ALRIGHT WALMART SHOPPERS..... WE HEAR WALMART IS GOING TO ESTABLISH A DRESS CODE

ALRIGHT WALMART SHOPPERS..... WE HEAR WALMART IS GOING TO ESTABLISH  A DRESS CODE

WORDS NOT NECESSARY - 
THE PICTURES SAY IT ALL!!!

SPANDEX & FREAK SHOPPERS AT WALMART

REMEMBER THESE PEOPLE VOTE AND 
COLLECT WELFARE!!!

Add caption

BEYOND SPANDEX

the best surprise ever to President Trump

Melania and Barron just gave the best surprise ever

to President Trump

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRESIDENT TRUMP

JUNE 14TH

 

 

Reports say Melania and Barron Trump will be moving into the White House this week, just in time for President Trump’s birthday June 14th.  Melania and Barron have been living in New York City since President Trump’s inauguration, much to the chagrin of many leftists, so that Barron can finish off the fifth grade in his current school.

OK NAZI CIA LEFTIST COMMIES SATANISTS  - INCLUDING Y, R AND  P AMONG SEVERAL OTHERS.  TAKE THIS NEWS AND SHOVE IT UP YOU KNOW WHERE!  TAKE YOUR PAUL RYAN WITH YOU!  THIS IS THE UNITED STATES IN PROCESS OF RETURNING TO ITS TRUE REPUBLIC - NOT NAZI GERMANY.  OUR GOD YHWH IS IN CONTROL - NOT YOUR god.

I SPENT A MINUTE AND HOPE YOU WILL TOO....

I spent a minute and 
hope you will, too

I LOVE THE OPENING SENTENCE....

With what is going on these days, Heaven could end up a ghost town.

My name is GOD.  You hardly have time for Me.  I love you and will always bless you.

I am always with you.  I need you to spend 30 seconds of your time with Me today.

Don't pray, just praise. Today I want this message to go across the world before midnight.

Will you help?   Please do not delete it and I'll help you with something that you are in need of.

Just dare Me!  A blessing is coming your way.  Please drop everything and pass it on.

Why are prayers getting smaller, but bars and clubs are expanding?

Why is it so easy to worship a celebrity, but very difficult to engage with God?

Think about it.  Are you going to send My message here to others?  Or are you going to ignore it because you think you will get laughed at?

Send My message to all your friends. 80% of you won't.  GOD said "Whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in Heaven."  (Mt 10:33)

When one door closes, God opens two. If GOD has opened doors for you, send this message to everyone...

GOD IS WATCHING US FROM A DISTANCE....GET YOUR KLEENEX

CLICK....AND FOLLOW THE WORDS...

From a distance - God is watching us

Bette Midler

Be a blessing to others today!

God Bless

Quick thinker

I'm from tech support

Six Deceptions Needed for Agenda 21

or Why you have been feeling worse and
who is responsible for it and why.....

And why anyone like Donald Trump will be made

to be the target for destruction because Trump

is NOT a member of the destroyers working to

kill you and your family but is fighting them
Are you OK with this?  The plans to destroy you?

 

"It doesn't matter what is true  (climate change, et al)

It only matters what YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE"

 Paul Watson

Six Deceptions Needed for Agenda 21

Published on May 18, 2016

For the globalists to implement Agenda 21, the general public must be tricked. Here are 6 lies that are necessary to be believed for the populous to go along with Agenda 21, Agenda 2010 or Sustainable Development. Everyone should understand how these lies spell the demise of freedom and usher in a subhuman life of sameness and ignorance. To learn more about Agenda 21 and for cheap thrills visit pineconeutopia.wordpress.com

Paul Harvey and the Reign of Heavens

From Judge Anna Von Reitz

This is a reply to the article published by the "Reign of Heaven" group (see below)-- first my response to their queries and suppositions, then "The Rest of the Story" from the immortal Paul Harvey, and then the article from the Reign of Heavens Society, so you can see what Paul and I are replying to and why this is a sad state of affairs:

My Reply:

The unincorporated entity known as The United States of America and the incorporated entity also calling itself "The United States of America" are NOT THE SAME entities just because they appear to have the same name.  They are fundamentally different in nature, jurisdiction, and law.  Trying to obfuscate this in any way just slows down any solution to the problem this country faces.

It will also be seen that the quasi-military offices such as "Postmaster General" were NEVER  part of the lawful government of the actual United States and have instead existed in the Territorial United States and Municipal United States -- that is, in international jurisdiction of the sea prior to the Civil War and afterward usurped upon the land as part of the Territorial United States' administration.

