Category Archives: Uncategorized

WHY VOTE!! BECAUSE YOUR VOTE MATTERS

Why should you vote?
Your vote counts! Learn why.
In some countries, citizens are fined if they don’t vote! Some Americans think that’s a good idea. Why? Because the right to vote is one of the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution. It is one of our most precious rights.
OUR RIGHT, BUT NOT EVERYONE’S RIGHT

 

There are hundreds of nations in the world. Only a fraction of these nations are democracies or constitutional monarchies. (A democracy is a nation headed by leaders who are elected by the people. A constitutional monarchy is a nation that is headed by a queen or king, who may not have much real power, but which has free democratic elections for all citizens. The United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands are prime examples.) Only part of the world’s population enjoys the right to vote in free democratic elections. Nations such as India, Israel, the Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, Canada, and the European Union countries are democracies, although Canada and Australia still have some political ties to England. Nations such as Turkey have some democratic freedoms and some non-democratic restrictions. Many nations are monarchies, in which one family controls the government; military dictatorships, in which a non-elected leader and his army control the government by force; or, in the case of China, Communist states, in which only one political party is allowed to have power and representation.In all of these non-democratic nations, the government controls the press, and there is very little opportunity, or none, for free speech. Citizens are not allowed to publicly express any criticism of their government. The most basic rights that U.S. citizens take for granted, such as a speedy and fair trial by jury, and freedom of religion, are not recognized in these non-democratic nations. If they have elections at all, they are usually a sham. Only a few candidates are listed on the ballots, and those are for local office. The people do not get to choose their leaders.

The United States is not the only democracy in the world, but it has been one of the most successful. One reason for its success is its system of laws based on the Constitution. Our Constitution allows for the possibility of change in the way we elect our leaders and representatives. But some basic rights are written into the Constitution, and as long as the United States thrives, these rights can never be taken away.

One of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution is the right to vote. That may not seem like a big deal, but it is a very important right—only if YOU use it. Your vote is just as important as the President’s! If you don’t vote, you can’t participate fully in the democratic process. If you do vote, you are a participant. If you don’t, you can only be an onlooker.

MAKING CHANGES: THE FIRST STEPS

Throughout the history of our nation, changes have been made by those who organized, networked, joined forces, and expressed their opinions openly, whether or not they could vote. In many cases, public opposition was stubborn and violent. Suffragists (advocates for women’s right to vote) had to endure many injustices—when violent mobs smashed in and broke up their meetings, or getting arrested for demonstrating, for example. The Civil Rights Movement for African-Americans met seemingly unbeatable and vicious opposition. A number of civil-rights activists and leaders, black and white, were murdered. Yet the justice of their causes prevailed. They helped extend Constitutional rights and protection to those who had been denied those rights. These battles for justice were won by those who cared enough about the possibility of social change to get involved, to speak up, and even risk their lives.

You don’t have to risk your life to participate in making changes, though. Voting is one way that all U.S. citizens, ages 18 to 108, can speak up. If you have never voted before, but are interested in registering to vote in the next Presidential election, we say, “Congratulations! That’s great! Let’s do it!” Once you learn how to do it, you will have a sense of satisfaction, knowing that you are participating in an important part of being an American citizen. Registering to vote is the first step in an exciting adventure. This what we hope will happen:

* Because you want to be an educated voter, you will learn what you can about the candidates, the issues, and the differences between the parties’ stands on the issues that are most important to you. What do you care about? Legislative funding and support for schools for the deaf? How the candidates feel about mainstreaming? Literacy classes for deaf adults? Getting more Deaf candidates into office? Getting more sign-language interpreters at public events? More police departments learning how to communicate with Deaf people? What Deaf people can do for the environment? Do your representatives know how you feel about these issues?
* You will become more interested in following news about proposed Constitutional amendments,different interpretations of the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court cases.
*You will follow, with new interest, the progress of the Presidential campaigns, and coverage of the national party conventions.
* You will vote in your state’s primary elections.
* You will contact your local, state, and Congressional representatives and express your views to them.
* You may even want to volunteer to join the local campaign committee for your favorite candidate. Even if you can’t use the voice telephone to make calls on the “telephone tree,” there is much that you can do. And if your candidate wins, you will participate in the victory celebration, knowing that you helped make it possible!
* You will see, through your own experience, that one person CAN make a difference. Even if your favorite candidate loses, you will have had this valuable experience, and we hope that you will want to stay involved.
* You will have the satisfaction of participating actively in the democratic process, and seeing how it works on a grassroots level. Someone who doesn’t bother checking the news, doesn’t care about the election, and doesn’t go to the polls to vote loses out on this.
* You can become a smarter, better-informed citizen. You can even help make history!
* And you may even decide to run for office yourself!

WHY BOTHER TO READ THE CONSTITUTION?

The Constitution contains the basic description of our national government, how it is to be elected and set up, and a list of our guaranteed rights as citizens. We believe that all citizens of the United States should study their Constitution. Together with the Declaration of Independence, it is the single most important political document in our history. Everyone should read it, understand what it says, and have a basic knowledge of their rights and responsibilities as citizens.

