This is supplemental reading and study for the article “Obama is not the U.S. President.”
This information should be mailed, linked, hand-delivered or faxed TODAY to every Secretary of State of the Union with a polite demand that Obama be declared ineligible to appear on the ballot in the 2012 election cycle.
More from Devy Kidd:“For those who think Dr. Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D., is just some run-of-the-mill attorney, let me give you a very condensed bio: He holds four degrees from Harvard. For more than 30 years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States, he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Communications Workers of America v. Beck. His two volume tome, "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," is the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.”
More on quo warranto:
“The prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment IX)
http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs. *End*
There are a lot of very intelligent attorneys working on the citizenship issue, so I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with any remaining legal proceedings still on-going as well as the firestorm I believe will hit with Dr. Jerome Corsi's new book due to be shipped May 17, 2011. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the challenges to get Obama/Soetoro on state ballots in 2012 is probably going to result in more advanced lawsuits this time around, as well as possibly running up against any new laws passed by states requiring citizenship verification for a presidential candidate. Obama/Soetoro's handlers know it and we know it.
One note in another case:
Hornbeck v. Salazar: New Court Filings Related To Obama's Usurpation Including An Affidavit Regarding Obama's New Forged Birth Certificate
"New court filings related to Obama's usurpation including an affidavit regarding his newly released forged birth certificate. The filings below were submitted on 5/11/2011 in Louisiana in the Hornbeck v. Salazar lawsuit which is regarding Obama's order to shut down offshore oil drilling. If the media did their job we would know what happened at yesterday's oral arguments for this case.
"UPDATE: Via atty. Taitz; Yesterday I had a an oral argument in Hornbeck v Salazar. This case deals with the fact that Obama administration de facto destroyed oil and gas industry in the gulf of Mexico by placing a moratorium and later, when the federal judge placed an injunction on the moratorium, Obama regime continued destroying the oil and gas industry by refusing to grant drilling permits. Most of the rigs left the region and moved to Brazil. Recently Obama visited Brazil and congratulated them on their offshore deep water drilling and stated that US will be their biggest customer, showing him as the most anti-American president this nation ever saw.
"My argument was that the damages suffered in the case at hand were rooted in the same problem: anti-American usurper in the White House, who got there by virtue of fraud and use of a forged birth certificate and invalid Social Security number, issued to another individual in another state."
But, the usurper has committed crimes while in office! Indeed, he has and continues to do so. Knowing he was not eligible to run, the putative president solicited campaign
To impeach would also accomplish this: Every piece of legislation he's signed into law would remain on the books. Let me quote Dr. Vieira one more time: donations to the tune of about $700 million dollars. He can still be indicted for wire fraud.
"Perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy "the Office of President." The Constitution provides that "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States" (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to a usurper posturing as "the President of the United States," but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no "Bill" will or can, "before it become a Law, be presented to [him]." If no "Bill" is so presented, no "Bill" will or can become a "Law." And any purported "Law" that the usurper "approve[s]" and "sign[s]," or that Congress passes over the usurper's "Objections," will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully "enters office" as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as "President."
Please take the time to read my column on that process. Will he ever be indicted for his crimes? With enough public pressure, it can happen because his handlers would simply throw him under the bus as a liability.
Besides removing a usurper from office, that should be our second-highest consideration and why the outlaw Congress hasn't moved against him. All 535 of them allowed this to happen, and now it's gone so far; they don't have the courage to take on the mess they've made.
The usurper can be indicted once out of office, but how to get him out? There will be a massive push to keep the putative president off the ballot in dozens of states. It will come from candidates who understand the process discussed in my column above.
Mark my words, what's coming will be a nightmare for the DNC and Obama's handlers. Time is running out for them to find another viable candidate; something will have to give. One way or the other, Obama's crimes are going to catch up with him, but please stop working toward setting the wrong legal precedent. It's beyond frustrating, I know, but either we live our words in supporting the U.S. Constitution or we take the wrong road opening the door for another ineligible candidate with enough money and corrupt individuals behind him to seize the office of president.
Of Interest
MAJOR IMPORTANCE…HASTY HAWAII TRIP…WHY REALLY?
http://www.irishufology.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9097&pid=11640&st=0&%23entry11640
Last night’s a major announcement: Obama is taking a few days to hurry to Hawaii. His grand mother is sick. The media has zero details on this illness or why Obama has to drop his campaign plans and run to Hawaii. This is the latest from Phil on his lawsuit re Obama's birth certificate --- a Hawaiian one. I absolutely wish no ill will towards Obama's grandmother, but it sure it seems like a huge coincidence considering the timing of Phil's release. If I lived in Honolulu where the State Department of Health issues birth certs, I'd be camped out there just to see who shows up in the next few days....maybe Michael Signator.
Details on the Law of Estoppel:
http://www.irishufology.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9097&pid=11640&st=0&%23entry11640
Pennsylvania attorney Phillip Berg, in his lawsuit (see documents at http://obamacrimes.com/ questioning Barack Hussein Obama's right to become President, filed a request for admissions. In the request, he stated certain allegations and required Obama and the DNC to admit to the truth of them or to deny them within 30 days.
According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the respondent must answer within the specified time frame or the court will accept the silence of the respondent as acquiescence - an admission of the truth of the allegations. The respondent thereby estops his future protests against the factual nature of the allegations. Unfortunately for the People of America, neither Barack nor the DNC came forward to admit or deny Berg's allegations within the allotted time.
Now we have a constitutional challenge on our hands. Ipso facto, the court must assume Obama and the DNC admitted to the allegations, and it must rule that Obama has no right to pursue the office of President of the United States.
Why? Because these admissions prove that Obama has no right to run for president or become president - they admit that he did not qualify by way of natural born citizenship. Instead of responding to the request for admissions, Barack put his campaign on hold and jetted off to Hawaii to tend to his ailing grandmother. I consider this "coincidence" way too coincidental. I believe he has gone to do damage control - to find some sneaky way to fabricate and/or slip into the system some kind of plausible birth certificate in a criminal effort to prove the US citizenship which he has to this point refused to substantiate by credible documented evidence.
Before you start feeling too sorry for Obama and his supporters, remember that Obama had plenty of opportunity to present proper and certified evidence of his birth. And the public has every right to question his integrity, in light of the sketchy history of his mother's country-hopping and multi-nationalist associations preceding and coinciding with his birth.
In his arrogance, Obama refused to present credible evidence of his birth, and he has tried to get the court challenge dismissed out of hand. If he somehow gets into the presidency, I believe we can expect more of the same recalcitrant deceit and duplicity.
This has NOTHING to do with Obama's politics. It has to do with his obedience to his oath of loyalty to the Constitution for the USA and the laws pursuant thereto.
Law Notes:
1.. Silence constitutes acquiescence and it can equate to fraud for one who has the duty to respond.
2.. Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.
3.. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;
4.. "He who is silent when conscience requires him to speak shall be debarred from speaking when conscience requires him to be silent." Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. D. A. Dorsey, 1932.FL.40867, 149 So. 759 (1932).
5.. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 301 provides for "Admission by silence." Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(d), Florida rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.110(e) and Florida Statute 90.803(6)© maintain that failure to deny constitutes tacit admission.
6..
--- Bob Hurt Berg - DNC Admits Fed Suit Charges - Obama Should Quit By Devy Kidd 10-21-8 For Immediate Release - 10/21/08 For Further Information Contact: Philip J. Berg, Esquire Berg v. Obama 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Cell (610) 662-3005 No. 08-cv-04083 (610) 825-3134 (800) 993-PHIL [7445] Fax (610) 834-7659 philjberg@obamacrimes.com Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit regarding Obama's "Not" Qualified to be President and Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania - 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC "ADMITTED", by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate.
The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083. Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. The admissions include:
OBAMA - Admitted:
1.. I was born in Kenya.
2.. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen.
3.. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
4.. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5.. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
6.. My mother's maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
7.. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website "Fightthesmears.com" is a forgery.
8.. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
9.. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
10.. I was not born in Hawaii.
11.. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.
12.. I was not born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii.
13.. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.
14.. I am a citizen of Indonesia.
15.. I never took the "Oath of Allegiance" to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.
16.. I am not a "natural born" United States citizen.
17.. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.
18.. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends.
19.. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.
20.. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens.
21.. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.
22.. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan.
23.. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.
24.. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a "natural born" United States Citizen.
25.. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.
26.. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.
27.. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.
28.. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.
29.. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.
30.. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.
31.. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.
32.. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine.
33.. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.
34.. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed.
35.. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.
36.. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a "natural born" United States citizen.
37.. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
38.. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.
39.. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.
40.. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law.
41.. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth. 42.. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.
43.. I am not a "Naturalized" United States Citizen.
44.. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means.
45.. I cannot produce a "vault" (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.
46.. My "vault" (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.
47.. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.
48.. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.
49.. Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.
50.. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
51.. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.
52.. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.
53.. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.
54.. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law.
55.. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.
56.. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.
DNC - Admitted:
1.. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
2.. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.
3.. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.
4.. The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5.. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
6.. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a "natural born" United States citizen.
7.. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.
8.. The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama's citizenship status.
9.. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.
10.. The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.
11.. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.
12.. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.
13.. The DNC admits their Credential Committee's Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama's ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.
14.. The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.
15.. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.
16.. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.
17.. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.
18.. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.
19.. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a "natural born" United States citizen.
20.. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.
21.. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.
22.. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.
23.. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
24..DNC admits allowing a person who is not a "natural born" citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff's rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution. 25.. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a "natural born" citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff's rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. 26.. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen's interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.
27.. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama's Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Our website obamacrimes.com now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website - and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, "we" the people, are heading to a "Constitutional Crisis" if this case is not resolved forthwith. * * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to http://en.wikipedia...._for_admissions http://obamacrimes.com
This information should be mailed, linked, hand-delivered or faxed TODAY to every Secretary of State of the Union with a polite demand that Obama be declared ineligible to appear on the ballot in the 2012 election cycle. If you have a radio show, I hope you will air this press release. FAX it to your state rep and state senator. FAX it to your local county clerk with a short letter letting him/her know Obama cannot be an eligible candidate on election day because - include the legal definiton of 'request for admissions.' I will do mine this morning. If we the people flood all of the above -- by the MILLIONS - we can make the volanco erupt and the hell with FAUX News and all the rest. Phil has done all this work, we need to back up his efforts. We can get Obama off the ballot.
For those of you who don't what Request for Admissions means in Phil's press release: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/E9...A3FBA39DF0E60C5 D/alpha/R/ request for admission - A discovery procedure, authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court rules of many states, in which one party asks an opposing party to admit that certain facts are true. If the opponent admits the facts or fails to respond in a timely manner, the facts will be deemed true for purposes of trial. A request for admission is called a "request to admit" in many states.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Founders Quotes on a Standing Army and the Militia
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. Noah Webster
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. Elbridge Gerry
"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army -- or congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. when a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed." - John Smilie
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Whenever people...entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." - "A Framer" in the independent gazetteer, 1791
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the constitution." - A. Lincoln
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? Patrick Henry
Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Patrick Henry
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Tenche Coxe
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom.
Tenche Coxe
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tenche Coxe
The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them
Tenche Coxe
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, July 18, 2011
Islam isn't what you think it is
A great deal of confusion exists among Westerners about Islam. That is understandable since most of us were brought up from childhood to tell the truth so we therefore expect others to be truthful. We find it inconceivable than an entire religion and movement can be built on lies. But that is the case with Islam.
Let’s examine one series of interlocking lies. One hagiographer said, although Mohammed “could not read or write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions and activities… We thus know his life down to the minutest details.”
The earliest biography of Mohammed, the Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of the Prophet of God) by Ibn Ishaq claims that Mohammed lived from 570 to 632 AD. The problem is that Ibn Ishaq wasn’t born until 717 and died in 767 - nearly 100 years after Mohammed lived. So, where did he get the “minutest details” of his life?
No copies exist of Ibn Ishaq's work. We know of it only through quotations in the History of al-Tabari, who lived over two hundred years after Ibn Ishaq (al-Tabari died in 992). Thus, the earliest biography of Mohammed of which copies still exist was written some 350 years after Mohammed lived.
The primary reason we don't know the truth about Islam is because we are afraid to hear the truth because if we know the reality, we would have to take immediate action. We, Americans and Westerners in general, have been intimidated and frightened to examine the historical truth regarding Islam. Dare to criticize Islam and some crazed ayatollah will issue a fatwah calling for your death. Well, if there is one thing that we must learn from the atrocity of 9/11 is that we cannot, we dare not, be afraid any longer.
The atrocity was committed exclusively by Muslims in the name of Islam. True enough, President Bush, in his speech to Congress, said their actions blaspheme and insult Islam. But throughout the Arab world, from cafes in Beirut and Cairo to the streets of Nablus and Gaza, people laughed and celebrated the slaughter of Americans supposedly in the name of their religion. So we should feel no need to refrain from exposing this mass murder committed in the name of a make-believe myth.
Former President Harry Truman did not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to end World War II and would have called on Congress to declare a LEGAL war against our Islamic attackers following Sept. 11, 2001. With the full weight of America’s military might Truman by now would have leveled Mecca and subdued the Islamic horde.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would never have tolerated strip searches of travelers in total violation of our Fourth Amendment rights and there never would have been a complete capitulation to the Federal Reserve and no such thing as an open borders initiative or amnesty to criminal illegal aliens. They would have never unconstitutionally surrendered our precious sovereignty to the United Nations or entered into any conflict without a clear intention of victory.
We instead are cowering in fear of a possible nuclear attack by Iran or even Pakistan. We are afraid to speak out against Muslim atrocities. Our forefathers would have seen through the façade and myth of Mecca and Islamic superiority.
The entire Middle-East as well as France and England are about to fall to radical Islam but our traitorous national media, including FoxNews, have yet to reveal the truth they surely know. Read these comments from leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and ask yourself; “Why has this information been kept from us?”
The Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity and grants them the right of dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission. It is their duty to establish sovereignty over the world.” - Hassan al-Banna
al-Banna was heralded as an Islamic martyr after his assassination in Egypt
Let’s examine one series of interlocking lies. One hagiographer said, although Mohammed “could not read or write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions and activities… We thus know his life down to the minutest details.”
The earliest biography of Mohammed, the Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of the Prophet of God) by Ibn Ishaq claims that Mohammed lived from 570 to 632 AD. The problem is that Ibn Ishaq wasn’t born until 717 and died in 767 - nearly 100 years after Mohammed lived. So, where did he get the “minutest details” of his life?
No copies exist of Ibn Ishaq's work. We know of it only through quotations in the History of al-Tabari, who lived over two hundred years after Ibn Ishaq (al-Tabari died in 992). Thus, the earliest biography of Mohammed of which copies still exist was written some 350 years after Mohammed lived.
The primary reason we don't know the truth about Islam is because we are afraid to hear the truth because if we know the reality, we would have to take immediate action. We, Americans and Westerners in general, have been intimidated and frightened to examine the historical truth regarding Islam. Dare to criticize Islam and some crazed ayatollah will issue a fatwah calling for your death. Well, if there is one thing that we must learn from the atrocity of 9/11 is that we cannot, we dare not, be afraid any longer.
The atrocity was committed exclusively by Muslims in the name of Islam. True enough, President Bush, in his speech to Congress, said their actions blaspheme and insult Islam. But throughout the Arab world, from cafes in Beirut and Cairo to the streets of Nablus and Gaza, people laughed and celebrated the slaughter of Americans supposedly in the name of their religion. So we should feel no need to refrain from exposing this mass murder committed in the name of a make-believe myth.
Former President Harry Truman did not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to end World War II and would have called on Congress to declare a LEGAL war against our Islamic attackers following Sept. 11, 2001. With the full weight of America’s military might Truman by now would have leveled Mecca and subdued the Islamic horde.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would never have tolerated strip searches of travelers in total violation of our Fourth Amendment rights and there never would have been a complete capitulation to the Federal Reserve and no such thing as an open borders initiative or amnesty to criminal illegal aliens. They would have never unconstitutionally surrendered our precious sovereignty to the United Nations or entered into any conflict without a clear intention of victory.
We instead are cowering in fear of a possible nuclear attack by Iran or even Pakistan. We are afraid to speak out against Muslim atrocities. Our forefathers would have seen through the façade and myth of Mecca and Islamic superiority.
