July 12, 2012 7:00 P.M. This afternoon, President Obama?s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive undermining the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that have been the foundation of that law ? one of the most successful domestic policy reforms in the 20th century.
Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.
The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among blacks and single mothers plummeted to historic lows. What was the catalyst for these improvements? Rigorous new federal work requirements contained in TANF.
Contrary to some perceptions, the formula that made welfare reform a success was not giving state governments more flexibility in operating federally funded welfare programs. The active ingredient that made the difference was requiring state governments to implement those rigorous new federal work standards.
Today the Obama administration issued a dramatic new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements will be waived or overridden by a legal device called a section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).
Section 1115 allows HHS to "waive compliance" with specified parts of various laws. But this is not an open-ended authority: All provisions of law that can be overridden under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself.
The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, "mandatory work requirements"). Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, is deliberately not listed in section 1115; its provisions cannot be waived. Obviously, if the Congress had wanted HHS to be able to waive the TANF work requirements laid out in section 407, it would have listed that section as waivable under section 1115. It did not do that.
In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as "work." Welfare reform instituted work standards to block these dodges. Now that the Obama administration has abolished those standards, we can expect "work" in the TANF program to mean anything but work.
Obama?s new welfare decree guts sound anti-poverty policy. The administration tramples on the actual legislation passed by Congress and seeks to impose its own policy choices ? a pattern that has become all too common in this administration.
The result is the end of welfare reform as we know it. [Tax-payers pony-up. Also, taking persons off the un-employment list and putting them on the welfare list reduces the un-employment rate!!!!
By Halimah Abdullah CNN POSTED: 09:17 AM PDT Jun 28, 2012 UPDATED: 05:16 PM PDT Jun 28, 2012
WASHINGTON (CNN) -
The U.S. Supreme Court's narrow upholding of the health care reform law now launches a complex political ballet, with President Barack Obama and Democrats claiming victory and Republicans immediately seizing on the word "tax," vowing to repeal the law "lock, stock and barrel."
In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the law and found that the so-called individual mandate is constitutional under Congress' taxing power [Art. 1, sect. 8 "general welfare" is not Founder's code for health-care, nor are "Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."] but not under the commerce clause of the Constitution, as the government originally had argued.
Republicans -- including presidential candidate Mitt Romney -- claimed the mandate should be seen as a tax increase. Obama had previously rejected the idea that the mandate amounts to a tax.
Romney lashed out at the ruling and the president, claiming the law's provisions to impose a penalty on those who aren't insured amounts to a tax increase. Other parts of the law require individuals making more than $200,000 to pay more into Medicare and imposes an excise tax on high-cost employer health insurance plans if their plan cost tops $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. [home sales will incur a 3.5% tax to fund health-care, also 3.5% tax will incur to capital gains to fund healthcare as well as 18 other taxes!]
"Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion," Romney said Thursday. Chief Justice John Roberts clarified the tax issue in his opinion: "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. (It) would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. (It) is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax." [The tyrannical power of Taxation, WTF. Did Chief Coward Robert's mean that in Article I, section 8 of the constitution only Congress can't order citizens to buy ANYTHING? Is not the I.R.S. also Federeal Government, of the Executive Branch?]
Other Republicans also latched onto the tax increase refrain. "Here's the bottom line now," said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. "It is constitutional according to the Supreme Court because it is a tax increase ... now millions of Americans will have an IRS problem beginning in 2014." [How about a LIBERTY problem to be free from violations of the 4th Amendment..., "nor be deprived of life (abortion) liberty (doctor of choice) or property (money/wealth) w/o due process of law (no congressional hearings, extorsion of votes and clear and infatic declaration that the mandate was not a tax.]
Republicans likely will use the tax argument as a battle cry on the campaign trail as Romney quickly repeated his vow to repeal the law if he is elected president. [Tea Party will scream to VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBANTS !!]
"The president of the United States himself, promised up and down that this bill was not a tax," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said from the Senate floor. "This is one of the Democrats' top selling points because they knew it would not pass if it was a tax. Well, the Supreme Court has spoken -- this law is a tax. The bill was sold to the American people on a deception." House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was more blunt. "The government could decide that we are going to tax you if you don't eat broccoli on Tuesday [Aroogla on Moonday - Fish on Friday(;~)]," Boehner said. "Apparently now that is constitutional, but I don't think it is a very wise law."
[Prepare for: tax b/c one does not; 1. use solar panels on their home, 2 use a hybrid vehicle to tow RV...!!!]
June 22, 2012, BELTWAY GUNRUNNERS: Why impeachment is the only
wayExclusive: Alan Keyes asks if GOP will prove Holder's 'nation of cowards' remark true
In this respect the dangers of unlimited government power, like "the latent causes of faction" are "sown in the nature of man. " In Federalist No. 10, Madison observes that liberty cannot survive efforts, by prior restraint, to suppress the causes of faction. Apparently he and the other framers who supported the Constitution shared a similarly realistic assessment of the unlimited power implied by the infinite variety of dangers that threaten the survival of nations. However, since reason and common sense forbid prior restraint they made it necessary for the representatives of the people to be actively vigilant in reacting against abuses of power. They understood that any exercise of the prerogatives that ought to be reserved for extreme necessity will, by gradually inuring people to abuses, help designing despots to establish an absolute tyranny over society. Only a fool (or the one who?s fooling him) holds back the use of his fire extinguisher until a small fire has grown into a general conflagration.
So (as I point out in the above mentioned article on my blog), we come to impeachment. Only by impeachment can the Congress remove the underlying power of pardon and reprieve which is, by the authority of natural reason and common sense, recognizable as the source of executive privilege. The Constitution explicitly removes that shield in cases of impeachment. Any president who invoked it to shield a subordinate or himself from impeachment would, by that act alone, convict him/herself of a high crime, tantamount to treason. Others who join to defend such a president would, in effect, join in open and self-evident rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.
As I say in my blog article, around this turn of events there lurks the fearful specter of civil war. Eric Holder began his tenure as attorney general by declaring that Americans are "a nation of cowards." He and the man he serves are now testing that proposition. They are probing with bayonets, testing whether anything remains of the hardy mentality, the clear-eyed determination, the faithful heart and courage that impelled the American people to greatness. Will the GOP leaders in Congress rise to the level of active vigilance the Constitution requires? Will they begin by impeaching Eric Holder? (Contrary to a popular misconception, the congressional power of impeachment applies to all civil officers of the United States [U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4].) Will they go forward, if need be, to impeach the breach of faith with America's Revolutionary principles that Obama himself represents? Or will they succumb to the moral disease of supine and self-interested calculation whereby the cynical politics of elite domination works to enlarge that breach, until it has spread the fatal disease of cowardice and despair throughout what was, and still should be, this home of the brave and the free. (I address the subject of the GOP?s likely response in my most recent blog post.)
By
Ed O?Keefe and Sari Horwitz, Wednesday, June 20, 10:33 AM, The Washington Post
President Obama asserted executive privilege over documents related to the ?Fast and Furious? operation Wednesday as a House panel moved to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt after he failed to hand over documents related to a congressional inquiry into the scandal.
In a letter sent to Obama late Tuesday, Holder urged Obama to exert executive privilege, because sharing internal documents with lawmakers could "have significant, damaging consequences.?
Sharing the documents ?would inhibit candor of such Executive Branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the Executive Branch?s ability to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight,? Holder wrote to Obama.
["Can you say cover up for the crime of Homicide of Border Patrol Agent B. Terry as a project by the Administration to attack the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." This is not an Executive Privilege issue.]
? Bing Dictionary : ex?ec?u?tive priv?i?lege; government right to secrecy of documents: the right of the president and other government officials in the executive branch to refuse to reveal confidential material [ specific to POTUS involvement only (U.S. v. Nixon) ], if this would interfere with the administration's ability to govern. [ ?Governing? by Criminal act is illegal and also not protectected, just ask Nixon!!!!. ] CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS !!!
The Department of Justice thinks it can "order" Florida to stop removing illegal non-citizens from her voter registration rolls. The Sunshine State announced it will ignore the "order." Let?s see Barack Obama and Eric Holder back it up.
The fight over States? rights versus the strength of an all powerful central government has been set in motion; the fuse is lit.
Since Barack Obama and his Chicago thugs forced, bribed, and tricked Obamacare into ?law?, real America has been on a collision course with him. This latest attack on our freedoms will likely only be settled by a courtroom showdown centering on whether the 10th Amendment to our Constitution has any meaning.
This powerful, 28-word Amendment is the enduring gift James Madison left us to balance the voracious appetite for power he recognized central governments always have. It says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is a clear and potent weapon for justice against Obama?s fraudulent charge.
By bringing its attack on Florida, the Department of Justice (DoJ) is virtually acknowledging the Democrat Party?s reliance on voter fraud to win close elections. DoJ statements on the matter acknowledge it centers on noncitizen "voting rights."
So far, Florida has removed 2,700 noncitizens from her voter rolls and reportedly has another 182,000 on her "must purge" list.
The Obama Administration is using a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (1965 VRA) to single out five counties in Florida for scrutiny over their voter registration procedures. DoJ wants to scare unenthusiastic minorities into voting by erecting a straw man for their hero Barack Obama to "defeat."
Given the era in which the 1965VRA was passed, it unsurprisingly went into law without a 10th Amendment challenge, but one will be coming shortly.
The 10th Amendment makes it clear that since maintenance of accurate voter registration rolls is a state matter, the DoJ in any court action will have to argue A) it has the power to maintain these rolls; B) the manner in which Florida is conducting her purge of noncitizens voters violates these noncitizens? rights to vote because almost all are black, hispanic, and Democrats; or the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution is unconstitutional.
Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made America sick. The 10th Amendment is powerful medicine that can quickly cure our nation. Let?s see if Holder wants to argue the Constitutionality of the 10th Amendment.
Selling U.S. Out... Again
By Duane A. Miller
Read and comment on this article at LibertyExtra.com
The Second Amendment is precious to most Americans. The right to bear arms is, however, repulsive to liberals and they have tried all manner of maneuvers to take American' guns from them.
The latest tactic is to ratify a United Nations Treaty to regulate arms trade. The concept of the treaty was introduced in 2006 and was vetoed twice by the Bush Administration. The basis for the veto is the sovereignty of the United States Constitution and the unwillingness to subjugate our Constitution to any international body.
However, within months of taking office, the current administration reversed that stance and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the negotiation of the treaty as long as "consensus decision-making" was employed. She stated, in a written statement, ?Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly." Sounds good?right?
Well, here is the interpretation?"Consensus" means that the United States can NOT veto any provision of the treaty. Hence, the language of the treaty is fashioned to stop weapons from reaching those who would challenge a government?s "stability and democracy." That provision means that guns can be taken from American citizens who the administration believes might pose a threat to it. And, since "consensus" is the adopted method of acceptance, the United States cannot veto the measure and our Second Amendment right is negated. No vote of Congress, no vote of the people; a slick-maneuver that allows a United Nations Treaty to trump our Constitution. The right to bear arms is the best and last resort of citizens to keep in check any and every government. It is precisely why the Founders included the Second Amendment in the Constitution in the first place. Take that check away and the American citizenry is neutered and those in power rule with absolute authority.
Yesterday, two congressmen, Rep. Denny Rehberg and Rep. Ben Quayle, introduced House Bill 5846, "The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act," to counter the proposed treaty. The Bill would block funding for or the implementation of the treaty. Quayle said the "U.N. treaty is a direct threat to American sovereignty and the constitutional rights of all Americans. Congress needs to put its foot down, and make clear that it, not the United Nations, is the only body with the constitutional right to impose laws in the United States."
If this treaty is adopted this year, the President will be able to say that he never introduced legislation to limit the American right to bear arms, but will have accomplished the disarmament of America by giving a UN treaty superiority over our own Constitution. Sold out??without a vote of Congress, without a vote of the people. Clever, but reprehensible.
The Proud Americans agree with Thomas Jefferson who said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Duane A. Miller is COO of The Proud Americans
An amendment that has been added to a new defense bill in Congress would make it legal to target propaganda and "psychological operations" directly at U.S. citizens. The latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act would overturn the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. Those two laws essentially make it illegal for propaganda that is used to influence public opinion overseas to be targeted at U.S. citizens back here at home.
If those two laws are struck down, there will be essentially very few limits to what the U.S. government can do to shape our opinions. The government would be able to bombard us with propaganda messages on television, on the radio, in our newspapers and on the Internet and there would not even be a requirement that those messages be true. In fact, just as happens so often overseas, it would likely be inevitable that the government would purposely disseminate misinformation to the American public for the sake of "national security". That is why it is imperative that this bill not become law.
Their bill was included as amendment 114 to the Defense Authorization Act and passed out of the House on Friday, May 18. It would amend two existing acts: the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (1987). The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. "It removes the protection for Americans,? says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. ?It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false."
WND EXCLUSIVE,
MAY 20, 2012, BY BOB UNRUHUDDER NONSENSE: RAW-MILK CONFISCATIONS BEGIN
Officials now showing up at citizens' front doors. The dispute over raw milk has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with a judge ruling that owners of cows have no right to the milk their herds produce, and protests being staged by mad moms whose access to such foods is being threatened.
Mike Adams reported on NaturalNews, "Remember: The raw milk from Organic Pastures is legally sold, legally purchased, and greatly enjoyed by its customers. There are virtually no complaints about this product. Customers love it. Only the government wants to confiscate it and destroy it." The LA County health department started calling her, six or seven times, demanding that she give up her raw milk from her own home to the health department.