The Constitution provides a framework for our government, making provisions for the offices of the president, vice-president, Congress, and Supreme Court. These are the three main branches of our government: Executive (the presidency and vice-presidency), Legislative (House of Representatives and the Senate, together known as Congress), and Judiciary (the Supreme Court). The original Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789, over 200 years ago. Since that time, 27 amendments have been passed by Congress, to change specific parts of the original law that needed to be clarified, streamlined, or eliminated; to fix flaws in the original provisions; or to add new laws to keep the Constitution up-to-date with major changes in U.S. society, primarily the extension of voting rights.

One of the beautiful things about the Constitution is its brevity. Some other nations have constitutions that run hundreds of pages long, with law after law and article after article described in extraordinary detail. In contrast, our Constitution spells out some basic procedures, laws, and rights, in fairly simple language, and leaves the rest to the individual States to legislate. It leaves open the possibility for change.

When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, there were only 13 states. The Framers (writers) of the Constitution were all wealthy white men and land-owners. Several Framers were Southern slave-owners. It was simply taken for granted that only free white men could vote. The rights that they enjoyed for themselves were gradually extended to all U.S. citizens, regardless of color, race, ethnic or socio-economic background, or gender, through the amendments (additional laws).

The original Constitution, as ratified in 1789, lacked a Bill of Rights—a list of basic rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens and recognized by the government, such as freedom of religion, speech, and press, the rights to a speedy trial, and to hold peaceful public protests or rallies. Other rights, such as protection from being forced to house and feed soldiers, are a reminder of the injustices that provoked the War of Independence. After some political dispute, a Bill of Rights was finally written and passed, being ratified in 1791. The first ten amendments of the Constitution are commonly called the “Bill of Rights.”

WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS
ABOUT VOTING AND VOTERS

The Constitution of the United States has several amendments focusing on the voting rights of citizens, and Presidential elections. Here are the amendments, in their original wording. To view our commentaries on each one, click the “Commentary” link. Each commentary will appear in a pop-up window.

Amendment XII
Choosing the President & Vice- President
(Ratified 6/15/1804)

Commentary (an explanation in simple English)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment XIV
Citizenship rights (the first two articles)
(Ratified 7/9/1868)

Commentary (an explanation in simple English)

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Amendment XV
Race no bar to vote
(Ratified 2/3/1870)
Commentary (an explanation in simple English)

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX
Women’s suffrage
(Ratified 8/18/1920)
Commentary (an explanation in simple English)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIV
Poll tax barred
(Ratified 1/23/1964)
Commentary (an explanation in simple English)

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVI
Voting age set to 18 years
(Ratified 7/1/1971)
Commentary (an explanation in simple English)

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION . . .
For the complete text of the Constitution, see “The U.S. Constitution Online” (www.usconstitution.net), a useful site that includes full-color images of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Hammond’s are under attack

A father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers, Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, have been sentenced five years in prison for setting fire to federal land.

The Hammond fire was a regular backfire that got out of control and the Federal Government charged them as “Arsonal Terrorists” because it spread onto BLM lands.

In July, just days after the Hammond family were re-sentenced for arson Obama’s BLM started an UNCONTROLLED burn at nearby Prince Glenn, Oregon and it was all caught on video. The Feds told ranchers and farmers to stand down and warned that if they attempted to stop the fire they would be arrested.

In the video you can see Oregon land owners, neighbors and citizens scrambling to save their belongings and the life of their cattle, Examiner.com reports. Folks can see these cows burned alive while the BLM federal workers start more fires in the background, including one while the film is rolling. Clearly, the BLM is not putting out the fire, they are starting them and you can see the government worker suited up. This unsupervised incident charred a ranchers home and burnt his cattle alive in their corral, not to mention the danger to the land owners themselves. Another rancher lost 11 cattle trapped in their corrals during the night.

The video clearly shows that the BLM was far more irresponsible than the Hammond’s ever were, yet they received 5-year prison sentences.

These residents are terrorized by U.S. government officials and threatened if they try to stop the fires. Clearly, there is corruption and Obama’s Feds are taking an “in your face” approach daring folks to do anything to stop them. This is one of the reasons the citizens and neighbors of the Hammond’s marched to the Malheur County court house in Burns, Oregon, about 280 miles from Portland, to protest against the government corruption and destruction of life and property the people and their livestock are suffering in the area.

This reality is that what the Obama administration is doing to these people is an evil act of revenge. 

Ammon Bundy says the Prince Glenn video proves the BLM has little regard for human or animal life and that the government is making war against the ranchers because it wants their land, Conservative Tribune reports.

For instance, the video stated that most controlled burns are done in the late fall. However, this one was done in July, when most of the cows would be grazing on the grass. This makes it significantly more dangerous, given the fact that there is more foliage and a lot more cattle in the area.

“Basically, the BLM were burning the ranchers’ grass,” Bundy said in the video. “I want you to understand that this video was filmed less than two weeks from the day the Hammonds were sentenced for starting a fire themselves.”