The entire Middle-East as well as France and England are about to fall to radical Islam but our traitorous national media, including FoxNews, have yet to reveal the truth they surely know. Read these comments from leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and ask yourself; “Why has this information been kept from us?”
 |
| Hassan al Banna |
The Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity and grants them the right of dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission. It is their duty to establish sovereignty over the world.” - Hassan al-Banna
al-Banna was heralded as an Islamic martyr after his assassination in Egypt
 |
Sayyid Qutb “No political system or material power should put hindrances in the way of preaching Islam. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission. --- Bringing about the enforcement of the Divine Law (Shariah) and the abolition of man-made laws cannot be achieved only through preaching. When the above-mentioned obstacles and practical difficulties are put in its way, it has no recourse but to remove them by force. --- Islam has the right to take the initiative. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions. It is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems. --- Jihad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world. Whenever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine System on earth. - Sayyid Qutb Sayyid Qutb, late Muslim Brotherhood leader and spiritual father of Usama bin-Laden |
 |
| Yusef al-Qaradawi “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah (Islamic proselytizing).” - Yusef al-Qaradawi Yusef al-Qaradawi, Egyptian-born, Qatar-based, current Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader |
 |
| Abu Ala Maududi “Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments anywhere which are opposed to this ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth - not just a portion, but the entire planet.” - Abu Ala Maududi Abu Ala Maududi, late Pakistani disciple of al-Banna So much for “peaceful” Islam, right? A great deal of original research was done by Jack Wheeler and immortalized in his excellent article entitled “The Myth of Mecca.” I strongly urge - no, beg my readers to study his work in its entirety. It should be required reading for every citizen. The battle-lines have been drawn. Now it is up to us to know our enemy. Remember this, Islam is not a religion according to Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, who correctly calls Islam not a religion but a political system masquerading as a religion. Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS Go To THE MYTH OF MECCA |
Monday, July 11, 2011
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is Pro-Sharia Law!
Posted by Kevin A. Lehmann on TEA PARTY NATION on July 11, 2011. Reprinted here with permission.
Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New Internation (World) Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda ... Think Again!
![]()
The "Appointed One," in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!
Why is it always after the fact, after the elections and after critical appointments that the real vetting of candidates finally takes place? Simple.
When you have a clueless, apathetic and disengaged American populace, coupled with a leftist liberal media that's already in the tank for the "Messharia," you take the fast track to confirmation and worry about the repercussions later. After all, it's a lot easier to select than it is to eject a political appointee.
Elena Kagan's views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Sharia law into national Constitutions and legal systems. It's unprecedented in American history. We now have a liberal, pro-Sharia justice sitting on the highest court in the land. And is it any wonder?
After all, as Obama’s Solicitor General, it was Kagan who blocked as many as nine lawsuits from being heard by the Supreme Court. Although the nine cases listed on the high court's docket had nothing to do with Obama's eligibility issues, there is no arguing Kagan's advocacy for Islamic rule and Sharia Law as evidenced below. What do you want to bet that she refuses to recuse herself on any Sharia-related decision and instead leads the charge to legitimize Sharia law in America?
Christine Brim of the Center for Security Policy summarized Kagans' 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School in the following five points. They tell the story of Elena Kagans' “deep appreciation” of Sharia law.
1. KAGAN'S PRO-SHARIA MISSION
With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.
Under Kagan’s direction, her chief of staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Sharia law – fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.” In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools.
2. KAGAN’S PRO-SHARIA MONEY
When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the Middle East were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Guiliani stated, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.”
But, when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Sharia law and U.S. Constitutional law.
As presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law. In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal’s blood money. But in 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.
Not only there, but as reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama’s Solicitor General, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.
So Kagan actively solicited Saudi financing to promote Sharia law in the U.S., and she actively protected Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.
3. PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIA CONSTITUTIONS
In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Sharia” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” - the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Sharia as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.
On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law by honoring him with the endowed "Bemis Chair" in International Law. Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”
As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states:
“Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”
In summary, Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Sharia propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, with an endowed chair. Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not “eschew the use of violence against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”
Kagans' financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East (specifically in Israel and Palestine) were a cause of the 9/11 attacks. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the prince did not “eschew the use of violence” against the U.S. And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 “use of violence” against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.
4. PROMOTING SHARIA IN CONSTITUTIONS WORLDWIDE
On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Sharia Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s. There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world that she could have chosen; but she chose al-Sanhuri.
Sanhuri’s career consisted primarily of making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Sharia-compliant. He drafted the laws that ensured Sharia law took precedence over secular laws. As much as any single individual, he was responsible for the legal drafting for the “Constitutionalization” of Sharia in previously secular Muslim-majority nations in the 20th century, in concert with the political pressure for Sharia by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the financial pressure for Sharia by the Saudi Royal Family.
As legal scholar Enid Hill wrote in her biography of al-Sanhuri:
“The outlines of the future dialectic are thus able to be detected if al-Sanhuri’s specifications are followed: Islamic legal theory versus Western legal rules, and when the Western rules reflect a different underlying theory they are to be eliminated and new rules put in their place, rules that are reflective of Islamic legal theory.”
Or as al-Sanhuri states himself in his book The Arab Civil Code:
“The goal towards which I am striving is that there will be an Arab civil code derived primarily from the Islamic Shari’a.”Kagan presided over four of the al-Sanhuri lectures before her departure to become Obama’s Solicitor General.
5. PROMOTING SHARIA IN THE JUDICIAL COUP IN PAKISTAN
Kagan consistently used her position at Harvard to promote and legitimate the introduction of Shariah provisions into national constitutions, and indeed into Supreme Courts of other nations. In Pakistan however, her influence is having dire consequences . . .
On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan. Chaudry had been deposed from his post in 2007 by President General Pervez Musharraf in a complex dispute that included the issue of independence of the judiciary. Musharraf later resigned, and on March 16, 2009, the Prime Minister Gilani re-appointed Chaudhry as Chief Justice.
As noted by Department of Defense attorneys from the Clinton and Reagan eras, Kagan’s honoree has mounted a Sharia judicial coup:
“Contrary to the constitution of Pakistan, Chaudhry usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president…In a previous ruling, Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of Parliament, the president and all ministers of the cabinet from serving if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” or do not engage in ‘teaching and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam”
Given the fact that Elena Kagan is only fifty years old, she could easily serve on the Supreme Court until she's eighty or beyond. Coupled with Obama's Muslim upbringing, his anemic support for Israel, his lack of desire to secure the southern border, the ramrodding of Obamacare against the peoples will, joining an international lawsuit against the state of Arizona, his allegiance to Saudi oil magnates, his support of the UN's Small Arms Treaty, his cosponsoring of a UN bill with Egypt to restrict free speech, the recent corrupt--- Operation Fast & Furious the appointment of his personal minions (czars) and rash of executive orders to circumvent the Constitution, and his latest gaff---resuming talks with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban terrorist organization, is it even a question that the "appointed" one, the "Messharia" to America is laying the groundwork for gradual socialist reform and a syncretism of the Constitution of the United States with the Constitution of Sharia Law? I rest my case!
Until next time . . . Wake Up America!
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New Internation (World) Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda ... Think Again!
Why is it always after the fact, after the elections and after critical appointments that the real vetting of candidates finally takes place? Simple.
When you have a clueless, apathetic and disengaged American populace, coupled with a leftist liberal media that's already in the tank for the "Messharia," you take the fast track to confirmation and worry about the repercussions later. After all, it's a lot easier to select than it is to eject a political appointee.
Elena Kagan's views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Sharia law into national Constitutions and legal systems. It's unprecedented in American history. We now have a liberal, pro-Sharia justice sitting on the highest court in the land. And is it any wonder?
After all, as Obama’s Solicitor General, it was Kagan who blocked as many as nine lawsuits from being heard by the Supreme Court. Although the nine cases listed on the high court's docket had nothing to do with Obama's eligibility issues, there is no arguing Kagan's advocacy for Islamic rule and Sharia Law as evidenced below. What do you want to bet that she refuses to recuse herself on any Sharia-related decision and instead leads the charge to legitimize Sharia law in America?
