Home

THE MESSAGE OF THE VOTERS

2 Comments

strip bannernew-logo25 Don Jans, Author and Speaker

“My Grandchildren’s America”

___________________________________________________

“These concepts and ideas are fundamental to the essence of the United States of America. The voters said we want these fundamentals restored; we do not wish to be fundamentally transformed to a totalitarian Marxist state as Obama and the Marxist/Progressives promised and are doing. Did the Republican Party hear?

_________________________________________________

We were told by Obama that even though he was not on the ballot, his policies were. Yes, they were and the message of the election was loud and clear; America does not like the Marxist policies of the Obama regime. Even though the message was clear, the question is did the leaders of the Republican Party hear and understand the message. We already know Obama did not hear, did not understand, or chose to ignore the message.

What really was the message? It was very simple. The American voter said now that we see how this fundamental transformation that was promised looks, we do not like it. The American voter said we prefer the type of government and society our founders established. They established three basic principles that are excellent for a prosperous, free, and great country and we want these reestablished.

The three basic concepts the founders instituted had never been tried before the founders said we think this type of government and country will allow individual citizens to flourish and prosper and by being individuals they will establish a great and powerful nation. How correct the founders were. Unfortunately, others came along and said what the founders had established needed to be fundamentally transformed. They said what the founders did created a selfish and greedy people who refused to conform to the concept of subjugation to a government and community, as opposed to being a unique and non-conforming individual; the very essence of American greatness. More

The morning after election: Is there a pill for this?

4 Comments

strip bannernew-logo25Marti Oakley

____________________________________________

Mid-term elections: America loses again

We just swapped one bunch of crooks, liars and thieves for the other bunch of crooks, liars and thieves. The country just went “red” more from embarrassment than anything else. You should be embarrassed and turning beet red from being duped yet again. 2/3 of us didn’t even bother to show up to vote. What’s the point?

fascismamerica01About last night…..

I scoured the usual lineup of cable news shows to see what the response was there to the mid-terms. At one point on MSNBC where Rachael Maddow was predictably finding humor in the elections, I wondered out loud what was wrong with this woman? According to Maddow, the elections weren’t really as bad as they seemed on the surface and we should just laugh them off. They really didn’t mean anything or at least not what we thought they did. This wasn’t really a political shellacking, it was just a rub & buff…nothing more. HaHaHa….Isn’t this funny? No, it isn’t.

The remainder of the scripted reality shows we call news on MSNBC also pandered to the “its not what you think” line. Yes it was what we think. More than that, its what we know. We just traded one old man for another old man; both of them nested up for years inside the beltway and so detached from the public that neither of them try to hide their disgust for “We the People”. We just opened the door to another neo-con assault on the nation. Pardon me for not laughing.

Faux news was ready to implode as one hack after another jubilantly reported the shellacking of America via the elections and what is nothing less than the return of the neo-cons. Already they are talking about “deregulation”.

You remember deregulation don’t you? More

Mid-term elections: Pardon me while I yawn

5 Comments

strip bannernew-logo25Marti Oakley

________________________________________________

Remember when the country first elected Obama? Remember the collective sigh of relief as he spoke of returning the country to its former glory? Remember when we all thought he was going to end the neo-con overthrow of our government and country?

And remember when we all realized he had simply picked up where the Bush/Cheney Crime Syndicate left off and added some new twists of his own?

Remember how sick at your stomach you felt when you realized that Obama was Bush on steroids?

That’s kind of the same feeling too many of us out here have today. This wasn’t a mandate for Republicans although they are trying to sell it as if it was. It was a rejection of the corruption, the anti-American mind-set in the District of Criminals. And we had only two choices.

______________________________________________

34192_1thThere are few out here in the general public, regardless of supposed party affiliation, expressing any sense of celebration or excitement over last night’s election returns. We simply swapped one faction of the one-party system for the other. Most agree that nothing is going change other than the way the pre-planned agenda will be implemented.

Absent from any debates, if you could call the public displays put on by candidates on both sides a debate of any kind, was any discussion of the illegal and unwarranted spying by NSA and multiple other spy agencies operating without oversight.

No one mentioned or even discussed casually, the militarization of law enforcement against the public at large. Not one candidate mentioned the military tanks, the grenade launchers, assault rifles, SWAT gear, and other military weapons that local law enforcement is now arming themselves with for use on the very communities that employ them. Equipment that was paid for with taxpayer money or borrowed in the name of the People and produced so excessively that there was enough equipment to sell to other countries, to arm our own military and to arm local law enforcement against us. More

Obama’s Doctrine of Destruction of America as we know it, and the March to a New World Order

1 Comment

This is a good synopsis of where we are heading and how we are getting there.

A NATION BEGUILED

http://www.pakalertpress.com/

TRUTHER

We could not have a better person in office than President Obama, if you want someone to do everything he can to destroy the country that is. This President has gone out of his way to make sure not only just a few of his Socialist policies ruin us, but that his whole time in office is dedicated to the destruction of the United States as we know it.

From supplying terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and countless other Islamic Jihadists in N. Africa, the Mid-East, Indonesia, and Europe with billions of dollars in weapons, billions in financial aid, and actual military help, to purposely busing and flying in hundreds of thousand illegal aliens per day via Homeland Security.

This President expects his agenda of anti-Americanism to continue with breaking our economy and with the EPA’s anti CO2 regulations, which are based on…

View original post 530 more words

Mission Operation American Spring

6 Comments

strip banner

On May 16th, 2014, peaceful protestors will meet in Washington DC, protesting the corruption of government and of specific individuals who have added to the corruption.  There is no doubt the American people are fed up with the law-breaking and the privileged lives in the District, they are forced to support.  OAS is demanding that Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell resign, just for starters.

The federal government and its puppets in MSM, are already priming the public for a violence filled encounter.  While OAS supporters are planning a peaceful protest, the fed’s will show up armed to the teeth complete with tanks, AK-47’s, grenade launchers, tasers, attack dogs and other weapons.  There is no way this day will pass without the feds turning it into an all out attack.  Of course, the story will be that the protesters started it.  Just like they started it at Waco, at Ruby Ridge, and at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. (sarc) And there will of course be provocateurs laced in the crowd just to make sure that the violence goes off as planned.

In fact, the only people who will show up prepared to do violence will be those working for the government.

Please go to this link to read OAS’s article and watch the short video by Col Gary G Riley  US Army RET, the founder of American Spring.

Who is Inviting Violence in D.C.? Not Operation American Spring!

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

2 Comments

strip banner

 

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
04-30-2014 12:47 am – Bob Unruh – World Net Daily
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.

The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.

The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.

They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.

The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.

Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti Park.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.

Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.

Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.

It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD.

“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”

Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.

The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.

“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.

“According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government,” he said.

It’s not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasn’t already happened.

In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.

The newest authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.

The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”

The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.

“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford officials reported.

At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.

Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.

Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.

Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote. “To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#r3IAig6fLWioaQWy.99 – See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35369.php#sthash.uo27Loqv.dpuf

new-logo25Bob Unruh – World Net Daily

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1459169_743562532338888_201663292_nA decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court. More

Obamacare: Repeal (What?) and Replace (with What?)

6 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25Contributor & authorJane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government can’t fix the “health care system” any more than Obama can take out your tonsils. But it can refrain from tying up or tripping those who are trying to take care of patients.  We should start by repealing the mandates—on individuals, employers, medical facilities and professionals, and insurers. No American should be forced to buy a product he does not want or need or feels he cannot afford. No individual or company should be forced to provide services or products to government specifications. The American way is the voluntary way.

More

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: