Home

BROOMSTICKS vs. BAZOOKA’S

3 Comments

new-logo25Douglas K. Kinan

______________________________________________

“Additionally, there is no such thing as the “rule of law”, no such thing as “equal justice under the law” and no such thing as a “fair trial.” If you think so, answer this: Can a pro se litigant or one with a public defender use a Broomstick against a Bazooka?”

______________________________________________

If anyone is to believe senior FBI officials, consider the story about one of Richard Pryor’s ex-wives who walked in on him while he was in bed with another woman. At her outrage he asked, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
  • All of the world can see the video tape and its clarity of a retaliatory murder, under color of law. This retaliatory murder was unnecessary and unjustified.
  • I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but past leadership of the Boston office of the FBI has been one of the most corrupt and criminal operations in the history of America. I exclude the newly appointed Special Agent In Charge, Harold Shaw, whom I believe was selectively appointed by FBI Director James Comey to clean up the Boston office.
  • Sooner or later though, some crooked agents get caught. In September 2013, the former head of the Boston FBI office, Ken Kaiser, pleaded guilty to an ethics charge and instead of the possible one year in jail and $100,000 fine, the prosecutors recommended that he serve no prison time and pay a $15,000 fine. Why the US Attorney’s office cut a plea deal is unknown, especially when the legal and ethical standard is higher for law enforcement?
  • Ken Kaiser was the SAIC when I presented my 30-page affidavit and provided “sworn” testimony in a two hour meeting with the husband and wife FBI team of Robbins and Robbins.
  • My affidavit outlined conduct which included retaliatory frame ups, heinous and violent acts against women, well planned discrimination, promotion fixing designed to cheat women and minorities out of merit based promotions, fraudulent certifications, rigged investigations and the “suspicious” (his lawyer’s word) death of a government whistle blower. The conduct lawfully reported and in good faith is subsidized by unquantified millions of taxpayer dollars.
  • Special Agent John T. Foley, under Ken Kaiser’s signature block, wrote back that, that office was “not interested.”

More

Advertisements

Keeping Government Bureaucrats Off the Backs of the Citizenry: The Supreme Court Responds

1 Comment

By John W. Whitehead
June 22, 2015

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.

_____________________________________________________
“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a-comin’.”—Texas Rangers

In one swoop, on June 22, 2015, a divided U.S. Supreme Court handed down three consecutive rulings affirming the right of raisin farmers, hotel owners and prison inmates. However, this push back against government abuse, government snooping and government theft only came about because some determined citizens stood up and took a stand against tyranny.

The three cases respectively deal with the government’s confiscation of whitehad bokagricultural crops without any guarantee or promise of payment (Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture); the practice of police gaining unfettered access to motel and hotel guest registries (City of Los Angeles v. Patel); and the use of tasers and excessive force by prison officials (Kingsley v. Hendrickson).

Whether these three rulings will amount to much in the long run remains to be seen. In the meantime, they sound a cautiously optimistic note at a time when police state forces continue to use advancing technologies, surveillance and militarization to weaken, sidestep and flout the Constitution at almost every turn.

In the first case, Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, a 5-4 Supreme Court declared that raisin farmer Marvin Horne deserves to be compensated for the official seizure of one-third of his personal property by the government.

The case arose after independent raisin farmers in California were fined almost $700,000 for refusing to surrender about 40% of the raisins they produced to the government as part of a program purportedly aimed at maintaining a stable market for commodities.

Marvin and Laura Horne are independent farmers in California and have been growing raisins for almost half a century. During that time, the Hornes were subject to a Depression-era law promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that aims to create “orderly” market conditions for raisins by regulating their supply. Supply is regulated by requiring that raisin producers surrender a certain percentage of their raisins (a so-called “reserve tonnage”) each year to an administrative committee. More

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

TS RADIO: Christine Porter & Clear The Bench Arizona

1 Comment

painy

5:00 pm PST … 6:00 pm MST … 7:00 pm CST … 8:00 pm EST

More

Open Letter to America

4 Comments

Submitted by Phil Glass on Fri, 02/17/2012 – 8:37pm

Learn the True Business of the American Precincts

picture-2-1349046773
___________________________________________________________________

Dear Americans,

Ronald Reagan understood that the Constitution given us by our Founders was one that trusted the people to govern themselves.

In his First Inaugural Address, Reagan said this:

From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government of, by, and for the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

Ronald Reagan said above: “the solutions must be equitable”.  But I feel a need to add one thing and that is: the solutions must also be anchored in our Constitution and Founding Principles. More

2012 – Are American Voter’s Being Scammed

Leave a comment

 
Ruthie Hendrycks

 January 23, 2011
____________________________________________________ 
 
 
With the recent increased discussion, focus and push to garner the Hispanic/Latino vote for what some believe to be the “necessary votes” required to win the Presidential election of 2012, one must wonder if the American voter (no matter what ones’ ethnicity) is being scammed. The simple fact is that the scare tactics currently being forced upon the American voter concerning the “Hispanic Vote” is an inadequate representation of the truth.
  
The discussion – disingenuous to say the least – leads one to ask ….
 
“Are Americans to assume that neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any plans to address the issues of a sensible legal immigration system, ending illegal immigration, enforcement of our immigration laws and border security?”
  
Are the American Voters being riled up over an issue that is quite contentious, for the purposes of involvement and funding, only for neither party to stand up for the demands of the American majority to secure our border and enforce our immigration laws? Have you ever pondered exactly what percentage of the donations received by – your party of choice – actually is used in a manner against these demands or used to promote the party, in a language other than English – for one example?
  
However, there are solutions – but first, lets look at some facts:
 
—- 38 percent of Hispanic’s voted Republican in 2008, this is an increase of 11 percent over 2004, which only shows that the GOP is gaining in this demographic, at a time when the issue of illegal immigration continues to be on the forefront of the political scene. More

Arizona receives official notice of lawsuit: Help Arizona defend itself!

Leave a comment

 From:  Ruthie Hendrycks

 

Today, we received official notice of the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona.

I am sure you will agree with me that the Administration’s lawsuit is an outrageous use of taxpayer money and a sure sign that the President is more interested in politics than securing our southern border.

This lawsuit follows the President’s immigration speech in which he called for comprehensive immigration reform that – not surprisingly – includes a path to citizenship for those who entered our country illegally. More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: