Home

Amy Coney Barrett’s ties to “cult” People of Praise could influence her Supreme Court decisions

4 Comments

Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett, a federal judge for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has been nominated by President Trump for the Supreme Court.  She’s 48 years old, so she would be making decisions for the Supreme Court for a long time.

An article in Raw Story stated this: “People of Praise are quite controversial within Catholicism. Founded in 1971, the group incorporates elements of fundamentalist Pentecostal Protestantism (such as speaking in tongues) and is considered a cult in mainstream Catholicism.

Its practices include requiring members to swear an oath of loyalty to the group and teaching that wives must be submissive to their husbands, and in the past, People of Praise called its female leaders “handmaidens”—which is downright chilling if one is familiar with Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” and the 1990 film and 2017/2018 television series it has inspired.

People of Praise embrace a highly patriarchal ideology, believing that while women can have some leadership positions, they ultimately must submit to male authority.”

It seems dangerous to have a Supreme Court Justice who has sworn loyalty to what many consider to be a cult.

It seems dangerous to have a Supreme Court Justice who could ultimately submit to her husband (or the males of People of Praise or males on the Supreme Court).

According to an article in Newsweek,

“Members of People of Praise also make a lifelong vow of loyalty in a ceremony…”

“Adrian J. Reimers, one of the founding members of People of Praise, later wrote a book criticizing the group, called Not Reliable Guides. In it, he explained the ‘sacrifice represented by making the covenant of the People of Praise is taken seriously.’

One ‘lays down his life’ according to the requirements of the community, he wrote, by ‘faithfully attending men’s and women’s groups, submitting to one’s head willingly, performing four hours of service to the community every week, contributing 5-13 percent of one’s gross income to the community, and so on.’

The ‘subordinate role of women to men is a fundamental cultural premise’ for the group, he wrote.”

“Coral Anika Theill, a former member of a branch of the group in Corvallis, Oregon, told Newsweek that women are expected to be ‘absolutely obedient’ to their husbands and the men in the group.

Theill refers to the group as a “charismatic dictatorship” and a “cult.”

“There was a lot of abuse and shaming, shunning, intimidation, bullying going on,” she said. “You did not say no, or there was retaliation.”

A 2017 article in the New York Times pointed out that “Current and former members of People of Praise said that Ms. Barrett and her husband, who have seven children, both belong to the group, and that their fathers have served as leaders.”

And “The group believes in prophecy, speaking in tongues and divine healings, staples of Pentecostal churches that some Catholics have also adopted in a movement called charismatic renewal.  The People of Praise was an early leader in the flowering of that movement in North America.  It is ecumenical, but about 90 percent of its members are Catholic.”

And, it’s important to note in this 2017 article:  “Every nominee for the federal bench is required to fill out a detailed questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Ms. Barrett did not list any religious affiliations on her questionnaire, though many nominees have in the past.”

Will Amy Coney Barrett withhold information about being a member of People of Praise again?

Where will Barrett’s loyalties ultimately lie?  With the U.S. Constitution, or with the People of Praise?

 

 

 

 

PROOF OF DICTATORSHIP/TREASON

3 Comments

People for life and freedom!
TO ALL:
It is an unfortunate fact that most Americans know very little about the form of government we have been placed under. I say ‘placed under’ because the relationship which has been created by stealth, deception, lies and confusion is predicated on keeping the American people absolutely stupified, distracted, controlled AND .
We now have a situation in which the Rules of the United States Supreme Court were changed without the knowledge or consent of the American People, forever altering our form of Government as prescribed by the Constitution for the United Stated of America.
As you will plainly see, The Supreme Court is no longer an Article III court, but is now an extension of the Office of President and the executive branch of government. THERE ARE NOW ONLY TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT if that can be believed.
According to the Constitution for the United States of America, there were to be three separate but equal branches of government which established a system of “Checks and Balances” on the other branches, with the true power reserved to The People, themselves. We were all told this over and over and over again and we were proud of such a well thought out system!
The three branches we were told were: Executive( President), Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts).
Now, we find there has been skullduggery afoot and the Rules have been changed placing the Supreme Court ( and the lower courts) under the President of the United States AS A VASSAL SUBSIDIARY. Never has this happened before….
Please note the explicit wording of Rule 45 below.