Christine Brim of the Center for Security Policy summarized Kagans' 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School in the following five points. They tell the story of Elena Kagans' “deep appreciation” of Sharia law.
1. KAGAN'S PRO-SHARIA MISSION
With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.
Under Kagan’s direction, her chief of staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Sharia law – fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.” In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools.
2. KAGAN’S PRO-SHARIA MONEY
When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the Middle East were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Guiliani stated, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.”
But, when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Sharia law and U.S. Constitutional law.
As presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law. In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal’s blood money. But in 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.
Not only there, but as reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama’s Solicitor General, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.
So Kagan actively solicited Saudi financing to promote Sharia law in the U.S., and she actively protected Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.
3. PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIA CONSTITUTIONS
In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Sharia” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” - the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Sharia as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.
On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law by honoring him with the endowed "Bemis Chair" in International Law. Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”
As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states:
“Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”
In summary, Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Sharia propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, with an endowed chair. Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not “eschew the use of violence against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”
Kagans' financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East (specifically in Israel and Palestine) were a cause of the 9/11 attacks. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the prince did not “eschew the use of violence” against the U.S. And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 “use of violence” against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.
4. PROMOTING SHARIA IN CONSTITUTIONS WORLDWIDE
On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Sharia Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s. There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world that she could have chosen; but she chose al-Sanhuri.
Sanhuri’s career consisted primarily of making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Sharia-compliant. He drafted the laws that ensured Sharia law took precedence over secular laws. As much as any single individual, he was responsible for the legal drafting for the “Constitutionalization” of Sharia in previously secular Muslim-majority nations in the 20th century, in concert with the political pressure for Sharia by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the financial pressure for Sharia by the Saudi Royal Family.
As legal scholar Enid Hill wrote in her biography of al-Sanhuri:
“The outlines of the future dialectic are thus able to be detected if al-Sanhuri’s specifications are followed: Islamic legal theory versus Western legal rules, and when the Western rules reflect a different underlying theory they are to be eliminated and new rules put in their place, rules that are reflective of Islamic legal theory.”
Or as al-Sanhuri states himself in his book The Arab Civil Code:
“The goal towards which I am striving is that there will be an Arab civil code derived primarily from the Islamic Shari’a.”Kagan presided over four of the al-Sanhuri lectures before her departure to become Obama’s Solicitor General.
5. PROMOTING SHARIA IN THE JUDICIAL COUP IN PAKISTAN
Kagan consistently used her position at Harvard to promote and legitimate the introduction of Shariah provisions into national constitutions, and indeed into Supreme Courts of other nations. In Pakistan however, her influence is having dire consequences . . .
On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan. Chaudry had been deposed from his post in 2007 by President General Pervez Musharraf in a complex dispute that included the issue of independence of the judiciary. Musharraf later resigned, and on March 16, 2009, the Prime Minister Gilani re-appointed Chaudhry as Chief Justice.
As noted by Department of Defense attorneys from the Clinton and Reagan eras, Kagan’s honoree has mounted a Sharia judicial coup:
“Contrary to the constitution of Pakistan, Chaudhry usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president…In a previous ruling, Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of Parliament, the president and all ministers of the cabinet from serving if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” or do not engage in ‘teaching and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam”
Given the fact that Elena Kagan is only fifty years old, she could easily serve on the Supreme Court until she's eighty or beyond. Coupled with Obama's Muslim upbringing, his anemic support for Israel, his lack of desire to secure the southern border, the ramrodding of Obamacare against the peoples will, joining an international lawsuit against the state of Arizona, his allegiance to Saudi oil magnates, his support of the UN's Small Arms Treaty, his cosponsoring of a UN bill with Egypt to restrict free speech, the recent corrupt--- Operation Fast & Furious the appointment of his personal minions (czars) and rash of executive orders to circumvent the Constitution, and his latest gaff---resuming talks with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban terrorist organization, is it even a question that the "appointed" one, the "Messharia" to America is laying the groundwork for gradual socialist reform and a syncretism of the Constitution of the United States with the Constitution of Sharia Law? I rest my case!
Until next time . . . Wake Up America!
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Even more government controls - over animals
Nothing illustrates the out-of-control government bureaucracy than a Tuesday (May 24) news item in the Daily Caller... a family being fined over $90,000 for selling a few rabbits. It started out as a hobby, a way to teach their son financial responsibility. It's interesting to note that selling the rabbits for meat consumption was NOT what put them in hot water with the USDA, however.
It was because they sold them to a local pet store. Seems you can't sell over $500 worth of rabbits per year to a pet store without buying a USDA permit. The first inspector that arrived to correct this gross malfeasance of the law told the family that their cages were "a quarter inch too small" and would have to be replaced.
Even though the Dollarhit family immediately quit selling rabbits and actually got out of the business (hobby is more the word), the USDA sees fit two years later to generously submit a bill for $90,000 to make the whole thing just go away.
You know, I wonder how the American republic was ever founded. I mean, if you think about it, we're obviously too stupid to be able to manage our own lives and make decisions, especially if you look at the actions of the federal government. First our gardens, then raw milk, and now baby rabbits. Is there nothing out of the reach of government oversight and reach? I'm beginning to think not. (I was going to make a joke about the bathroom being the last bastion of privacy, but then I remembered the government has regulated that too...)
From OFF THE GRID NEWS
Go to TABLE OF CONTENTS
It was because they sold them to a local pet store. Seems you can't sell over $500 worth of rabbits per year to a pet store without buying a USDA permit. The first inspector that arrived to correct this gross malfeasance of the law told the family that their cages were "a quarter inch too small" and would have to be replaced.
Even though the Dollarhit family immediately quit selling rabbits and actually got out of the business (hobby is more the word), the USDA sees fit two years later to generously submit a bill for $90,000 to make the whole thing just go away.
You know, I wonder how the American republic was ever founded. I mean, if you think about it, we're obviously too stupid to be able to manage our own lives and make decisions, especially if you look at the actions of the federal government. First our gardens, then raw milk, and now baby rabbits. Is there nothing out of the reach of government oversight and reach? I'm beginning to think not. (I was going to make a joke about the bathroom being the last bastion of privacy, but then I remembered the government has regulated that too...)
From OFF THE GRID NEWS
Go to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, May 23, 2011
Government steps up food and water controls
Henry Kissinger has infamously said: “Food can be used as a weapon!” But it took Barack Obama to begin implementing the Communist and socialist tool of starvation as an inexpensive method to control a nation. The question every American has to ask is why is our own government so determined to control our food if not to eventually exterminate us or at the least, control us and force us into a dictatorship.
Click HERE
And, doing it the Obama way doesn’t even depend on convincing a Republican-led House to go along with his plan to control and regulate all food, water and nutritional issues. He’ll accomplish his goal with the swipe of his pen through executive order. Imagine that, wiping out the views, rights and opinions of millions of patriots and controlling the rest of the citizenry from the Oval Office, hassle-free from such things as pesky input from Congress and legal legislation.
Kissinger knows whereof he speaks. He is a one-world devotee and is on record urging Obama to create a New World Order.
“But what really rankles in the video here is Kissinger’s call for Obama to create a New World Order. “It’s a great opportunity,” declares Kissinger.” SOURCE
Further reading about Kissinger and his one-world leanings can be found HERE
Your food supply will be controlled by executive orders
Executive orders are to me, the most despicable things to come from Sodom on the Potomac, a.k.a., Washington, D.C. It is one thing to be ruled by consent (rule of law) and quite another to be ruled by dictatorial orders or mandates.
The following account was published in the Los Angeles Times and outlines Obama’s intent to unconstitutionally dictate policy.
“This week, political commentators were paying a great deal of attention to one of the Los Angeles Times’ stories about Barrack (sic) Obama’s plans for a Republican takeover of Congress. Unfortunately, they are focusing on the wrong one. Most commentators spent the morning quoting the president’s remarks on a black radio program that a GOP-dominated Congress will result in “hand-to-hand combat.” The reality is most of the action will take place behind their backs and over their heads. All indications are, if Obama cannot get his legislative agenda enacted by Congress, he will impose it by decree.