But if you don't know that there are three versions of "United States"--- our version, the Territorial United States and the Municipal United States (both of which routinely just refer to themselves as "the United States" also) --- it's nigh on unto impossible for people to wrap their heads around which entity and which offices of which entity you are talking about.  

This is just another example of "similar names deceits" being used by lawyers to create deliberate confusions and wrong assumptions and keep us all at each other's throats and unable to square off and deal with the actual problem.

It leaves people like the Reign of Heavens spinning their wheels in actual fact, contributing all their effort to a hopeless cause and ranting and accusing those of us who DO see the whole deceit of "telling lies".  But then, they are confused and not rightly understanding or replying to what I actually said, and maybe they have a right to be confused, because after all, they have been misled by professionals. Read on for another apt and timely history lesson:

The Rest of the Story from Paul Harvey:

If there is a stain on the record of our forefathers, one dark hour in the earliest history of the American colonies, it would be the hanging of the so-called “witches” at Salem.

But that was a pinpoint in place and time, a brief lapse into hysteria.

For the most part, our seventeenth century colonists were scrupulously fair, even in fear.

There was one group of people they feared with reason – a society,  you might say, whose often insidious craft had claimed a multitude of victims, ever since the Middle Ages in Europe.

One group of people, hated and feared from Massachusetts Bay to Virginia.

The magistrates would not burn them at the stake, although surely a great many of the colonists might have recommended such a solution.

Our forefathers were baffled by them.

In the first place, where did they come from?

Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one of those two-legged vermin was aboard.

“Vermin.”

That’s what the colonists called them.

Parasites who fed on human misery, spreading sorrow and confusion wherever they went.

“Destructive,” they were called.

And still they were permitted co-existence with the colonists.

For a while anyway.

Of course, there were colonial laws prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft. Somehow a way was always found around those laws.

In 1641, Massachusetts Bay colony took a novel approach to the problem. The governors attempted to starve those “devils” out of existence through economic exclusion. They were denied wages, and

thereby it was hoped that they would perish.

Four years later Virginia followed the example of Massachusetts Bay, and for a while it seemed that the dilemma had been resolved.

It had not.

Somehow the parasites managed to survive, and the mere nearness of them made the colonists’ skin crawl.

In 1658 in Virginia the final solution:

Banishment. Exile.

The “treacherous ones” were cast out of the colony.

At last, after decades of enduring the psychological gloom, the sun came out and birds sang and all was right with the world. And the elation continued for a generation.

I’m not sure why the Virginians eventually allowed the outcasts to return, but they did.

In 1680, after twenty-two years, the despised ones were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they be subjected to the strictest surveillance.

How soon we forget.

For indeed, over the next half-century or so, the imposed restrictions were slowly, quietly swept away. And those whose treachery had been feared since the Middle Ages ultimately took their place in society.

You see, the “vermin” that once infested colonial America, the parasites who preyed on the misfortune of their neighbors until finally they were officially banished from Virginia, those dreaded, despised and inevitably outcast masters of confusion were - LAWYERS!

And now you know THE REST OF THE STORY.

___________________

Below is the Reign of Heavens article. You can see for yourselves how they are confused and why:

International Public Notice

Claim in red, rebuttal in blue

This particular document was posted on the Anna Von Reitz website called ” Let’s Settle This Hash……”: LINK  on 04-26-2017
Wherein it states the following:
“The de jure government of this country is called The United States of America (Unincorporated). It has to be unincorporated to serve as a sovereign government, because if it held a corporate charter granted by some other government, it would be subservient to that government. Okay? Everyone got that?”
We can agree upon that statement because The United States of America and the Government of The United States of America is not incorporated. Embassy: LINK
“During the so-called American Civil War the rats in Congress created a doppelganger entity incorporated in Britain called “The United States of America, Inc.”. This is called “The United States of America” but it is not your de jure government. It is just a corporation granted a charter like any other British corporation.”
Where is the evidence of this claim? There are no links or documents, nothing….. This is the first time that the Government of The United States of America has ever heard of such a claim or the subject matter.
“Now we have Keith Livingway running around claiming that he basically went to a bankruptcy trustee sale and “bought” the office of “Postmaster General” out of a claim on abandonment. He is telling everyone that this abandoned office is the land jurisdiction trustee office once held by Benjamin Franklin and that it is the land jurisdiction de jure government that he is representing.”
Keith Livingway never claimed that he attended a bankruptcy trustee sale, nor did he ever claim to have bought the office of Postmaster General. Where is the evidence? Where is a publication of the claim? There isn’t any because it is a complete lie. The whole scenario was completely made up by Anna Von Reitz and Paul Stramer.
“But here’s the kicker—- Franklin held the office of Post Master (land) not Postmaster (sea) —- and on top of that, none of these quasi-military offices like “Lieutenant Governor” and “Attorney General” and “Postmaster General” even existed prior to the Civil War.”
Here is an image of the original ledger of Doctor Benjamin Franklin, and a LINK to the whole ledger now in PDF. (page nine)