“Last night, nobody’s around, they lit the fire right here, close to everybody’s houses,” the narrator said, showing the desolate area with no officials or safety equipment to be seen. “We’re going to have a hell of a lot of fire come evening.”

This is nothing short of terrorism by the government against the very people that they are supposed to serve.

While the BLM sees fit to persecute the Hammond’s for a minor fire, the agency is more than willing to set major ones on its own — as retaliation — with no consequences.

Unbelievable…

Private Property Ownership and the First American Right

by Tom DeWeese
January 12, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

“Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can…” John Lennon wrote these words for a fantasy song to glorify his understanding of the road to peace. John may not have understood the true origins of his thoughts, but we know it as Communism. Barack Obama knows that too and is determined to make sure you understand the consequences of “no possessions.” In government-speak it’s called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.” (AFFH) Once it becomes a reality you will be able to fully appreciate John’s statement = imagine no possessions.” For if AFFH is alloowed to stand, the concept of private property is about to die in America.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule is federal enforcement of Sustainable Development Smart Growth Cities. Until now there was at least a pretense that Smart Growth development was a local process. That, of course, is what the American Planning Association (APA), Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and your city council have assured citizens. Now, through the revelation of AFFH, it is clear that such development is a top-down dictatorship, overseen by the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Announced July 16, 2015 by HUD Secretary Julian Castro, the excuse for the 377 page ruling is to promote and assure discrimination and achieve balanced and integrated living patterns for all citizens. To achieve that goal, AFFH is specifically designed to move people out of rural areas into mega cities and tightly control who may stay in reduced suburbs. Exactly as we’ve been warning about Smart Growth policy.

To achieve its goals, AFFH requires agencies and communities that apply for HUD grants to detail income levels, religion, color, and national origin of every single person living in every neighborhood of the community. They will then determine any imbalances and, if necessary, force a massive shift of people into such neighborhoods to achieve the desired balance. This is nothing less than social engineering!

Worse, the AFFH rule will effectively eliminate local government rule over development. Where once there was at least the pretense of local communities making their own decisions and could spend the HUD grants as they determined best for their communities, now, under AFFH, HUD will control those decisions to its satisfaction. And the local governments will be forced to comply. The result is the destruction of local representative rule. Communities must supply updates to HUD on the break down of its communities every five years to check on and assure progress.

So what does this mean to average American citizens – in plain English? It means the destruction of neighborhoods, loss of control of their own property and loss of property values. If government funded high rise apartment buildings are forced into neighborhoods of single family homes, the value of the properties will fall. It’s possible that, should a neighborhood find itself in a shortage of residents representing certain ethnic backgrounds or income levels, then a homeowner trying to sell their home may find they can only sell to someone representing that imbalance. Imagine the affect that will have on the already depressed real estate market.

For those who live in ethnic neighborhoods of their own choosing, being close to family and friends that share traditions and outlooks, it means being forced into neighborhoods where they are not wanted and where they do not want to be. It means a loss of freedom of choice and loss of the right to be secure in their home. In this day of constant accusations of racism for nearly every act, does no one see the irony of the built- in racism in a regulation that assumes those of certain ethnic origin or economic level are oppressed and unhappy simply because they live in a different kind of environment from that of the enforcers? What could make them feel more lost and hopeless than to be forced into living in government controlled housing in a neighborhood where they are shunned and resented?

This past September the United Nations made a big deal out of its new 2030 Agenda as it vows to eliminate poverty by 2030. Of course the only remedy to poverty offered in any UN policy is redistribution of wealth. That means taking from those who created their wealth (wealth translates to whatever amount you may have in your pocket or bank account at the time) and give a portion to someone who has failed to create their own wealth. However, the missing ingredient in these so-called solutions is a plan to actually help people build their own wealth. Take just a small amount today to feed someone in need and tomorrow they will need more. Again and again and again.

Taking from a producer time and again will cause two results. First, the producer eventually loses their wealth. If government takes enough then the person who once had wealth will have none and will in fact need assistances themselves. Result = more poor, not less. Second, the producer will finally learn that it is a waste of time to keep trying to produce and will stop producing. Result = again, more poor, fewer opportunities. No solution to get people out of the poverty cycle. Moving them into your neighborhood will not stop poverty. It will make you poorer as your property values decrease.

The fact is, America became the wealthiest nation on earth in a very short time precisely because of the ability of every American to own and control their own property. Ownership produces equity = that is a process to build wealth. 60% of small bbusinesses in America were financed by the equity in the owner’s private property. And eventually 60% of Americans were employed by companies that were financed in that manner. Private property ownership is the path to building wealth and eliminating poverty.

However there is no mention of such a plan in the UN’s Agenda 2030. Instead we see quotes like this one from the National Audubon Society’s Peter Berle: “We reject the idea of private property.” Those promoting these policies tell us that private property ownership is a social injustice because not everyone owns private property. So, they plan to make it impossible for anyone to own property = just to keep us all equal.

Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University explained the goal best when he said, “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Ehrlich, by the way, is the father of the discredited population explosion theory that drives much of today’s environmental movement.