“The evidence comes buried elsewhere in today’s L.A. Times in a piece by Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons under the hum-drum headline, “Obama Reshapes Administration for a Fresh Strategy.” The story makes clear the “fresh strategy” borders on government by executive fiat. It begins, “As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.” This rule by divine right of kings is confirmed by no less an Obama insider than David Axelrod, who said, “It’s fair to say that the next phase is going to be less about legislative action than it is about managing the change that we’ve brought.” The Times states candidly…”
SOURCE AND ADDITIONAL READING
But my personal rage about mandates and orders coming from the Office of the President, aside, Executive Order 12919 is a monster that should be repealed by Congress and repudiated by every American.
Read EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919 as PDF file
Read EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919 as plain text
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. In many instances, however, they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the executive Power."
E.O. 12919 gives government (presidential) control over many areas of American life, but for this article we will discuss only food and food related controls. With the help of federal agencies E.O. 12919 will have control over:
All forms of energy, including "petroleum, gas (natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal), atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines)." This means the federal government will have complete control over who will have power (electricity, etc.) and who won’t. They will be able to "pull the plug" on us at their discretion. City slickers don’t think about this much, but farmers use enormous amounts of petroleum products for plowing, then discing, then planting their acreage. Additional petroleum is used by farmers for weed and insect control and finally harvesting. And of course, trucks and rail to get farm products to market and onto your grocer's shelves.
All fertilizer. This means that any product, or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements--nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium--will be able to be confiscated by the government. The reason they have this combination is because it includes anything that can be used as a plant nutrient. If you want a garden, forget it.
All farm equipment. Farmers will not have to be part of "the production or preparation for market use of food resources." They did this in Russia. The farmers worked for the government.
All food resources. ALL means ALL. This includes all "commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products that are being ingested by either human beings or animals...." This includes all "starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores." That means they can come into your house and take all your food. Period. Catherine Bertini, the executive director "UN World Food Program" made an interesting comment in Beijng, China, at the UN 4th World Conference on Women in September, 1995. She said, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize."
All food resource facilities. This means "plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for production, processing, distribution and storage (including cold food storage)." They go on to say that it includes "livestock and poultry feed and seed." In other words, the federal government will control anything that has to do with food.
All water resources. ALL usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States. All the water that can be "managed, controlled and allocated to meet emergency requirements." Not only will they be able to turn off your water supply, they can come and take any water you have stored in your house. http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TwoActsOfTyranny.html
All across the nation, states are considering legislation to regulate the collection of rainwater for use in irrigation (watering your garden) and in some rural areas, for flushing toilets. Laws means more enforcement, more regulation and one more step toward government control over every segment of our already over-taxed and over-regulated lives.
Will the State of Washington have an army of rainwater permit police driving around the state each time it rains to stop and check to see if the land owner has a permit and are they collecting rainwater that day? How will they be able to tell if the rainwater was collected or simply fell from the sky into a rain barrel?
Read this ARTICLE from way back in 2005 for proof.
Eco-freaks in COLORADO claim gathering rainwater without a permit from the state amounts to stealing since “every raindrop that falls on the state is already claimed by a water-rights holder.”
As long as people believe their rights stem from the government (and not the other way around), they will always be enslaved. And whatever rights and freedoms we think we still have will be quickly eroded by a system of bureaucratic power that seeks only to expand its control.
Because the same argument that's now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else's air, and then they could charge you an "air tax" or an "air royalty" and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.
Think it couldn't happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it effectively owns your land and house. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still "own" it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your "tax debt." That proves who really owns it in the first place... and it's not you!
How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.SOURCE
Family farms and small-scale farmers have been under assault by the federal government for years. That was brought home with force during the week of May 14 when an Amish farmer was raided by the federal Gestapo.
Fascist government jackbooted agents continued their assault on American liberty with raids on an Amish farm that was committing the “crime” of selling raw milk.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Click HERE
And, doing it the Obama way doesn’t even depend on convincing a Republican-led House to go along with his plan to control and regulate all food, water and nutritional issues. He’ll accomplish his goal with the swipe of his pen through executive order. Imagine that, wiping out the views, rights and opinions of millions of patriots and controlling the rest of the citizenry from the Oval Office, hassle-free from such things as pesky input from Congress and legal legislation.
Kissinger knows whereof he speaks. He is a one-world devotee and is on record urging Obama to create a New World Order.
“But what really rankles in the video here is Kissinger’s call for Obama to create a New World Order. “It’s a great opportunity,” declares Kissinger.” SOURCE
Further reading about Kissinger and his one-world leanings can be found HERE
Your food supply will be controlled by executive orders
Executive orders are to me, the most despicable things to come from Sodom on the Potomac, a.k.a., Washington, D.C. It is one thing to be ruled by consent (rule of law) and quite another to be ruled by dictatorial orders or mandates.
The following account was published in the Los Angeles Times and outlines Obama’s intent to unconstitutionally dictate policy.
“This week, political commentators were paying a great deal of attention to one of the Los Angeles Times’ stories about Barrack (sic) Obama’s plans for a Republican takeover of Congress. Unfortunately, they are focusing on the wrong one. Most commentators spent the morning quoting the president’s remarks on a black radio program that a GOP-dominated Congress will result in “hand-to-hand combat.” The reality is most of the action will take place behind their backs and over their heads. All indications are, if Obama cannot get his legislative agenda enacted by Congress, he will impose it by decree.
“The evidence comes buried elsewhere in today’s L.A. Times in a piece by Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons under the hum-drum headline, “Obama Reshapes Administration for a Fresh Strategy.” The story makes clear the “fresh strategy” borders on government by executive fiat. It begins, “As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.” This rule by divine right of kings is confirmed by no less an Obama insider than David Axelrod, who said, “It’s fair to say that the next phase is going to be less about legislative action than it is about managing the change that we’ve brought.” The Times states candidly…”
SOURCE AND ADDITIONAL READING
But my personal rage about mandates and orders coming from the Office of the President, aside, Executive Order 12919 is a monster that should be repealed by Congress and repudiated by every American.
Read EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919 as PDF file
Read EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919 as plain text
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. In many instances, however, they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the executive Power."
E.O. 12919 gives government (presidential) control over many areas of American life, but for this article we will discuss only food and food related controls. With the help of federal agencies E.O. 12919 will have control over:
All forms of energy, including "petroleum, gas (natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal), atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines)." This means the federal government will have complete control over who will have power (electricity, etc.) and who won’t. They will be able to "pull the plug" on us at their discretion. City slickers don’t think about this much, but farmers use enormous amounts of petroleum products for plowing, then discing, then planting their acreage. Additional petroleum is used by farmers for weed and insect control and finally harvesting. And of course, trucks and rail to get farm products to market and onto your grocer's shelves.
All fertilizer. This means that any product, or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements--nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium--will be able to be confiscated by the government. The reason they have this combination is because it includes anything that can be used as a plant nutrient. If you want a garden, forget it.
All farm equipment. Farmers will not have to be part of "the production or preparation for market use of food resources." They did this in Russia. The farmers worked for the government.
All food resources. ALL means ALL. This includes all "commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products that are being ingested by either human beings or animals...." This includes all "starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores." That means they can come into your house and take all your food. Period. Catherine Bertini, the executive director "UN World Food Program" made an interesting comment in Beijng, China, at the UN 4th World Conference on Women in September, 1995. She said, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize."
All food resource facilities. This means "plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for production, processing, distribution and storage (including cold food storage)." They go on to say that it includes "livestock and poultry feed and seed." In other words, the federal government will control anything that has to do with food.
All water resources. ALL usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States. All the water that can be "managed, controlled and allocated to meet emergency requirements." Not only will they be able to turn off your water supply, they can come and take any water you have stored in your house. http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TwoActsOfTyranny.html
All across the nation, states are considering legislation to regulate the collection of rainwater for use in irrigation (watering your garden) and in some rural areas, for flushing toilets. Laws means more enforcement, more regulation and one more step toward government control over every segment of our already over-taxed and over-regulated lives.
Will the State of Washington have an army of rainwater permit police driving around the state each time it rains to stop and check to see if the land owner has a permit and are they collecting rainwater that day? How will they be able to tell if the rainwater was collected or simply fell from the sky into a rain barrel?