Everyone can see that “Postmaster General” did in fact exist before the civil war, and here is the link to the successor of Ebeneezer Hazard:LINK The Postmaster General credentials are towards the bottom of the page.  The National assembly did create a department of the General Post Office to operate as a Government agency, however that was done to protect the original General Post Office of 1775 from foreign powers when doing business with them. The National assembly has that right and power to create such agencies when doing business with foreign powers. Further, everyone can see that Benjamin Franklin did in fact hold the office of Postmaster General and not this made up difference in spelling and land/sea jurisdiction garbage. All surveys require both, metes and bounds and seaward boundaries in order to be legitimate.  No one can land lock a country.
“Therefore— is Keith Livingway filling Franklin’s vacated office? No. He is claiming to own an office in a defunct British corporation that was bankrupted in 1907—- The United States of America, Inc. He is not occupying Franklin’s [land] office which was as a “Post Master” –two words, notice? And not a “Postmaster” and not a “General” anything. The de jure government of this country has never been incorporated and never can be incorporated. Period.”
True, the dejure Government of The United States of America cannot be incorporated in another country and it isn’t incorporated anywhere. As a matter of fact, corporations are required to be registered with the Government of The United States of America when doing business within its metes and bounds and seaward boundaries. Benjamin Franklin never vacated his office, it was succeeded as written in the Declaration of Chain of Title:

“Declaration of Chain of Title

IT IS DECLARED THAT; the office of the Postmaster General of the Confederacy of The United States of America of 1775, first held by Doctor

Benjamin Franklin on 26th of July 1775, was succeeded by Richard Bache on November 7th, 1776, succeeded by Ebenezer Hazard on the 28th

day of January, 1782, and died in the year of 1817 without naming a successor. The office of the Postmaster General of the Confederacy of

The United States of America of 1775 was vacant from the year 1817 until the year 2010.” as published April 2nd, 2012 at the link above. 

Keith Livingway is not and has never claimed to personally own any office, however he was appointed successor of Ebeneezer Hazard as stated in the Declaration of Chain of Title here: LINK  by the National assembly to the office of the Postmaster General and or Post Master General of the General Post Office of the original Confederacy of 1781 back to 1775 and now the Government of The United States of America. The appointment is for life or until succeeded to keep chain of title to the country known as The United States of America.
These facts as stated in blue may be a source of distress, jealousy, embarrassment or otherwise to Anna Von Reitz and Paul Stramer.  Those emotions do not give them the right to print lies, deceive people, or slander people. Neither of them have the right to attack people personally with lies and deceit. Neither of them called to verify the facts of their documents, ever…That is called libel and others that are parroting these lies and twisting the facts are also libel. All of this back and forth really needs to end because it is beginning to have the look and feel of high school all over again.
The office of the Postmaster General of the Government of The United States of America will never be vacated or released into the hands of proprietors seeking to use Patriot tricks to gain control of the country on behalf of foreign powers. Upon the death of the current aforesaid office holder, the chain of title reverts back to the National assembly to appoint a new successor and further there exists other protections of said office that is privileged information. Further, it is a vary serous crime to attack the General Post Office of the country.
THE T-ROH SHOW will broadcast and cover the real story and facts about how all of this came about when it pertains to the General Post Office and the original Government when more important issues are already covered.

Twilight of the Courts: The Elusive Search for Justice in the American Police State

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

We have entered a new regime and it’s called the American police state.
As the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez makes clear, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.
Continuing its disturbing trend of siding with police in cases of excessive use of force, a unanimous Court declared that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple—Angel and Jennifer Mendez—was sleeping.
Understandably, the Mendezes were startled by the intruders, so much so that Angel was holding his BB gun, which he used to shoot rats, in defense. Despite the fact that police barged into the Mendez’s backyard shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence and fired 15 shots at the couple, who suffered significant injuries (Angel Mendez suffered numerous gunshot wounds, one of which required the amputation of his right leg below the knee, and his wife Jennifer was shot in the back), the Court once again gave the police a “get out of jail free” card.
Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.
In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.
These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.
While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.
A review of critical court rulings over the past decade or so, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police a green light to embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.
In a blistering dissent in Utah v. Strieff, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court for holding “that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.” Sotomayor continued:

This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction—even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.
The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand “helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised.” If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then “frisk” you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may “‘feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.’”