As a result of current Smart Growth policies, federal subsidized low income housing is taking the place of single family homes, thus eliminating the ability of low income Americans to buy their own property and achieve their own wealth = what wwas once called the American Dream.

According to Builderonline.com, which reports on trends in the building industry, homebuilders are no longer planning to build starter homes for young families or low income buyers. They only plan to build single family homes for the rich and federally subsidized apartment buildings for the rest of us. Why? Because the housing industry is being taken over by the federal government through plans such as AFFH. It is setting the standard for the future of housing.

In cities around the nation, such as Portland, Oregon, Boston, Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington, their Smart Growth plans are forcing them to end the availability of single family homes. In July, 2015, Seattle mayor Ed Murray and the City Council called on community leaders to develop a Housing Affordability and Living Agenda for the city. One of the main recommendations was to get rid of single family homes. Smart Growth forces an artificial line around the city outside of which no growth may take place. As the population grows, density grows. Eventually the city has no where to grow but up – into pack and stack high-rise apartment buildings. That is what has happened to Seattle. Now home owners will begin to see Eminent Domain used to take their single family home and replace it with the high-rises. It is the end of private property in Seattle.

One of the great outrages coming from the enforcement of such policy is the National Association of Realtors (NAR). This is the national organization that has set itself up as the champion of private property ownership and the idea that home ownership is the root of the American Dream. Yet, the NAR has sold its soul for a few grants and it is now a major promoter of Smart Growth policy. Every realtor in the nation should rise up against the NAR and threaten to leave it if it doesn’t stop promoting Smart Growth policy. If realtors continue to be cowed by the NAR they will soon wake up to learn they will have no product (homes) to sell. The future of every realtor in the nation is at stake. They could and should be a powerful voice in stopping this destruction of property rights. But today they remain silent and ignorant of their own organization’s actions, to their own peril and that of every homeowner in the nation. The NAR and its member realtors take a walk of shame everyday that they let this outrage go forward.

However, some members of Congress are trying to stop AFFH. Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona introduced a bill in July to ban funding for AFFH. His bill passed the House 229 – 193. Then Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced the “Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act (S.1909). His bill has six co-sponsors including Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. The plan was to get both bills passed in their respective houses, then merge them together in a conference committee and add the final version to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill (THUD). That bill was considered to be “must = pass” legislation making it more likelyy that Obama would have to sign it or see HUD shut down.

Unfortunately the plan didn’t work. House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell once again betrayed efforts to reign in the Obama juggernaut by eliminating the language from the massive trillion dollar omnibus spending bill passed in December. In fact, the final spending bill actually increased HUD’s budget by $2.6 billion, assuring it has plenty to enforce AFFH.

However, in a conversation I had with Lee’s legislative director, he assured me that S.1909 is still alive and that the Senator is determined to stop AFFH. It is vital that Americans who see the danger in AFFH take action now to stop it. We must flood Capitol Hill with calls supporting S.1909 and express our strong opposition to AFFH.

The American Policy Center has also prepared a petition addressed to Senator Lee to encourage him to continue the fight. With thousands of signatures he can use the petition to show other members of the Senate that he has strong support for S.1909. Readers can sign the petition here. If American private property rights are to be saved then we must stop AFFH!

Clearly HUD’s plan to enforce the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule is a major tool for killing private property and de-developing the United States. It is the enforcement of social justice. It is pure social engineering designed to reorganize human society, just as was promised with Agenda 21.

The one growth industry coming from Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, and the AFFH rule is government. It is getting bigger with each new rule and grant. The obvious result of such massive growth is corruption at all levels of government. When people have no say in how their lives are being engineered government rushes in to fill the void and dictate the rules. It’s a pretty hopeless feeling to stand alone against such a behemoth.

For twenty years the warnings have been issued. We warned that Agenda 21 is the reorganization of human society. That local planning is the enforcement of Agenda 21. That Smart Growth will force people off their land and into cities of stack and pack high-rise tombs. That Sustainable Development will control your food and water; transportation choices; family size. And that shortages and misery are your future.

We warned that our American form of representative government will be replaced by non-elected regional councils and dictated to by a central government. That Free Enterprise will be replaced with fascist-style public private partnerships as international corporations will use their influence with government to stomp out mom and pop stores; government agents will join in group hugs with Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporate presidents as they carve up the goods of our once free society.

I’ve delivered all of these warnings for more than 20 years. And frankly I’m weary of it. I’ve been laughed at by elected officials and ignored by national news shows. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist and a liar.


Well America, get ready to receive your due! Barack Obama has just nationalized your home. Along with that, he has put your local government in chains and he and his central government will now make the rules in your local community. If you do nothing now then it won’t matter whom you elect to city council or county commission. It won’t matter how loud you scream. Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can! Ignore this warning to take action today or you’re going to learn.As we tried to warn Americans of these dire consequences, they have been easily diverted and maneuvered with the chosen issue of the day; totally engrossed in a presidential election that is a year away; sniping at who said what; who offended whom = Meanwhile, the real issue of the compllete destruction of our society, our values and our way of life are ALL encompassed in Agenda 21. And it moves forward almost unabated, as Americans would rather think about something else.