1.  All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

We are now under a dictatorship with no independent Judiciary and no checks and balances.  WAKE UP!
The old word in https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdfg said:  All process of this court issues in the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
   60SUPREME COURT RULE 46 Rule45.Process;Mandates
1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the Presi-dent of the United States. 2. In a case on review from a state court, the mandate issues 25 days after entry of the judgment, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time, or unless the par-ties stipulate that it issue sooner. The fling of a petition for rehearing stays the mandate until disposition of the petition, unless the Court orders otherwise. If the petition is denied, the mandate issues forthwith. 3. In a case on review from any court of the United States, as defned by 28 U. S. C. § 451, a formal mandate does not issue unless specially directed; instead, the Clerk of this Court will send the clerk of the lower court a copy of the opinion or order of this Court and a certifed copy of the judgment. The certifed copy of the judgment, prepared and signed by this Court’s Clerk, will provide for costs if any are awarded. In all other respects, the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Rule apply.

National Whistleblower Center: Attorney General Nominee Strongly Opposed to Whistleblowers

Leave a comment

National Whistleblower Center

 

Attorney General Nominee Strongly Opposed to Whistleblowers

William Barr called False Claims Act an “abomination”

December 11, 2018. Washington, DC.  In a public transcript given as part of the Presidential Oral History of the George H.W. Bush Presidency, President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, William Barr, ferociously attacked America’s most successful whistleblower law, the False Claims Act.  Barr stated, on the record, that he “wanted to attack” the False Claims Act, and specifically called the law’s highly successful qui tam whistleblower provision “an abomination.” In a transcript of his April 5, 2001 interview with the Bush presidency’s oral history project, the content of which Barr personally approved, Barr stated:

Yes, there were significant disagreements sometimes between the SG’s [Solicitor General] office and my office on a position. One of the big ones was the qui tam statute, which is basically a bounty hunter statute that lets private citizens sue in the name of the United States and get a bounty. I felt then, and feel now, that is an abomination and a violation of the appointments clause under the due powers of the President as well as the standing issue of the Supreme Court. So I wanted to attack the qui tam statute, and the SG’s office wanted to defend it. That was a big dispute.”

Upon learning this information, Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblower Center, released the following statement:

“Mr. Barr’s comments demonstrate a deep rooted contempt for whistleblowers.  His radical anti-whistleblower statements are disqualifying for any nominee for the position of U.S. Attorney General. More

Uranium Mining Claims Near Grand Canyon Could Surge if Supreme Court Reverses Ban

Leave a comment

Source:  Environmental Working Group (EWG)

Contact:
(202) 667-6982
alex@ewg.org
For Immediate Release:
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
  • Colorado River Drinking Water Source for 40 Million
  • 2018: 831 Active Uranium Mining Claims Near Grand Canyon
  • 2011: Before Ban, 3,500 Claims

WASHINGTON – If the Supreme Court lifts the moratorium on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, the expected surge in active claims would endanger not only a cherished national landmark, but also the drinking water for 40 million Americans, according to the Environmental Working Group and Earthworks.

Between the current leanings of the Supreme Court and the Trump administration being in power, the mining industry clearly sees an opportunity to open up uranium extraction along the canyon rim for the first time in a decade. There are currently fewer than 900 active uranium claims near the canyon, compared to almost 3,500 before the ban.

In November the Trump administration announced plans to reconsider the ban on uranium mining as part of its agenda to prop up dirty and dangerous domestic energy sources.

Last week two mining industry lobbying groups petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the 20-year moratorium for uranium mining on more than 1 million acres of land along the canyon rim, put in place in 2012 by then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The mining groups are seeking reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ December ruling to leave the ban in place.

“If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the uranium industry, it could permanently scar a sacred landscape that is the jewel in the crown of America’s natural heritage, and threaten the drinking water of 40 million Americans from Los Angeles to Las Vegas,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “President Trump has shown total disregard for preserving natural resources and protecting public health, and if the court overturns the ban, the Grand Canyon could soon fall victim to his radical agenda.” More

Colorado’s Supreme Court has used its power to help itself – again.