If you still can’t read the writing on the wall, Sotomayor breaks it down further: “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong… So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer’s incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases...”
Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. More recently, in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling, coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police—for such “suspicious” behavior as having acne scars, driving with a stiff upright posture, having car windows that are too heavily tinted, driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, leaving a parked car door open for too long, avoiding a traffic light by driving through a parking lot, driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), or displaying pro-police bumper stickers—renders one’s car a Constitution-free zone.
Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.
Police can “steal” from Americans who are innocent of any wrongdoing. In refusing to hear a challenge to Texas’ asset forfeiture law, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas police to keep $201,000 in ill-gotten cash primarily on the basis that the seized cash—the proceeds of a home sale—was being transported on a highway associated with illegal drug trade, despite any proof of illegal activity by the owner. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.
Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz).
Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses. While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.
Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun. From the time the driver stumbled out of his car, waving his wallet in the air, to the time he was shot in the abdomen, only six seconds had elapsed. Although the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded “that a reasonable officer in Hancock’s position would have feared for his life,” the video footage makes clear that the courts continue to march in lockstep with the police, because no reasonable person would shoot first and ask questions later. A report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”
Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” In Florida v. Harris, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received “proper” training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state, provided the use of a K-9 unit takes place within a reasonable amount of time (Rodriguez v. United States).
Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing. The case arose in 2010 after a police dog attacked a homeless man near an abandoned house where police were tracking a robbery suspect. The cop refused to call off the dog immediately, despite the man’s pleading and the fact that he did not match the description of the robbery suspect. The homeless man suffered deep bites on his hand, arm and thigh—which required a nearly 16-inch skin graft—as well as causing severe bleeding, bruising, swelling and an arterial blood clot. Incredibly, not only did the court declare that the police officer was protected by qualified immunity, which incentivizes government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion, but it had the nerve to suggest that being mauled by a police dog is the equivalent of a lawful Terry stop in which police may stop and hold a person for questioning on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.”
Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington, the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.
Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.
Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night. Poor Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by police who pounded aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 a.m., failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed the man when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.
Police can interrogate minors without parents present. In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families—the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene, which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.
It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.
Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can perform a “no-knock” raid as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime (Richards v. Wisconsin). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police (Quinn v. Texas). For instance, a Texas man had his home subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. The homeowner was actually shot by police through his closed bedroom door.
The military can arrest and detain American citizens. In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat, who are nevertheless subjected to such excessive police force as to end up maimed or killed.
When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite—government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy—and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses—that is, you and me.
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead

 http://freedomoutpost.com/twilight-of-the-courts-the-elusive-search-for-justice-in-the-american-police-state/

Judge in Bundy Ranch Case Wants Defendants In Chains For Trial - Attorneys Challenge Rights Infringement

In the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. Cliven Bundy et al, Judge Gloria Navarro has demanded the defendants all wear chains throughout their trials. The simple question is, why? These are men who have demonstrated they are not violent nor have they attempted to escape from the prison system they have been incarcerated in for almost a year and a half.
In a response to the order by Judge Navarro, attorney for Pete Santilli, Chris Rasmussen, cited the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in May 2017 to bolster the claim that his client's rights are being violated, as are all the other defendants in the case.
"Peter Santilli hereby asserts his Fifth Amendment right to be present in Court without shackles," reads the motion.
The motion then cites the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court.

"If the government seeks to shackle a defendant, it must first justify the infringement with specific security needs as to that particular defendant.  Courts must [then] "decide whether the stated need for security outweighs the infringement on a defendant's right."

Additionally, this decision cannot be passed off to security providers or "preemptively answered by routine policies."
The ruling adds, "All of these requirements apply regardless of a jury's presence or whether it's pretrial, trial or sentencing proceeding.  Criminal defendants, like any other party appearing in court, are entitled to enter the courtroom with their heads held high."
In other words, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have said defendants have a right to be free of shackles and handcuffs in the presence of jurors in part to maintain the presumption of innocence until they are proven to be guilty.
Bringing these men into the courtroom biases the jury and poisons the well in the mind of jurors that these men are actually guilty before any testimony is heard.
Notice that it applies not only to trial, but pre-trial and sentencing.
The ruling by the court was emphatic in its rejection of routine shackling:

"We must take seriously how we treat individuals who come into contact with our criminal justice system -- from how our police interact with them on the street to how they appear in the courtroom. How the justice system treats people in these public settings matters for the public's perception, including that of the defendant. Practices like routine shackling and 'perp walks' are inconsistent with our constitutional presumption that people who have not been convicted of a crime are innocent until proven otherwise."

