November 24, 2012
bill of rights, disarming America, due process, global plan for war, gun ownership, H.Res.814, Marti Oakley, Second Amendment, Small arms treaty, treatys, tyranny, united nations
Marti Oakley (c) Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved
Apparently there are still a few public officials who will honor the Constitution left in the House of Representatives. Many of these representatives recognized the threat to the second amendment inherent in the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty, which the president has indicated he would sign, bypassing congress and ratification by the states, is intended to be handed back over to the Secretary of State to implement by agency decree and imposed upon the states.
While being sold to the public as simply a guideline for limiting the sales of small arms to the same countries we are many times waging war with, the treaty would severely affect the sale and ownership of small arms i.e., private gun ownership, here in the states. The obvious end goal included in many other global goals, is the disarmament of US gun owners.
The UN Small Arms treaty is nothing more than the effort to end all gun ownership anywhere in the world, except those weapons used by the military forces around the globe. With the UN attempting to gift itself the right to construct its own military with an eye on becoming the only military force on the planet, our right to keep and bear arms is more important than ever.
The Small Arms Treaty will not slow down or even minimally impact the arms trading and dealing that is conducted globally.
Arms controls for peace while we expand the global wars
“In what has to be the epitome of duplicity, Hillary Clinton is now conspiring with UN officials to begin the disarmament of the citizens of the US via this pseudo-treaty. Its all for world peace, right? Obviously not, as Clinton gave an excited speech in May 2012, to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference describing the new six-point global plan for war intended to encompass numerous countries and her obvious desire for her department to be part and parcel of the newly emerging “global wars everywhere” plan. Clinton’s obvious disregard or refusal to acknowledge the deaths of children resulting from these wars is clearly an indication that the woman is lying about her desire for world peace. But I think we already knew that.”
Please contact your representatives and encourage them to support H.Res. 814. It may well be just another half-hearted effort to make you think they are actually opposed to this treaty, but it will give you a chance to voice your objections directly to your representative. FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE
Read the bill …. More
November 24, 2012
Carrie Hutchins, Chemung County, elder abuse, gary harvey, guardian abuse, isolating the disabled, sara harvey, St Josephs Hospital, torture
November 23, 2012 · By Carrie K. Hutchens
“Shame on the almighty people that gloat in having such power in the Harvey case. Did you enjoy your day? Did you give someone a hug and a smile and feel ever so good at having a chance to celebrate the family holiday with them?
Shame on the staff at St. Joseph’s hospital. May you never find yourself in the Harvey position, but you could.”
The American Clarion:
It’s Thanksgiving! The sun is shining brightly. The clouds are softly floating across the sky. Birds are singing and children are playing. Laughter touches the day as families gather for a special celebration. A day they give thanks for all the blessings in their lives, especially for being blessed with family and friends they love ever so much. Oh such a wondrous day it is, unless you happen to be Gary and Sara Harvey of New York state. In that case… well… it’s a day that gives Satan delight and the Harveys’ one more moment together lost; for no other reason than because it could be done unto them.
I’m so very impressed! NOT!
Sara Harvey made arrangements for her holiday visit with Gary, as she always does. She showed up as did the guard. However, the hospital claimed they had not been notified by the guardian and refused the visit.
(Guard does not get scheduled, unless visit is authorized.)
Of course, no one in authority could be reached. You know all those people, who were celebrating their Thanksgiving Day in whatever manner was important to them — they weren’t available. They couldn’t be reached. But… oh well… no big deal that someone dropped the ball and didn’t get the word to whomever they were to get the word to. It was, after all, only Gary and Sara Harvey anyways.
Since the guards are not scheduled without authorization, one would think someone with some authority at the hospital, might have gotten out of their “duh mode” and put two and two together. Guard is here. Guard is not scheduled without authorization. There is a history of Sara being allowed holiday visits with Gary. If still in doubt — call that on-call person that can actually make important decisions; can figure out that Sara does visit on holidays, so there must have been a mere failure to communicate the permission; and, then have the guts to give the go ahead.
St. Joseph hospital is supposed to be a hospital established by Catholic nuns. Nuns who were dedicated and full of compassion. So, tell me… where is that compassion now? More
November 24, 2012
abuse of power, Agenda 21, district zoning, Granite County Montana, growth policy, montana, PROPERTY RIGHTS, SLAPP, View From Montana
Abuse of Power Granite County part 1 and 2
A little background to understand as to what’s happening. The man putting the commission on the spot was in essence punished by these commissioners for questioning the process they used to implement district zoning, affecting his property. Basically not in accordance the wishes of the people per the Growth Policy that they voted for in 2006. As a result they SLAPP‘d him and seized his property. See The View From Montana.org for more info.
What is SLAPP?
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims. More