1 Comment

The Judicial Integrity Project

Colorado’s Supreme Court has used its power to help itself – again. This time, it’s to wipe out an embarrassing 97% dismissal rate of complaints against judges.

By rewriting the rules for Colorado’s Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Supreme Court stops the incredulous 97% dismissal rate from continuing. The rate hit 97% in 1993 and has been 97% ever since – 24 years. But the Supreme Court has ensured the rate won’t continue.

How? By redefining “complaint.”

Under the new rules, a complaint will no longer be a complaint when a person files a complaint with the commission. A complaint will only be a “complaint” when the commission finds there are grounds to proceed. Before that point, what has been a complaint will now be called a “request for investigation.”

Requests for investigation won’t be dismissed. Those files will merely be closed if the commission finds there aren’t grounds to proceed. The 97% dismissal rate disappears into those closed files. Clever, huh?

So instead of spending valuable time hearing more cases that should be heard at the Supreme Court, or encouraging vigorous enforcement of the Code of Judicial Conduct, our justices spent time figuring out a crafty plan to cover their tracks.

Does this rule change make you feel confident in the Supreme Court justices? Does it make you think they’re being unfair? Does it seem like they’re using their power to help themselves?

More

The story of Eddie and Dorothy Wise-The final chapter of Willie Lynch and The Last Plantation

1 Comment

The New Nat Turner” and “The New Harriet Tubman”

new-logo25by: “King Solomon”

July 7, 2016

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

1978754_644420168926779_1732856343_nOn July 8, 2016, thousands of Americans will gather in front of The Supreme Court in Washington D.C.-the faces will be of black, white, red and brown that reflect the Black Farmers, White Women Farmers, Native American Farmers and Hispanic Farmers alike.

This day will mark the day when Eddie Wise and Dorothy Wise will take a stand for justice.

Oh, but this is not just a few disgruntled people looking to insight a riot;  these are two Americans that are America. One a retired Green Beret and the other a retired Howard University grant manager together they are petitioning the nation’s highest court to overturn The Dred Scott Decision.

Dred Scott was a slave that petitioned the Supreme Court for his rights in 1857. Alarming enough, the nation’s highest court opined that a black person does not have the capacity to sue in federal courts, basically regulating his or her mere existence to a regular article of merchandise similar to a pig or cow in a stockyard for auction. We all know the story of Nat Turner and Harriet Tubman, one revolted on a plantation in Virginia, and the other led between 300 and 500 slaves to freedom.

Nat Turner (October 2, 1800 – November 11, 1831) was an enslaved African American who led a rebellion of slaves and free blacks in Southampton County, Virginia on August 21, 1831, that resulted in the deaths of 55 to 65 white people. In retaliation, enraged white militias and mobs killed more than 200 black people in the course of putting down the rebellion.

Now fast forward to 2016, Eddie Wise is “The New Nat Turner.” Instead of bloodshed, Eddie Wise will use the “Olive Branches” to denounce the Doctrine of Willie Lynch, a doctrine still employed by the USDA and the Department of Justice against Socially Disadvantaged Farmers.

The USDA and the Department of Justice has been denying the constitutional rights of Socially Disadvantaged Farmers by denying them the right to a formal hearing on the merits while simultaneously illegally foreclosing on farms that Congress placed a moratorium on. If this was not enough, the disciples of Willie Lynch have been using the treasury to offset the social security and any qualified federal monies payable to affected farmers and not giving a day for a hearing to discuss these unlawful tactics. The retired Green Beret has searched deep into his 73 year old heart to bring the best fight of his life and questions the Supreme Court must answer.

Not to be forgotten, Harriet Tubman has the resolve that could move mountains or reduce them to mole hills. Dorothy Wise is “The New Harriet Tubman,” together with her husband, this retired grant manager will help lead Black Farmers to freedom. With the support of The American Agriculturalist Association, Black Farmers have been informed on how to get the justice that has long eluded them. Black Farmers have responded by filing over 1,000 motions of declaratory judgments in the District Court of The District of Columbia. Ironically, the judicial system that has long and unlawfully oppressed the people of color are preparing for this uprising. The District Judge has failed to docket these motions to this date.