She refused, then they showed up at her house and demanded that she give her raw milk to them. She was getting ready to call 911 for the sheriff's department and have them removed from her front doorstep, and she was threatening to use her camera to take a picture of them and post it on Facebook for harassing her over her raw milk? The investigators left after she told them she was not going to give them the raw milk and to get the hell off her property.
This is what's going on, it's like food Nazis, it's incredible what these people are doing, trying to collect food from people's houses, that have not made them ill!
The FDA said there have been reports of illnesses from raw milk, but a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.
Today, 30 states allow the sale of raw milk and 20 forbid it, but the federal government forbids it in interstate business. Violations of 4th and 5th Amendments
Obama has signed 3 new executive orders: EO on Regulatory Cooperationand
EO pn Regulatory Burdensand
EO on Strong Cities
This latest executive order will allow the soviet socialists in our local communities through their committees to adopt and enact United Nations regulations designed to establish absolute United Nations' control over our every resource. The laws of the United States, individual states, counties, cities, and local municipalities, under our Constitution must be legislated. These executive ordersbypass the legislative process and essentially nullify our representative form of government under the guise of allowing us to voice our opinion in reference to new regulation rather than enforce our will through elected representation. If one examines these three executive orders closely, Obama's agenda becomes clear. The international socialists, known as the United Nations, are worming their way into our political system at every level. Through the local socialist committees that will be assembled, local commissars will be elected.
These commissars, working in coalition with state and local agencies and sovereign nations/Indian Tribes, will attempt to initiate UN dictatorship over our lands, both private and public. And through regulation of the land, they will attempt to establish dictatorial control over the actions of we the people.
This is a sneak attack and it will not be publicized in the mainstream media. You will know these words are true when you see the soviet socialists in your area seizing control over your public and private lands using regulatory powers derived directly from the United Nations Agenda 21.
EO for International Regulatory Cooperation
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- ? ? ? ? ? -
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements..... { Balance of Power b/w Branches of Gov't? }
by Dan Rose,
LibertiesLost.com, Co-Editor, April 30, 2012.Appearing as the Plaintiff for a CIVIL hearing in the Massachusetts Family and Probate Court, I learned of a process different from 6 years of prior and extensive experience in this court. This process is not applicable to Bar fee paying lawyers.
Pro-se (self representing) now have to report and register with the Probation Office (can you say more funding), and provide sensitive and intrusive information 'for the record'. "The Probation Office provides a variety of services to the court in addition to dispute intervention (new liberty lost jurisdiction). The most common one is investigation. Taking part in an investigation is not voluntary; you are required to participate. Probation Officer will prepare a written report on the outcome of the investigation and file it with the court," (be careful of communication under mandatory parameters, having no rules of evidence or court to back your case!!).
Under the new dispute intervention process in the Probation Office all Pro-se representatives in Mass. Family and Probate Court MUST;
a) "meeting with a 'Probation Officer' (?) to assess issues(?) and if possible come to agreement. Agreement may result from an investigation, but is not the purpose of the investigation. (then what is?)"
b) "Dispute intervention is different from courtroom proceedings because the formal rules of evidence and rules of (a kangaroo) court do not apply."
c) "The Probation Officer (AKA bureaucratic lacky), who is an officer of the court and under the discrection of the judge will serve as an impartial party. The Probation Officer will listen, respectfully and without bias." (Ha..Ha. Then explain the size of the file being the justification for a medical diagnosis declaration and suicide concerns, false or true, not being of D.C.F. concern!!!)
d) "You are required to participate in this (joey) information-gathering phase of the process. Either Party may withdraw (at your peril, remember the report to the court / judge) from the negoiation phase."
VIDEO: EPA Official
Compares Agency Enforcement to Roman CrucifixionsLachlan Markay, April 25, 2012 at 2:54 pm
A video surfaced on Wednesday showing a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency comparing his agency?s philosophy with respect to regulation of oil and gas companies to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission.
EPA?s ?philosophy of enforcement,? said EPA?s Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, is ?kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they?d go into little Turkish towns somewhere, they?d find the first five guys they?d run into, and they?d crucify them.?
4th and 5th Amenddment Violation!
LOS ANGELES (CBS) - April
4, 2012After clearing the Senate on a 74 - 22 vote on March 14, SB 1813 is now headed for a vote in the House of Representatives, where it's expected to encounter stiffer opposition among the GOP majority. Owe The IRS? Bill Would Suspend Passport Rights For Delinquent Taxpayers.CBS - Los Angeles
by Ben Shapiro -
April 2, 2010 Today, President Obama effectively declared war on the Supreme Court. Speaking from the Rose Garden, he suggested that the "unelected" Supreme Court must avoid the "extraordinary... unprecedented" measure of striking down his unconstitutional Obamacare regime: Breitbart