Sign the petition now

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

2016 Election Calendar

 Please click on the 2016 Election Calendar for Important Dates!
2016ElectionCalendar

 

 

Barack Obama has Privately Campaigned to succeed Ban Ki-Moon As United Nations Secretary General at the End of 2016

“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Revelation 13:2 (KJV)

Did you think that the Muslim-raised, anti-Constitution, pro-everything evil Obama was just going to go away after plundering America for the last 8 years? No, he is not. Now we have learned that he wants to step directly from killing America to global dictator. Can you, in your wildest nightmare, imagine Barack Hussein Obama as the Secretary General of the United Nations? It sounds like a plotline from the “Left Behind” series! But guess what? The drive to do it is actually happening and Obama just might be appointed to that office.

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)

People have said to me that Obama cannot be the Antichrist because there are too many people that don’t like him, and the Bible says the Antichrist is worshipped. True, but consider this. After the Rapture happens, the only people left are the type of people that love and support Obama. Take out the Church and there is no one left to oppose him. The Pretribulation Rapture of the Church changes absolutely everything. Time will tell how far Obama will go on the prophecy timeline.

OBAMA AS THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL WOULD BE A MAJOR JUMP FORWARD ON THE PROPHECY TIMELINE

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also reportedly working with moderate Arab States to prevent this transition. The Jerusalem Post reported: “Netanyahu remembers well just how US President Barack Obama brushed aside Israeli objections and went ahead with the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran. Now, Netanyahu is reportedly planning some personal payback.”

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida, Netanyahu will make common cause with moderate Arab governments in order to sabotage Obama’s plan to succeed Ban Ki-moon when the South Korean diplomat ends his term as United Nations secretary-general on December 31 of this year.

Al-Jarida quoted sources as saying that Obama has already discussed the issue of running for secretary-general with Democrats, Republicans, and Jewish officials in the US.

THE SOURCES SAID THAT ONCE NETANYAHU GOT WIND OF OBAMA’S PLANS, THE PRIME MINISTER BEGAN TO MAKE EFFORTS TO SUBMARINE WHAT HE HAS REFERRED TO AS “THE OBAMA PROJECT.”

“Wasn’t eight years of having Obama in office enough?” Netanyahu is quoted in the Kuwaiti daily as telling associates. “Eight years during which he ignored Israel? And now he wants to be in a position that is liable to cause us hardships in the international arena.”

“Israel will not allow this to happen,” the source is quoted as saying.

Oy Vey.

Ousted Colorado Senators attend White House Gun Control

Michelle San Miguel, Multimedia Journalist – Pueblo Chieftain Bureau/Telemundo Anchor,moc.o1513607894drk@l1513607894eugim1513607894nas.e1513607894llehc1513607894im1513607894

POSTED: 11:05 AM MST Jan 05, 2016 UPDATED: 07:19 PM MST Jan 05, 2016 

Facebook

WASHINGTON –Former southern Colorado state Sens. John Morse and Angela Giron were invited to Washington, D.C. for President Barack Obama’s gun control announcement Tuesday morning.

Morse and Giron were both recalled for supporting stricter gun laws in Colorado in 2013.

Morse, who served Senate District 11 in Colorado Springs, shared a picture on Facebook of himself and Giron waiting in line outside the White House on Facebook. Giron served in Senate District 3, which includes Pueblo. A current Colorado lawmaker was also in attendance.

Democratic state Rep. Rhonda Fields of Aurora says she got an unexpected invitation to talk to the president about gun violence at the White House on Tuesday.

Fields sponsored the expansion of background checks and limiting the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds in Colorado in 2013 in response to mass shootings at a suburban Denver movie theater and Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Obama on Tuesday announced several measures he believes will curb gun violence, including one that requires nearly anyone who sells guns to register as a firearms dealer and conduct background checks on clients. Obama also plans to invest money into mental health care, as well as additional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents.

“I was like in the second row, two yards away from the president, and he was so impressive and everything that he had to say and his compassion,” Giron said.

Victor Head led the recall effort that ousted Giron from office. He said Obama’s proposals won’t stop criminals.

“It’s really just going to nix out hobbyists and people that have larger collections. I call them rotating collections. You buy stuff, you shoot it for a while, you get sick of it or you want something bigger and better and then you go to sell ’em,” Head said of the proposals. “It’s a lot more red tape is all it is for good, honest dealers and people engaging in the business.”

As for Giron, she said she’s proud to stand with other lawmakers on what she calls the right side of history, and she said she has no regrets about supporting legislation that ultimately got her recalled.

“Because those laws are on the books and everybody still gets their guns. They still get to buy all their ammunition so everything, when they said the world was going to end because we passed our legislation, none of that came true and so we’re safer and better for it,” Giron said.

But Head doesn’t believe the measures will do anything to curb gun violence. He said one of the best ways to combat the violence is arming more people with guns.

Federal Double Standards on Fire Liability

Wednesday, July 15, 2015/Categories: Popular Posts, General News, Today’s Top 5, People in Ag, Ag Issues

Federal Double Standards on Fire Liability

Northern Ag Network Note:  These two articles have us scratching our heads.  On one side you have the US Forest Service whose prescribed burn got out of control and burned 11,000 acres, at least half of which was private ranch land, and it gets declared “No Liability.”  On the other side, you have a family who got permission to start a prescribed burn then ended up with jail time when the fire got out of control and  burned 140 acres of federal land.  How exactly does that work?


Federal government denies liability on U.S. Forest Service lit Pautre Fire

In April of 2013, a U.S. Forest Service prescribed burn fire got out of control and ended up scorching nearly 11,000 acres of public and private lands southwest of Lemmon, South Dakota.  One outbuilding was burned, along with fences, hay, and pastures.

According the the Tri-State Livestock News (http://bit.ly/1OdZEh2), the ranchers affected by the fire finally learned on June 27, 2015 that the the federal government will not take responsibility for the fire or associated expenses.  The local grazing district had filed a claim for almost $2.5 million in damanges to restore the burned acres of prairie, fence, trees and hayground.

“Our review of the claim discloses no liability on the part of the United States. Therefore your FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act) claim is denied,” said an assistant with the office of general counsel under the United States Department of Agriculture to the claimants.

The Mullahs Thank Mr. Obama

Iran responds to the nuclear accord with military aggression.

An Islamic Mullah walks past a portrait of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Qom, Iran. ENLARGE
An Islamic Mullah walks past a portrait of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Qom, Iran. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

President Obama imagined he could end his second term with an arms-control detente with Iran the way Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union. It looks instead that his nuclear deal has inspired Iran toward new military aggression and greater anti-American hostility.

The U.S. and United Nations both say Iran is already violating U.N. resolutions that bar Iran from testing ballistic missiles. Iran has conducted two ballistic-missile tests since the nuclear deal was signed in July, most recently in November. The missiles seem capable of delivering nuclear weapons with relatively small design changes.

The White House initially downplayed the missile tests, but this week it did an odd flip-flop on whether to impose new sanctions in response. On Wednesday it informed Congress that it would target a handful of Iranian companies and individuals responsible for the ballistic-missile program. Then it later said it would delay announcing the sanctions, which are barely a diplomatic rebuke in any case, much less a serious response to an arms-control violation.

Under the nuclear accord, Iran will soon receive $100 billion in unfrozen assets as well as the ability to court investors who are already streaming to Tehran. Sanctioning a few names is feckless by comparison, and Iran is denouncing even this meager action as a U.S. violation of the nuclear deal. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded to the sanctions reports on Thursday by ordering his defense minister to accelerate Iran’s missile program. Your move, Mr. Obama.

Opponents of the nuclear accord predicted this. Mr. Obama says the deal restricts Iranian action, but it does far more to restrict the ability of the U.S. to respond to Iranian aggression. If the U.S. takes tough action in response to Iran’s missile tests or other military provocations, Iran can threaten to stop abiding by the nuclear deal. It knows the world has no appetite for restoring serious sanctions, and that Mr. Obama will never admit his deal is failing. The mullahs view the accord as a license to become more militarily aggressive.

Further proof came Wednesday when U.S. Central Command acknowledged that Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels last week fired several rockets that landed within 1,500 yards of the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman. A Revolutionary Guard spokesman Thursday denied the incident but a day earlier the semiofficial Tabnak news agency quoted an unnamed Iranian official as saying the rockets were launched to warn the U.S. Navy away from “a forbidden zone” in the Persian Gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most heavily trafficked waterways, and the USS Truman carrier group has every right to sail there. By any measure the rocket launch was a hostile act that could have resulted in American casualties.

This follows Iran’s arrest in October of Iranian-American businessman Siamak Namazi,who according to Iranian media reports is being held in Evin Prison though no charges have been filed. The reports suggest that Mr. Namazi is suspected of spying because he is one of the World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders.” That’s the dangerous outfit that sponsors the annual gabfest in Davos.

Iran has also shown its gratitude for the nuclear deal by convicting Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian on absurd charges of espionage. The Iranian-American has been held for more than 500 days.

The White House’s media allies are blaming all of this on Iranian “hard-liners” who are supposedly trying to undermine President Rouhani for having negotiated the nuclear deal. Memo to these amateur Tehranologists: The hard-liners run Iran.

Mr. Rouhani was only able to complete the nuclear deal because Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard decided the terms were in their interests. They get serious sanctions lifted and an immediate financial windfall, while retaining the nuclear infrastructure they can fire up when the accord expires after a decade, if they don’t find an excuse to do so sooner.

The sages now blaming hard-liners for Iran’s nastiness are the same folks who told us that the nuclear accord would empower the “moderates” in Iran by showing America’s peaceful intentions. When will this crowd figure out that Iran’s rulers don’t want better relations with the U.S.? They want to become the dominant power in the Middle East while driving the U.S. out of the region.

***

Mr. Obama’s ambition to emulate Reagan’s success was never realistic because he pursued the opposite of the Reagan strategy. The Gipper stood up to Soviet aggression, rebuilt U.S. defenses, and then negotiated from strength. The Soviets bent to his terms.

From his first days in office Mr. Obama begged Iran to negotiate, making concession after concession until even the Ayatollah had to accept. It’s no surprise Iran has concluded that it can now press its military ambitions with impunity.

Hammond Ranch sitting on precious metal, mineral, uranium deposits which the BLM desperately want

Federal Government’s Modus operandi to seize Hammond Ranch and Bundy Ranch revealed

(INTELLIHUB) — Renown Terra firma researcher dutchsinse conducted an investigation of both the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and the Hammond Ranch in Oregon.

“Let’s just call it what it is. Human greed is at stake here. Who is going to get the gold back there in the back country? Who is going to get the uranium?”

The video below is a must watch.

Additionally, “as it turns out,” dutchsinse said, the “history on Gold Butte [will] will blow your mind.”

“You have farmers, ranchers, that I would say have been going out and getting the gold.”

Dutch then goes on to prove there are massive yellowcake uranium deposits in the area.

Articles of Impeachment with new Article III

"Resolution Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors."

“Resolution Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.”


I have prepared these updated formal Articles of Impeachment as a Constitutional lawyer. They are in proper legal form and all allegations are provable. We have now confirmed that at least one, and possibly more, members of Congress have submitted the articles to the House judiciary Committee for consideration. Please feel free to forward this to your representative in Congress.

Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney

mrobertc [at] hotmail.com


Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the executive branch to increase its power and destroy the balance of powers between the three branches of government that is established by the Constitution of the United States.

 

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1)  Shortly after being sworn in for his first term as President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama began creating new departments and appointing Czars to oversee these departments. These Czars were never submitted to the United States Senate for approval as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. In addition, these Czars and the Departments have budgets that are not subject to being controlled by Congress as provided for by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. He also made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and these appointments were struck down by the Supreme Court.

 

(2)  Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his oath of office has repeatedly ignored this Constitutional mandate by refusing to enforce laws against illegal immigration, defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and refusing to enforce Federal voting laws.

 

(3)  Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the U.S. government and sets forth the powers of the Senate and House of Representatives to make laws. These powers are exclusive and the Constitution does not grant the President the power to either make laws or amend them on his own. Barack Hussein Obama has ignored these provisions and made or changed laws by either issuing unconstitutional executive orders or instructing governmental departments to take illegal and unconstitutional actions. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   Ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to implement portions of the Cap & Trade bill that failed to pass in the U.S. Senate.

B.   Ordering implementation of portions of the “Dream Act” that failed to pass in Congress.

C.   Orchestrating a government takeover of a major part of the automobile industry in 2009.

D.   Ordering a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas exploration and production without approval of Congress.

E.   Signing an Executive Order on March 16, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch extraordinary powers to control and allocate resources such as food, water, energy and health care resources etc. in the interest of vaguely defined national defense issues. It would amount to a complete government takeover of the U.S. economy.

F.    Signing an Executive Order on July 6, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch the power to control all methods of communications in the United States based on a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.

G.  Signing an Executive Order on January 6, 2013 that contained 23 actions designed to limit the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

H.  Amending portions of the Affordable Healthcare Act and other laws passed by Congress without Congressional approval as required by Article 1 of the Constitution.

I.      Issuing Executive orders in January 2014 amending the HIPPA law to allow the turning over of confidential medical records to Federal agencies if there is any information to be used to add individuals to the NICS list to prohibit them from purchasing firearms.

J.     Having the EPA impose regulations on the coal industry that will force many utility companies and coal mines out of business. This will cost the U.S. economy thousands of jobs and dramatically increase the cost of energy to the public. This is being done without Congressional approval.

K.  Hindering the ability of the U.S. Border Patrol Agency to not only stop illegal immigration, but to stop human and drug trafficking.

L.   Removing the work requirement from welfare reform legislation without Congressional approval.

 

Article II

(1) Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that from time to time the President “shall give to Congress information on the State of the Union….” Implicit in this is an obligation for the President to be truthful with the Congress and the American people. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office and the requirements of the Constitution by willfully withholding information on important issues or actively taken part in misleading the Congress and the American people. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   Using Executive privilege to block Congress from getting documents relating to the DOJ’s Operation Fast and Furious and the death of U.S. Border Patrol Brian Terry.

B.   Had members of his administration provide false information about the act of terrorism committed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and refusing to allow the State Department and other federal agencies to cooperate in the Congressional investigation.

C.   Falsely labeled the mass murder of American soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas as “workplace violence” instead of the act of Islamic terrorism it was.

D.   Falsely labeling the IRS targeting of conservative and Christian groups as a “phony” scandal and refusing to order an active pursuit of the investigation into who was ultimately responsible.

E.   Refusing to order an independent investigation of the actions of Eric Holder and the DOJ in targeting the phone records of members of the news media.

F.    Telling the American people on a television show that the NSA was not prying into the emails and phone calls of Americans when the facts prove otherwise.

 

(2) The oath of office of the President of the United States requires him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This obviously includes what may be the most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office by seeking to limit both the individual rights and the rights of the States guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.    Having the Department of Health and Human Services order religious institutions and businesses owned by religious families to provide their employees free contraception and other services that are contrary to their religious beliefs. This is being done under the auspices of the Affordable Health Care Act and violates the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment.  

B.    Having the military place restrictions on the religious freedom of Chaplains and other members of the military in order to favor gay rights advocates and atheists in violation of the First Amendment.

C.    Having the military place restrictions on the freedom of speech of members of the military and the civilian employees of the DOD in violation of their rights under the First Amendment.

D.    Using Executive orders and government agency actions to limit Second Amendment rights. This includes actions by the Veterans Administration to disarm American veterans without due process as required by the Fifth Amendment.

E.    Having the National Security Agency intercept and monitor the private communications of millions of Americans without a court order and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

F.     Joining with foreign governments in lawsuits against sovereign U.S. states to prohibit them from enforcing immigration laws. This is in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

G.   Filing suits under the Voting Rights Act against sovereign U.S. states to prevent them from enforcing Voter ID laws despite rulings by the Supreme Court upholding these laws. This is another violation of the Tenth Amendment and the balance of powers.

H.   Having the IRS propose new regulations on conservative 501 (C ) (4) organizations to limit their freedom of speech and political activities during election cycles in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I.      Having the FCC prepare new rules on internet neutrality in violation of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down such regulations.

J.     Having the FCC institute a plan to place agents in newsrooms of radio and television stations as well as print media to monitor whether they are providing the “proper” news content to the public, a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

K.   Having the Secretary of State sign the U.N. Small Arms Treaty despite the opposition of a majority of the U.S. Senate and with full awareness that the implementation of the treaty would violate the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.

 

(3) Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the United States military and as such is responsible for using them in a manner that best serves the national security of the United States and protects our soldiers from unnecessary risks and harm. Barack Hussein Obama has violated his oath of office in this regard. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   In the name of “political correctness,” he imposed unnecessary and dangerous rules of engagement on our troops in combat causing them to lose offensive and defensive capabilities and putting them in danger. Many American service personnel have been killed or wounded as a result of this policy.

B.   Releasing the identity of American military personnel and units engaged in dangerous and secret operations such as the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy Seal team 6.

C.   Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Yet, without consulting Congress President Obama ordered the American military into action in Libya.

D.   Having the Attorney General tell Secretaries of State that they do not have to comply with the Federal law requiring states to timely send absentee ballots to military personnel.

 

Article III

(1) Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the President as Commander in Chief of the United States Military. This requires him to use his power and authority to oversee the proper use of the military to properly protect and defend the people and territory of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. He is further responsible for using the U.S. military in a manner that is effective and protects members of the military and takes proper care of veterans.

The President takes an oath of office that encompasses these duties. Barack Hussein Obama has consistently violated these duties and violated his oath. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   Imposing Rules of Engagement on the active military in war zones that have unnecessarily endangered the lives of American soldiers.

B.   Allowed the leaking of classified information about U.S. military operations to the media in order to enhance his political image. Such leaks place the lives of U.S. soldiers in danger.

C.   Despite being informed in 2009 of problems in the Veterans Administration involving treatment of veterans, took no action improve the situation, but instead ordered the VA to spend a major part of its budget on green energy projects at VA facilities instead on veteran care.

D.   Endangered the lives of members of the American military and American civilians by negotiating with terrorists to trade five high level Taliban leaders in exchange for an American soldier who deserted his post and his fellow soldiers. In addition, he did the foregoing action in violation of Federal law since he did not provide the legally required thirty day notice to members of Congress of his intent to release prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

E.   Continues to refuse to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress in violation of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, and further has used illegal and unconstitutional Executive orders to grant amnesty or de-facto amnesty to illegal aliens currently in the United States.

F.   Has deliberately destroyed the morale and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents by interfering with their attempts to fulfill their oath of office and enforce laws legally passed by the U.S. Congress.

G.   By his deliberate actions encouraged parents of thousands of children in Central America to send their children, often unaccompanied by adults, across the U.S. border and then asking for billions of taxpayer dollars to care for these children.

H.   Ordered the Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security to place thousands of these children on buses or planes and dumping them in communities around the country; often without any prior notifications to the local elected officials in these communities.

I.   Allowed the TSA to let these children, as well as possible teenage gang members and unidentified to fly in U.S. Airlines at taxpayer expense without proper identification required by Federal law.

J.   Has refused to respond to lawful requests by Governors of the southern Border States to close the Southern border to any further illegal immigration and has created a severe financial crisis for Border States and other states in order to advance his own political agenda.

K.   Has ordered the release of thousands of illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to be released and stay in the country after they have served their sentences. This violates the requirements of Federal law that such people be immediately deported.

L.   Ordered the immediate release of approximately 68,000 other criminals in Federal prisons that have been convicted of drug offenses. These actions endanger the lives and property of honest and law abiding American citizens that the President is legally and constitutionally required to protect.

M.   Has authorized the IRS, HHS, BATF, DHS, and EPA to propose new regulations not authorized by Congress that will adversely affect the rights of Americans protected by the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

 

In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Skip to toolbar