Read this ARTICLE from way back in 2005 for proof.
Eco-freaks in COLORADO claim gathering rainwater without a permit from the state amounts to stealing since “every raindrop that falls on the state is already claimed by a water-rights holder.”
As long as people believe their rights stem from the government (and not the other way around), they will always be enslaved. And whatever rights and freedoms we think we still have will be quickly eroded by a system of bureaucratic power that seeks only to expand its control.
Because the same argument that's now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else's air, and then they could charge you an "air tax" or an "air royalty" and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.
Think it couldn't happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it effectively owns your land and house. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still "own" it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your "tax debt." That proves who really owns it in the first place... and it's not you!
How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.SOURCE
Family farms and small-scale farmers have been under assault by the federal government for years. That was brought home with force during the week of May 14 when an Amish farmer was raided by the federal Gestapo.
Fascist government jackbooted agents continued their assault on American liberty with raids on an Amish farm that was committing the “crime” of selling raw milk.
“In Pennsylvania, armed Federal thugs wearing flak jackets swooped in on Rainbow Acres Farms and bashed in doors like they were raiding Osama bin Laden’s compound. The raid came after a months-long “investigation” that saw agents using assumed names and surreptitiously purchasing products from across State lines so they could apply the misused “interstate commerce clause” of the Constitution, according to a report in The Washington Times.
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA take the position that raw milk can be contaminated with harmful bacteria and that pasteurized milk provides all the nutrients of raw milk without the danger. The truth is, pasteurized milk is a dead food. All the benefits of the milk are removed in the pasteurization process. And there had been no complaints of anyone becoming ill from consuming Rainbow Acres Farms milk.
“So the FDA’s position is that natural products — like raw milk, which man has consumed as far back as time can be recorded — are illegal and harmful, but falsely marketed drugs from Big Pharma, with at best dubious research on their effectiveness, are perfectly okay for consumers. And falsely labeling food products by claiming they contain fruit, even though they only contain artificial fruit concoctions and contain no fruit whatsoever, is legal, but using the words of actual customers to promote products is not.”
SOURCE AND READ MORE
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA take the position that raw milk can be contaminated with harmful bacteria and that pasteurized milk provides all the nutrients of raw milk without the danger. The truth is, pasteurized milk is a dead food. All the benefits of the milk are removed in the pasteurization process. And there had been no complaints of anyone becoming ill from consuming Rainbow Acres Farms milk.
“So the FDA’s position is that natural products — like raw milk, which man has consumed as far back as time can be recorded — are illegal and harmful, but falsely marketed drugs from Big Pharma, with at best dubious research on their effectiveness, are perfectly okay for consumers. And falsely labeling food products by claiming they contain fruit, even though they only contain artificial fruit concoctions and contain no fruit whatsoever, is legal, but using the words of actual customers to promote products is not.”
SOURCE AND READ MORE
Folks, we must fight back NOW, before we see people starving to death in America, the land of plenty.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
addendum
Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders."
But today’s executive orders go far beyond those rules with an arrogance and disdain for the law personified in both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Former Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
Return to MAIN ARTICLE
But today’s executive orders go far beyond those rules with an arrogance and disdain for the law personified in both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Former Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
Return to MAIN ARTICLE
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
More Assaults By The Food Police
May 24, 2011 by: BOB LIVINGSTON
The fascist government elites continued their assault on American liberty last week with separate raids on an Amish farm that was committing the “crime” of selling raw milk and a natural supplement company that violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling rules.
In Oregon, the FDA, IRS and FBI raided Maxam Nutraceutics, a company that produces and sells nutritional supplements primarily for autism spectrum disorders and Alzheimer’s disease.
Maxam’s “crime” was using customer testimonials about its products. According to the medical fascists in the FDA, repeating what customers say about your products turns those products into unapproved drugs.
So the FDA’s position is that natural products — like raw milk, which man has consumed as far back as time can be recorded — are illegal and harmful, but falsely marketed drugs from Big Pharma, with at best dubious research on their effectiveness, are perfectly okay for consumers. And falsely labeling food products by claiming they contain fruit, even though they only contain artificial fruit concoctions and contain no fruit whatsoever, is legal, but using the words of actual customers to promote products is not.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA take the position that raw milk can be contaminated with harmful bacteria and that pasteurized milk provides all the nutrients of raw milk without the danger. The truth is, pasteurized milk is a dead food. All the benefits of the milk are removed in the pasteurization process. And there had been no complaints of anyone becoming ill from consuming Rainbow Acres Farms milk.
This is just another example of the medical tyranny and corporatocracy in which we now live.
Hat Tip: Naturalnews.com
SOURCE OF THE ABOVE MATERIAL
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS for links to additional articles on food and gardening and many other topics.
The fascist government elites continued their assault on American liberty last week with separate raids on an Amish farm that was committing the “crime” of selling raw milk and a natural supplement company that violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling rules.
In Pennsylvania, armed Federal thugs wearing flak jackets swooped in on Rainbow Acres Farms and bashed in doors like they were raiding Osama bin Laden’s compound. The raid came after a months-long “investigation” that saw agents using assumed names and surreptitiously purchasing products from across State lines so they could apply the misused “interstate commerce clause” of the Constitution, according to a report in The Washington Times.
So the FDA’s position is that natural products — like raw milk, which man has consumed as far back as time can be recorded — are illegal and harmful, but falsely marketed drugs from Big Pharma, with at best dubious research on their effectiveness, are perfectly okay for consumers. And falsely labeling food products by claiming they contain fruit, even though they only contain artificial fruit concoctions and contain no fruit whatsoever, is legal, but using the words of actual customers to promote products is not.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA take the position that raw milk can be contaminated with harmful bacteria and that pasteurized milk provides all the nutrients of raw milk without the danger. The truth is, pasteurized milk is a dead food. All the benefits of the milk are removed in the pasteurization process. And there had been no complaints of anyone becoming ill from consuming Rainbow Acres Farms milk.
This is just another example of the medical tyranny and corporatocracy in which we now live.
Hat Tip: Naturalnews.com
SOURCE OF THE ABOVE MATERIAL
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS for links to additional articles on food and gardening and many other topics.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
IF THE U.N. IS SO WONDERFUL, WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY WARS?
The United States has long borne the bulk of the operating budgets of the United Nations organization through dues and voluntary contributions. The U.N. has also extracted more than money from us - it has led directly to the United States becoming the “policeman” of the world. Since WWII we have shed American blood in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and are now fighting in Libya, all without a constitutional declaration of war. Most of those wars were not based on U.S. security reasons or interests but were instead based on U.N. Resolutions.
The United Nations, which was sold to a war-weary world in 1945 as an organization that would end war and was man’s best hope for a peaceful world, has failed miserably. Especially in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid:
* From 1945 to 1949 there were 13 wars, conflicts, insurgencies and civil wars with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 1950 to 1959 there were 16 wars, civil wars, invasions, revolutions, insurgencies, uprisings, retribution operations and crises with U.S. involvement in two.
* From1960 to 1969 there were 41 wars, civil wars, crises, invasions, rebellions, confrontations, conflicts, revolutions and incidents with U.S. involvement in five.
* From 1970 to 1979 there were 30 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 1980 to 1989 there were 27 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 1990 to 2002 there were 63 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 2003 to 2011 there were 47 similar actions with U.S. involvement in four.
SOURCE
America has paid in blood for many of the U.N. wars (or police actions). All told, more than 600,000 U.S. soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen have been killed or wounded on behalf of the U.N.
U.S. War Casualties (killed and wounded) since the U.N. came into existence:
Korea 128,650
USSR cold war 44
China cold war 16
Vietnam War 211,254
Lebanon 7
Bay of Pigs 4
Dominican Republic 213
Iran 12
1986 bombing of Libya 2
Gulf War 1,231
Kosovo 22
Afghanistan 12,035
Iraq 36,395
TOTAL 609,883
SOURCE
As horrific as these numbers are, they pale in comparison to the human suffering imposed on citizens world-wide who have been slaughtered or were allowed to be slaughtered by their own governments. Known as genocide, or murder by government, about 38 MILLION humans were slaughtered while the United Nations stood by, issuing worthless resolutions condemning the acts.
Our “trading partner,” Communist China, from 1949 through 1976 murdered between 20 and 35 MILLION of its own people - a genocide of monumental proportions.
Genocide claimed between 100,000 and 200,000 Mayan and other Indians and “political enemies” in Guatamala.
About 300,000 Christians and “political enemies” of Uganda were claimed by genocide between 1971 and 1979.
The Khmer Rouge slaughtered TWO MILLION “educated persons” and political enemies in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.
And in 1994 the entire world watched in horror as the genocide of 800,000 Tutsi Tribesmen unfolded in Rwanda.
SOURCE
But have no fear, our valiant and gallant United Nations wrote several binding resolutions and imposed trade sanctions. The only “teeth” the U.N. has to enforce its resolutions and sanctions is spearheaded by the United States military.
The United States is seemingly always first in line to provide hurricane, flood and tsunami relief and we have shipped untold quantities of food to countries stricken by drought. Yet we continue to donate billions of dollars for the United Nations’ so-called humanitarian relief fund. Why?
The United Nations is the front organization for a one world order, or more appropriately, a world dictatorship under the leadership of the U.N. Former President George H.W. Bush confirmed that FACT with the following comments:
In a Sept. 11, 1990 televised address the elder Bush said, “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge .... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."
In a Jan. 9, 1991 press conference, Bush again referred to the United Nations and the new
world order in the same sentence when he said: “(The Gulf Crisis) has to do with a new world order. And that new world order is only going to be enhanced if, this newly activated peace-keeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective."
The power and might of the U.S. military proved that the “peacekeeping” function of the U.N. is indeed, effective. The question we must all answer is: Are we willing to participate in enslaving the entire human race through “peacekeeping” missions at the bequest of the United Nations? Or are we going to remain faithful to the precepts embodied in our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Are we going to be a tool for dominion and military conquest or are we going to renounce the U.N., defend liberty and justice for our brothers and sisters throughout the world and let freedom reign?
Click HERE to return to main article
Click HERE to return to table of contents
The United Nations, which was sold to a war-weary world in 1945 as an organization that would end war and was man’s best hope for a peaceful world, has failed miserably. Especially in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid:
* From 1945 to 1949 there were 13 wars, conflicts, insurgencies and civil wars with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 1950 to 1959 there were 16 wars, civil wars, invasions, revolutions, insurgencies, uprisings, retribution operations and crises with U.S. involvement in two.
* From1960 to 1969 there were 41 wars, civil wars, crises, invasions, rebellions, confrontations, conflicts, revolutions and incidents with U.S. involvement in five.
* From 1970 to 1979 there were 30 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 1980 to 1989 there were 27 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 1990 to 2002 there were 63 similar actions with U.S. involvement in two.
* From 2003 to 2011 there were 47 similar actions with U.S. involvement in four.
SOURCE
America has paid in blood for many of the U.N. wars (or police actions). All told, more than 600,000 U.S. soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen have been killed or wounded on behalf of the U.N.
U.S. War Casualties (killed and wounded) since the U.N. came into existence:
Korea 128,650
USSR cold war 44
China cold war 16
Vietnam War 211,254
Lebanon 7
Bay of Pigs 4
Dominican Republic 213
Iran 12
1986 bombing of Libya 2
Gulf War 1,231
Kosovo 22
Afghanistan 12,035
Iraq 36,395
TOTAL 609,883
SOURCE
As horrific as these numbers are, they pale in comparison to the human suffering imposed on citizens world-wide who have been slaughtered or were allowed to be slaughtered by their own governments. Known as genocide, or murder by government, about 38 MILLION humans were slaughtered while the United Nations stood by, issuing worthless resolutions condemning the acts.
Our “trading partner,” Communist China, from 1949 through 1976 murdered between 20 and 35 MILLION of its own people - a genocide of monumental proportions.
Genocide claimed between 100,000 and 200,000 Mayan and other Indians and “political enemies” in Guatamala.
About 300,000 Christians and “political enemies” of Uganda were claimed by genocide between 1971 and 1979.
The Khmer Rouge slaughtered TWO MILLION “educated persons” and political enemies in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.
And in 1994 the entire world watched in horror as the genocide of 800,000 Tutsi Tribesmen unfolded in Rwanda.
SOURCE
But have no fear, our valiant and gallant United Nations wrote several binding resolutions and imposed trade sanctions. The only “teeth” the U.N. has to enforce its resolutions and sanctions is spearheaded by the United States military.
The United States is seemingly always first in line to provide hurricane, flood and tsunami relief and we have shipped untold quantities of food to countries stricken by drought. Yet we continue to donate billions of dollars for the United Nations’ so-called humanitarian relief fund. Why?
The United Nations is the front organization for a one world order, or more appropriately, a world dictatorship under the leadership of the U.N. Former President George H.W. Bush confirmed that FACT with the following comments:
In a Sept. 11, 1990 televised address the elder Bush said, “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge .... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."
In a Jan. 9, 1991 press conference, Bush again referred to the United Nations and the new
world order in the same sentence when he said: “(The Gulf Crisis) has to do with a new world order. And that new world order is only going to be enhanced if, this newly activated peace-keeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective."
The power and might of the U.S. military proved that the “peacekeeping” function of the U.N. is indeed, effective. The question we must all answer is: Are we willing to participate in enslaving the entire human race through “peacekeeping” missions at the bequest of the United Nations? Or are we going to remain faithful to the precepts embodied in our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Are we going to be a tool for dominion and military conquest or are we going to renounce the U.N., defend liberty and justice for our brothers and sisters throughout the world and let freedom reign?
Click HERE to return to main article
Click HERE to return to table of contents
WE CAN CUT BILLION$ FROM U.S. BUDGET BY ELIMINATING THE UNITED NATIONS
The $14 trillion U.S. debt has American taxpayers asking, how did this happen? Where’s the money? Taxpayer money, that is - American money spent by federal politicians and bureaucrats with little or no oversight or review.
Let’s explore one prime example of total waste: the United Nations.
The United States pays 22 percent of the U.N. Operating “core or regular” Budget. But there are dozens of other ratholes built into the U.N. that suck up American dollars. For instance: Peacekeeping, the Tax Equalization Fund, the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program and other voluntary contributions.
The U.S. paid $5.2 billion for the U.N.s’ regular budget and the U.N. requested an additional $9.4 billion in “extra-budgetary” or voluntary funding for other projects. The U.S. contribution to that fund is hard to pin down since it is a variable.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees grew its budget by about 90 percent between 2008 and 2010, to $3.3 billion. The U.S. share of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in 2010 was $712 million, bigger than the next eight contributors combined.
Even though it is not planning on helping any more refugees than it did in 2009, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the world body's front-line humanitarian agency, has increased its planned spending to a little over $3 billion for next year — a 36 percent hike.
The spending increase for 2010 comes atop another whopping increase of 38.4 percent this year, a total jump of 88.2 percent. The combined hikes mean that UNHCR has virtually doubled its budget since 2008 — and intends to keep spending at roughly similar levels in 2011, unless additional refugee emergencies drive the price tag still higher.
SOURCE
IT GETS WORSE
Along the way, the agency hopes to add an additional 3,000 people to its payroll, raising the total number of staff from 4,824 in 2009 to 7,782 in 2010. Virtually all of these new positions, the agency says, will be located in the field, where UNHR does its relief work, rather than in its administrative headquarters. UNHCR will be a lot more expensive, but it claims it will also be a lot more efficient.
The spending spiral for UNHCR, which is funded by voluntary pledges, is bound to mean that the U.S., by far the refugee agency's biggest funder, will be writing even bigger checks — as it's already doing. So far this year, the U.S. had contributed about $639.8 million to UNHCR — up by about $129.6 million over 2008.
To put that number in perspective, the hike in the U.S. contribution this year was bigger than the full contribution for the entire period of the next largest funder of UNHCR, the European Commission, which had kicked in $120.4 million. Indeed, U.S. funding for UNHCR in 2009 has been substantially more than that of the next eight contributors combined.