On July 8, 2016 at 8am, answer the call, let’s rewrite the final chapter of the Willie Lynch Doctrine and demand justice from the nation’s highest court. This time the “Wise Tale” will do the writing of the history and your voice is required to be a story in history.

Becoming a TOTAL Earth Science Skeptic

15 Comments

 Joseph A Olson, PE                   Apr 16, 2012

______________________________________________________

Becoming a TOTAL Earth Science Skeptic

As baby boomers bloomed from Child of the Fifties to Love Child of the Sixties the peer pressure motto of “Question Authority” took on a multi-level meaning.  It was obvious that we were being lied to byTotal Earth Science Skeptic the government in almost every aspect of life.  If you believe the Southeast Asia domino theory or the Dallas Magic Bullet Theory, then you may require an extra effort to accept the fact that ALL governments have distorted history and science to benefit the powerful.

My distrust in government ordered orthodoxy began in grade school.  A lifetime dedicated to the study of science and history has turned my distrust into disgust, and finally action.  I have researched and documented a number of intentional government sponsored frauds.  These have been the subject of over 120 articles posted at major websites and even read into the US Congressional Record.  Here is a summary of my “Top Five Big Government LIES”, not in order of severity or impact, but just in order of convenient narrative.

The Big Bang Lie

One government control tactic is fear of eminent doom.  In the fifties, the fear of mushroom clouds on every horizon was reinforced with weekly ‘air raid drills’.  A deafening blast horn was mounted on a 25 ft high pole behind the elementary school.  Every Friday at noon the horn blast would echo off the surrounding suburbs as the horn rotated to inflict the maximum amount of terror to the widest range.  About once a month this was accompanied with the mandatory classroom response of climbing under our desks. More

CFS claims victory while Roundup Ready alfalfa gets ready for 2010 planting

2 Comments

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

While the Center for Food Safety (CFS) does its victory dance claiming that it won the Supreme Court genetically modified alfalfa (GM) case, and no GM alfalfa will be forthcoming any time soon, the Roundup Ready seed is already sitting in the wings ready to be planted. The House of Representatives just sent a letter asking Agriculture Secretary Vilsack to allow planting for the fall 2010 season. I guess they figure approval is a done deal, so why waste time, eh?  More

GM Alfalfa vs World Health – Update and Judicial Pep Talk!

1 Comment

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

As we approach what will be a landmark decision for those of us in an agricultural belt whose main crop is alfalfa, I offer this one plea on behalf of reason, before the final verdict is in:

An Appeal for Common Sense to prevail in the case of Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, in which Judge Clarence Thomas is presiding.

Come on Clarence, we know you can do it! You can make the right decision and uphold the ban on genetically modified (GM) alfalfa. The question is, do you want to? After years of bowing to your GM masters, can you make the leap and strike a blow for food freedom?

Any thinking person knows that genetic modification allowed to spread uncontrolled is harmful to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And just how long do you think it will take for the unbridled scourge of anti-biotic resistance given to us by the genetic engineering process itself, to affect someone in your family? The growth of bacteria is exponential! Or, if you are not planning on being around for that, or feel you are sufficiently protected from having to eat what we the people eat, then by all means support Monsanto, just like the Federal Government does:

In its brief on the merits in support of Monsanto, the federal government similarly argues that the Ninth Circuit erred in establishing a presumption of irreparable harm in NEPA cases.” (Scotus)

And don’t fall for that genetic modification as the new “cure for world hunger” baloney. Any thinking person knows that this is merely a good propaganda buzz phrase used for advertising. Genetic modification has nothing to do with curing hunger, but rather everything to do with increasing the bottom line.

The question is, Clarence, WHAT WILL YOU DO?

©2010 Barbara H. Peterson

The Death of the Republic Revisited

10 Comments

by: Gary Rea (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________

In my article, How the American Republic Died at Philadelphia in 1787 I showed, with quotes from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, alike, how our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1781) was illegally scrapped and replaced with a new Constitution (1787), which formed a wholly new government – one which was deliberately designed to grow into the fascistic behemoth we see today. Here, I will go into the various ingenious ways in which the Federalists designed the Constitution to achieve that end, all while making it appear as though our liberties were safeguarded.

First, though, I think it is necessary to point out exactly how and why this subterfuge was illegal, in the first place. The best way of doing so is to simply examine the wording of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Articles of Confederation, which says:

“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.” More

Supreme Court Guts Due Process Protection

3 Comments

 rense.com

Naked Capitalism
12-21-9

“After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president’s fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a “suspected enemy combatant” by the president or his designated minions is no longer a “person.” They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever – save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.”  READ FULL ARTICLE

http://www.rense.com/general88/supreme.htm

What More Proof Do We Need That the NRA Isn’t What it Claims to Be?

Leave a comment

I have been writing, for some time, now, on Second Amendment issues and, in particular, about the fact the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a Trojan horse organization that has no interest in protecing the Second Amendment. I have presented a solid case here, before, that shows the NRA has, for seventy-five years, not only refused to call for the repeal of all existing gun laws (which is the only way to truly save the Second Amendment from further infringement), but that they have, in case after case, actually backed more gun control laws.

Usually, though, the NRA will attempt to disguise their actions by occasionally appearing to oppose some new gun law, now and then, just to keep up appearances. This is usually enough to fool their supporters who blindly continue to believe that the NRA is fighting for their rights. Funny thing, though; if that’s what the NRA is truly doing, then why are our Second Amendment rights almost gone now, as compared to decades ago?

Well, in yet another moment in its history in which its members should be finally made aware that the NRA is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the NRA has mysteriously remained mute on the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, a gun rights opponent, has ruled, in lower court cases, that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, for one thing. Need I remind Ms. Sotomayor that the Constitution – of which the Second Amendment is a part – is the law of the land and overrides all other laws? No state, according to their constituional limitations, may pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution, anymore than the federal government may do so.

While, supposedly, Senate Republicans were hoping that the NRA would have something to say about Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court, strangely enough (or not), the NRA has stayed out of the issue, claiming it’s waiting for the Senate confirmation hearings. This should be interesting. I’ll wager right here and now that Sotomayor is appointed to the court no matter what the NRA may have to say about it. It’s already a done deal behind closed doors.

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Grabbing

4 Comments

In its first major ruling since the so-called Heller “decision,” in which the Supreme Court said that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms “within reasonable limitations” (with what is “reasonable” left to the government’s interpretation), the court ruled seven to two in favor of continuing to block access to firearms by so-called “domestic abusers,” a ruling that, according to this article from an anti-gun source, was applauded by the anti-gun crowd.

The Supreme Court’s decision, on Tuesday, basically overturns a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the so-called Lautenberg amendment, which would have supposedly “greatly expanded” the ability of people convicted for or arrested for “domestic abuse” to own a gun. The Supreme Court is, basically, saying that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Lautenberg isn’t stringent enough.

The original Clinton administration law that criminalized gun ownership by anyone even arrested for a domestic abuse complaint removed the possibility of these people arming themselves against a fascistic government and, that, of course, is its real intent. By chipping away, little by little, at who may own a gun, the government disarms the population by legislative fiat, saving the trouble and expense of sending armed thugs out to collect guns.

This Supreme Court decision makes it quite clear that the court’s intent in the Heller decsision was to open the door to further regulation of gun ownership, not to “protect” gun owners from confiscation, as so many have stupidly believed the court intended. Government never relinquishes its power willingly and the two main powers it guards most jealously are the power of the purse and the power of the sword (powers that it didn’t have a monopoly on under the original constitution, which was the Articles of Confederation). With the ability to control the economy and our ability to defend ourselves, the government can do with us as it pleases.

The Second Amendment is quite clear. It does not specify who may be armed and who shall not be and any attempt by the government to tell us otherwise is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is clear, also. It says that we have a right and a duty to throw off and replace an oppressive government. How much more oppressive does the government have to be when it is deliberately gaurding its power over us by denying the Constitution is the law of the land? The government’s legal limitations are what the Constitution describes. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; it acknowledges and protects our existing rights, including the right to defend our lives and property against a despotic government. That the government has, for over 75 years, sought to limit our Constitutionally protected ability to protect ourselves from its incursions into our lives says, quite clearly what its true intentions are.

%d bloggers like this: