Archive for the ‘ US Constitution Unedited ’ Category

Bilderberger Moles: More War To Come For The Middle East (Tops Meeting Agenda)

Jim Tucker: Libya War and Wider Middle East Conflict On Bilderberg Agenda

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 9, 2011

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, veteran Bilderberg reporter Jim Tucker cited his insider sources who have revealed that bankster kingpin David Rockefeller was spotted at the resort located in St. Moritz, Switzerland, where the Bilderberg meeting is now convening.

The current patriarch of the Rockefeller family is a co-director of the Bilderberg Group along with the notorious war criminal Henry Kissinger and J.P. Morgan bank director Paul Arthur Allaire.

Tucker said the NATO action against Libya heads the Bilderberg agenda. The globalists want to create a “big bloody war” in the region, Tucker explained. High oil prices and exorbitant prices reflected at the pump will be used to gain the support of the commoners for continued military action in the Middle East.

On Wednesday, it was reported that the U.S. has intensified a “secret campaign” of air strikes in Yemen, thus intensifying tensions in the region.

Tucker also said the elite are outraged by the patriot movement and the alternative media’s coverage of the Bilderberg meetings and the release of information by moles and insiders. He said the elite attempted to get media magnate Rupert Murdoch to convince The Guardian in the United Kingdom and the Irish Times to scale back their reportage on the Bilderbergers, but he was unable to do so.

Tucker’s sources also said the Bilderbergers are stunned the presence of demonstrators and alternative media. This outrage will undoubtedly increase on Saturday when demonstrators arrive following Alex Jones’ call for a protest against the globalists and their agenda.

Prior to Jim Tucker’s interview, Alex talked with Prison Planet.com journalist Paul Joseph Watson who reported that a Bilderberg member taken ill was given the red carpet treatment at the St. Moritz airport earlier today.

The incident was witnessed by We Are Change Birmingham, a British affiliate of the activist group founded in New York.
Watch live video from Alex Jones Live! on Justin.tv

Additional flights were diverted to Zurich due to cloud cover and weather conditions. It is approximately a two and a half hour drive from the largest city in Switzerland to the resort town.

Arrivals have been reduced to a trickle. As noted earlier, our team has spied the arrival of the leading neocon and former assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle, and possibly Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

Danish politician and current NATO boss Anders Fogh Rasmussen was also spotted. The presence of Rasmussen at the meeting lends credence to Tucker’s assertion that NATO’s campaign against Libya figures prominently on the globalist agenda.

Advertisements

Federal Court May Overturn Obamacare

Alabama 13
June 8, 2011

The latest round in the fight over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul was held Wednesday in the federal appeals court in Atlanta.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether to reverse a Florida judge’s ruling that struck down the law. The judges seemed receptive to arguments from critics challenging the health reforms as unconstitutional during the three-hour hearing.

Read entire article

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

Jun. 7 2011 – 2:04 pm | Source Link
TUCSON, AZ - JANUARY 15:  A woman shoots a gun...Image by Getty Images via @daylife

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

    1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
    2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
    3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
    4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
    5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Pages: 1 2 3

Dancing protesters return to Jefferson Memorial in DC to challenge court decision, arrests

WASHINGTON — U.S. Park Police broke up another protest Saturday by demonstrators who want to dance at the Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital.

Officers shut down the memorial and cleared dozens of people from the rotunda a week after five dancing demonstrators were forcefully arrested for dancing there. Instead of making arrests this time, officers pushed the latest demonstration out onto the memorial’s front steps and briefly closed the memorial to tourists.

The demonstrators are challenging a recent federal appeals court decision that upheld a ban on dancing inside the memorial. The demonstrators argue dancing is free expression. The case stems from a 2008 incident during which a group came to the memorial as part of a flash mob to dance to music on their headphones.

A Park Police spokesman did not immediately respond to telephone calls requesting comment Saturday.

Park Police are investigating whether officers were too aggressive in arresting the demonstrators a week earlier. Videos posted online show an officer with his hands around a protester’s throat. A demonstrator is also shown being slammed to the ground.

In the latest protest, dozens of people gathered at the memorial at noon Saturday. Police allowed the demonstrators to dance for about 15 minutes — some with headphones in their ears — before ordering them to leave.

One man wore a huge Thomas Jefferson head, and another wore an Abraham Lincoln top hat.

Police closed the memorial to tourists as well for about an hour, posting a sign that read “Monument Temporarily Closed.”

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

McCain Dethrones the Rule of Law

Link to article

 

Sneering at the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, Senator John McCain (R. Ariz.) bugled last week, “No president has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any [60 day] deadline” to obtain congressional authorization to continue hostilities against Libya ordained by the Act.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate effused over unlimited presidential war-making, insinuating that the downfall of the Republic would come from fighting too few wars, not too many: “Any President, Republican or Democrat, should be able to deploy armed forces whenever and wherever he deems necessary.” Earlier in his political career, Senator McCain admonished that Congress has no “right to declare peace,” and trumpeted: “[T]he fact is that the President of the United States is given the responsibility, the most grave responsibility of sending into harm’s way our greatest national treasure, our young men and women.”

Senator McCain’s blather betrayed a sub-literate understanding of the Constitution and infidelity to his oath of office. The latter requires him to demand the impeachment and removal of President Obama for the greatest usurpation of congressional authority in the history of the United States. Instead, the Senator is conspiring with the president to facilitate the usurpation.

On McCain’s gospel hangs an alarming tale. The rule of law has been dethroned and the president has been endowed with absolute power as the American Empire has eclipsed the American Republic.

Eleven score and fifteen years ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation dedicated to the proposition that the law is king. They recognized that crowning the president with power to commence war unilaterally would be the death knell of the Republic. Thomas Paine sermonized in Common Sense, the Bible of the American Revolution, that “as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

In times of war, the law is silent and the executive is omnipotent. The Founding Fathers thus erected constitutional barriers against fighting too many wars. None fretted about fighting too few. Arresting portions of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the explanatory Federalist Papers were devoted to safeguards against military supremacy and the overthrow of civilian government.

The most important check against gratuitous wars that squander the lives and limbs of brave American soldiers was Article I, section 8, clause 11. It fastened on Congress exclusive responsibility for commencing war. Legislative power diminishes in wartime. Legislators have no incentive to concoct danger or other excuses to abandon peace. The president, in contrast, is strongly tempted towards war to aggrandize power and earn a place on Mount Rushmore. James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated with signature genius in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Madison amplified in a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

James Wilson underscored at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention,

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our interest can draw us into war.

Abraham Lincoln exposed Senator McCain’s Orwellian warping of the Constitution:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

John Bassett Moore, an authoritative scholar of international law, observed:

There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson voiced alarm at presidential war-making in his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer:

[N]o doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

In sum, there is nothing in the text, subtext, context or judicial interpretation of the Constitution that empowers the president to initiate war without prior congressional authorization. Yet presidential lawlessness persists and metastasizes like a cancer without provoking congressional or public rebuke.

Executive branch violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act, or the Convention Against Torture are ignored. The state secrets privilege is invoked to deny victims redress for torture or comparable constitutional wrongdoing. Suspected “enemy combatants” are detained indefinitely without accusation or trial. Military commissions supersede civilian courts. The United States claims unique authority to attack with predator drones or otherwise any nation on the planet to advance professed humanitarian causes, “regional stability,” or the credibility of the United Nations Security Council.

The Department of Treasury or Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve print or spend money without proper congressional oversight or direction. Annual Pentagon spending approaching $1 trillion is not audited.

Depend upon it. The day will soon come when the president usurps the congressional power to tax and to spend to address an asserted economic emergency with impunity. Most Members of Congress will meekly submit to vassalage and rejoice at their escape from responsibility for anything non-trivial.

The final destruction of the Republic can be prevented if the American people vote to oust every Member of Congress and every president unfaithful to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.

That would mark one of history’s finest hours in self-government.

Gun Control Laws Are A CLEAR Violation of our 2nd Amendment rights! Our Rights are Under Attack!

Our Constitution CLEARLY States the following:

 

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

The clause in the 2nd amendment ‘Shall not be infringed’ clearly states that gun control laws are unconstitutional.  Our lawmakers and victims of gun crimes seem to be under the impression that guns are the problem more so than the individual who has committed the crime.  This is clearly an irresponsible take on reality.  Statistics have indeed shown that an armed society equals less violent crime. There are news stories all over the United States of the ATF seizing weapons of citizens because of the quantity and quality of guns found. Notice that our constitution does not impose limitations as to the quantity or quality of arms that we may possess even after the amendment was ratified.  The government and the news media automatically label these people as being a threat to society and peace even though no crime has yet to be committed until the ATF steps in and seizes the weapons usually ending up in an unfortunate shootout.  The government controls the media and the media is quick to propagandize and Americans are like sheep believing most of what is reported in the news including the tone of what is being reported.  For those fortunate to question everything that is being reported in the news, when doing so the blinders are completely off and unfortunately the government see’s free thinkers and constitutionalists such as myself as a threat to homeland security.  It’s clear that the intention of our government is to break our will, dumb us down and to accept that it is ok to trade in our freedoms for safety and security. Yet the government continues to slowly erode our constitution into oblivion such as an example in this Fox news article:

 

Obama Administration Eyeing Gun Control ‘Under the Radar,’ Groups Warn

By Judson Berger

Published May 28, 2011

| FoxNews.com

 

  •   Print
  •   Email
  •   Share
  •   Comments (4072)

 

 

 

AP

President Obama makes a statement to reporters during his meeting with Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Deauville, France, May 26.

The Obama administration, after keeping gun control on the back burner for over two years, is prompting concern among gun rights groups that it’s slowly starting to squeeze the trigger on tighter regulation. 

In the wake of the January shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, President Obama remained mostly quiet on the firearms front as lawmakers clamored for new restrictions. But the president has since made a public call for tougher background checks. The Justice Department launched a series of meetings with officials and advocates to examine gun control policy. And while gun-control bills in Congress have languished, the administration has started to chip around the edges with its own proposals. 

“They’re doing a pretty good job … as Obama has said, ‘under the radar.’ There’s a lot going on under that radar,” Gun Owners of America Director Larry Pratt said, referring to a remark Obama reportedly made in a private meeting with gun control advocates. “They’ve shown us how much they are prepared to do through regulation.” 

Pratt pointed to two proposals in particular. Under one proposed rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, dealers in four Southwestern states would be required to report multiple sales to the same person of certain kinds of rifles. The proposed requirement — which would apply to dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas — is open for comment until the end of May. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence claims the change would help the ATF “crack down” on Mexico’s gunrunners. 

In addition, ATF released a study in January that looked at criteria for restricting the importation of certain shotguns. The authors were working off a 1968 law that restricts gun imports but exempts firearms used for “sporting purposes.” The report, then, tried to define which features on shotguns are not suitable for “sporting purposes” and therefore not importable — among the features they flagged are folding stocks, magazines over five rounds and “light enhancing devices.” 

 

The National Rifle Association has come out strong against this study. 

Pratt said the shotgun restrictions, if approved, could lead to broader restrictions on other imported long guns — at a time when the administration is trying to reduce federal regulations. Pratt also cited a decision last year to block the sale of U.S.-made antique rifles by the South Korean government to gun collectors in America. The State Department said at the time it was concerned the guns could fall into the wrong hands. 

These smaller-scale proposals come in lieu of sweeping restrictions like the assault-weapons ban Obama supported as a candidate but has not pursued as president. Another proposal on the table calls for banning high-capacity magazines, but it has not advanced in Congress. 

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., sponsor of that bill, has had trouble moving forward on the proposal in a GOP-dominated House and winning an endorsement from Obama — despite having 107 co-sponsors. 

“That’s just something we haven’t heard the president say anything about,” McCarthy spokesman Shams Tarek told FoxNews.com. 

Tarek stressed that the magazine ban wouldn’t exactly be treading new ground — it would reinstate an expired ban. “There’s a precedent there,” he said. But Tarek said the Obama administration is “very, very much in listening mode,” not revealing one way or the other which way it’s leaning on gun control. 

The most detailed statement to come out of the administration so far was the president’s March op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star, in which he pushed for better background checks. Obama stressed his belief in the “individual right to bear arms,” but said “there’s more we can do to prevent gun violence.” 

Based on the column, Tarek suggested the administration was with McCarthy and her allies when it comes to a new push to strengthen background checks. A bill she introduced earlier this month would impose stricter penalties on states that fail to enter the names of people prohibited from buying guns into a national database. And it would require background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows. 

The move was hailed by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which claimed it would fix “glaring gaps” in the background check system. 

But gun-rights groups are urging Washington against going down this road. National statistics show gun sales are going up while violent crime is edging down slightly. Though gun-related deaths and injuries still number in the tens of thousands every year, the groups say enforcement is the key. 

“The American public does not support gun control. … What the American public wants is for criminals to be punished for their mistakes,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said. 

The NRA and other groups have also harshly criticized the administration for its own gun-control problem — a Justice Department project by which hundreds of guns were allowed to “walk” across the border and into the hands of Mexican cartels.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/28/obama-administration-eyeing-gun-control-radar-groups-warn/#ixzz1NgYNI6Qy

 

 

The only way this country is going to savor what little we have left of our rights under the constitution is to ‘Wake Up’ and expose these minions for what they are…global elitists whose intent is to enslave the public and practice the evils of eugenics in order to adopt what is commonly referred to as ‘The Perfect Society’. But when people state things in this way they are looked upon as being crazy conspiracy theorist and these critics who label these ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ are more than willing to allow themselves to be dumbed down and blinded by the new world order globalist society which is the intention of the global elitist…or society is falling for it hook line and sinker.  The only way to preserve our rights is to wake up and speak up!

WebRepOverall rating

FBI Steps Up Harassment of Political Activists

FBI Steps Up Harassment of Political Activists

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 27, 2011

“According to the FBI, people scrawling with sidewalk chalk and even those attending documentary screenings of controversial films can pose a threat to Homeland Security,” explains RTAmerica in a description attached to the above video. “Chicano activist Carlos Montes says this new widespread attack targeted against peace advocates and immigration rights activists is only the newest wave in the federal government’s attempt at silencing the outspoken.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The FBI has served as a political police force since its creation as the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation in 1908. It’s mission is to squelch political dissent frowned upon by the elite.

In the early years, the FBI used deportations and the career-destroying Palmer raids to target union leaders and communists. Later on, it targeted anti-war and civil rights activists. It has since enlarged its target list to include environmentalists – those who have wandered from the globalist foundation reservation – and activists within the patriot movement described the the Department of Homeland Security as dire threats to the national security of the United States.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Under COINTELPRO, the FBI illegally entered and trashed homes and offices, arrested countless activists, sent libelous letters to the media and employers, falsely prosecuted and withheld information in trials, and engaged in violence and assassination against the government’s political enemies. From 1943 until 1963 the FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate and entirely legal political organizing (see America’s Secret Police).

Laws enacted after the attacks of September 11, 2011, are not designed to protect us from cave-dwelling Muslims, as we are repeatedly told. The high-tech police state now going into place around us is designed to prevent political resistance to a tyrannical state.