But even if the U.S. payout for 2010 stays proportionately in line with the contribution so far for 2009, the U.S. would be shelling out another $230.9 million extra — bringing the total to about $870.7 million. That number would be about 250 percent of what the U.S. was contributing to UNHCR just five years ago.
SOURCE
In an unbelievable turn of events, an exclusive article series by Fox News the week of April 20, 2011, revealed the U.S. has actually OVERPAID its financial obligations to the U.N. by millions of dollars, possibly even billions if anyone is capable of finding his way through the jumble of interlocking agencies, bureaus and programs.
Even so, supporters of congressional belt-tightening are hailing the U.N. spending reduction as an important first move in restraining the steep climb in U.S. spending to support the global organization, where the U.S. is far and away the biggest contributor—and also an important restraint on the Obama Administration’s open-handed generosity.
How generous? The U.N. savings figures offer an interesting example, especially in peacekeeping, where the U.S. already picks up $2.1 billion-- 27 percent of a tab that is expected to reach $7.8 billion-- in the 12 months ending in June, 2011.
About $156.8 million of the congressional cutbacks are actually the return of overpayments made to current peacekeeping accounts. Another $86 million is money due back to the U.S. from peacekeeping operations that have already gone out of business. The remainder of that sub-total comes from U.S. overpayments for U.N. peacekeeping stockpiles that are largely kept in Brindisi, Italy.
The peacekeeping surpluses are not the only wads of loose cash that the U.S. has allowed to accumulate in its U.N. accounts. The Obama Administration last summer was suddenly able to allow the use of $100 million, part of the surplus in another U.N. account, to upgrade security at the U.N. headquarters complex in New York City, currently under renovation. We were only liable for about $20 million of that upgrade, but the Obama administration decided to pick up the entire tab. That money should be immediately returned to U.S. taxpayers.
SOURCE
When the percentages the U.N. operates on were instituted the U.S. was the world’s leading economy. That is no longer true and the U.N.‘s budget figures should reflect that fact. China, for example, which held foreign exchange reserves of $2.62 trillion in December, 2010, contributes 4 percent to U.N. peacekeeping, vs. 27 percent for the U.S. India, with a quarter-trillion in foreign exchange reserves, contributes 0.1 percent. Saudi Arabia, you know, the country we buy part of our oil from, contributes less than 0.5 percent—the same level as near bankrupt Ireland.
The same goes for the “regular” U.N. Secretariat budget, where China pays a little more than 3 percent, vs. the U.S. 22 percent, India pays 0.5 percent, Russia pays 1.6 percent, and Saudi Arabia 0.83 percent (this time, ahead of Ireland, which is just under 0.5 percent.)
If we stay in the U.N., and I really think we should get out, the budget assessments in all areas must be changed. Let the bulk of the funding for the U.N. come from Russia, China, India, the Arab states and Japan.
One last thing. The U.S. contributes military muscle for peacekeeping on the American taxpayer’s seemingly endless credit card while China, Japan, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia contribute no troops at all.
Click HERE to see the abject failure of the U.N. to keep the peace
Click HERE to return to Table of Contents
Let’s explore one prime example of total waste: the United Nations.
The United States pays 22 percent of the U.N. Operating “core or regular” Budget. But there are dozens of other ratholes built into the U.N. that suck up American dollars. For instance: Peacekeeping, the Tax Equalization Fund, the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program and other voluntary contributions.
The U.S. paid $5.2 billion for the U.N.s’ regular budget and the U.N. requested an additional $9.4 billion in “extra-budgetary” or voluntary funding for other projects. The U.S. contribution to that fund is hard to pin down since it is a variable.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees grew its budget by about 90 percent between 2008 and 2010, to $3.3 billion. The U.S. share of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in 2010 was $712 million, bigger than the next eight contributors combined.
Even though it is not planning on helping any more refugees than it did in 2009, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the world body's front-line humanitarian agency, has increased its planned spending to a little over $3 billion for next year — a 36 percent hike.
The spending increase for 2010 comes atop another whopping increase of 38.4 percent this year, a total jump of 88.2 percent. The combined hikes mean that UNHCR has virtually doubled its budget since 2008 — and intends to keep spending at roughly similar levels in 2011, unless additional refugee emergencies drive the price tag still higher.
SOURCE
IT GETS WORSE
Along the way, the agency hopes to add an additional 3,000 people to its payroll, raising the total number of staff from 4,824 in 2009 to 7,782 in 2010. Virtually all of these new positions, the agency says, will be located in the field, where UNHR does its relief work, rather than in its administrative headquarters. UNHCR will be a lot more expensive, but it claims it will also be a lot more efficient.
The spending spiral for UNHCR, which is funded by voluntary pledges, is bound to mean that the U.S., by far the refugee agency's biggest funder, will be writing even bigger checks — as it's already doing. So far this year, the U.S. had contributed about $639.8 million to UNHCR — up by about $129.6 million over 2008.
To put that number in perspective, the hike in the U.S. contribution this year was bigger than the full contribution for the entire period of the next largest funder of UNHCR, the European Commission, which had kicked in $120.4 million. Indeed, U.S. funding for UNHCR in 2009 has been substantially more than that of the next eight contributors combined.
But even if the U.S. payout for 2010 stays proportionately in line with the contribution so far for 2009, the U.S. would be shelling out another $230.9 million extra — bringing the total to about $870.7 million. That number would be about 250 percent of what the U.S. was contributing to UNHCR just five years ago.
SOURCE
In an unbelievable turn of events, an exclusive article series by Fox News the week of April 20, 2011, revealed the U.S. has actually OVERPAID its financial obligations to the U.N. by millions of dollars, possibly even billions if anyone is capable of finding his way through the jumble of interlocking agencies, bureaus and programs.
Even so, supporters of congressional belt-tightening are hailing the U.N. spending reduction as an important first move in restraining the steep climb in U.S. spending to support the global organization, where the U.S. is far and away the biggest contributor—and also an important restraint on the Obama Administration’s open-handed generosity.
How generous? The U.N. savings figures offer an interesting example, especially in peacekeeping, where the U.S. already picks up $2.1 billion-- 27 percent of a tab that is expected to reach $7.8 billion-- in the 12 months ending in June, 2011.
About $156.8 million of the congressional cutbacks are actually the return of overpayments made to current peacekeeping accounts. Another $86 million is money due back to the U.S. from peacekeeping operations that have already gone out of business. The remainder of that sub-total comes from U.S. overpayments for U.N. peacekeeping stockpiles that are largely kept in Brindisi, Italy.
The peacekeeping surpluses are not the only wads of loose cash that the U.S. has allowed to accumulate in its U.N. accounts. The Obama Administration last summer was suddenly able to allow the use of $100 million, part of the surplus in another U.N. account, to upgrade security at the U.N. headquarters complex in New York City, currently under renovation. We were only liable for about $20 million of that upgrade, but the Obama administration decided to pick up the entire tab. That money should be immediately returned to U.S. taxpayers.
SOURCE
When the percentages the U.N. operates on were instituted the U.S. was the world’s leading economy. That is no longer true and the U.N.‘s budget figures should reflect that fact. China, for example, which held foreign exchange reserves of $2.62 trillion in December, 2010, contributes 4 percent to U.N. peacekeeping, vs. 27 percent for the U.S. India, with a quarter-trillion in foreign exchange reserves, contributes 0.1 percent. Saudi Arabia, you know, the country we buy part of our oil from, contributes less than 0.5 percent—the same level as near bankrupt Ireland.
The same goes for the “regular” U.N. Secretariat budget, where China pays a little more than 3 percent, vs. the U.S. 22 percent, India pays 0.5 percent, Russia pays 1.6 percent, and Saudi Arabia 0.83 percent (this time, ahead of Ireland, which is just under 0.5 percent.)
If we stay in the U.N., and I really think we should get out, the budget assessments in all areas must be changed. Let the bulk of the funding for the U.N. come from Russia, China, India, the Arab states and Japan.
One last thing. The U.S. contributes military muscle for peacekeeping on the American taxpayer’s seemingly endless credit card while China, Japan, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia contribute no troops at all.
Click HERE to see the abject failure of the U.N. to keep the peace
Click HERE to return to Table of Contents
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)