"For better or worse, the presumption of innocence rests in large part on appearances. And the appearance of a defendant in court, shackled "like a bear on a chain," can undermine that presumption. Therefore, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that lower courts may no longer routinely of shackle all pretrial detainees in the courtroom, even if there is no jury present," writes Christopher Coble, Esq. at FindLaw.com.
Coble went on to write, "While many courts, including in this case the Southern District of California, permitted blanket shackling policies in the past, that rule has now changed. Going forward, 'if the government seeks to shackle a defendant, it must first justify the infringement with specific security needs as to that particular defendant.' In doing so, courts are required to decide 'whether the stated need for security outweighs the infringement on a defendant's right.'"
"Supreme Court bans the use of shackles 'unless that use is 'justified by an essential state interest' -- such as the interest in courtroom security -- specific to the defendant on trial.'" he added.  "When considering a request for shackling, a court may 'take into account the factors that courts have traditionally relied on in gauging potential security problems and the risk of escape at trial.'"
Already, defendants in the Bundy Ranch case have had their right to a speedy trial violated.  The prosecution has even stated that they could be held up to five years before it would even be considered a violation of their right to a speedy trial.  Some have been subjected by the Democrat Party in Nevada to defamation of character via mailings to hundreds of thousands of potential jurors.  Yet, nothing is done to stop the madness.
The government pretty much lost its case except for two convictions in the first round of the Bundy Ranch trials.  They are out to make an example of these men to others who are willing to do what our founding fathers were willing to do and stand and oppose a tyrannical government that thinks it can violate the Constitution, the rights of the people, and grab land whenever, wherever and however it chooses to do so without the threat of opposition.
Thankfully, these men realize the stakes are high and they know the potential cost they face in making their stand.  However, it should be of great comfort that several of these men were acquitted of some of the same charges in Oregon that they are facing in Nevada, and Santilli had all of his charges dismissed in Oregon.
Let's see if the corrupt Judge Navarro, a woman who had absolutely no experience as a judge before being advanced to a federal judge position by the likes of former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, will follow the law and protect the rights of these men or continue down the totalitarian road she is traveling.  There is no doubt in my mind that Navarro is one of the judges that have gone rogue and needs to be impeached.
If you are able and would like to help the Bundy Ranch political prisoners win their case against the tyranny of the central government or would like to write them, please click here.  If you would like to support a house in Nevada that is caring for wives and children of these men as they attend the trials, please click here.

Extraterrestrial Disclosure in the Mainstream Media - Who Will Tell Us T...

12

the Senate Did Not Challenge Comey

Five  Things  James  Comey  Said  That  the  Senate  Did  Not  Challenge




Former FBI Director James Comey appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify regarding his tenuous relationship and subsequent firing by President Donald Trump.

Rick Wiles and the TRUNEWS team discussed the testimony of former FBI director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. What Mr. Comey said wasn’t nearly as surprising as what sitting members of Congress did not challenge, question, or even seem surprised about!

1. Mr. Comey intentionally leaked privileged information to the press after calling WikiLeaks "Information Porn." In a shocking confession, Mr. Comey admitted under oath that, with premeditation, he leaked information to the press via a law professor friend from Columbia University. 

Not a single member of the committee seemed shocked, dismayed or moved in the slightest.

2. The former FBI director admitted that Lorreta Lynch, the Obama administration’s Attorney General, pressured him to downplay the Clinton investigation, and that he saw her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton as a conflict of interest. Even as the director testified that he felt no direct pressure from President Trump regarding the Russian investigation, he DID admit that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch pressured him to call the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton merely a ‘matter’.

Once again, the members of the Senate committee did not follow up or further question this obvious meddling in the 2016 election by the Obama administration.

3. Mr. Comey admitted on record that he was never directed or ordered to drop the Flynn investigation, yet allowed that script to proliferate in the mainstream media for months. FBI Director Comey stated that he was never once ordered or directed by President Trump to drop the investigation of General Michael Flynn and his connection with the Russians. However, Mr. Comey made no effort in the past several months since the election to dispel the notion that Mr. Trump ordered it. No one questioned him about that, either. 

4. Slanderous comments were made by Director Comey about the President's integrity without one challenge by the Senate panel. Mr. Comey accused President Trump of being a liar, and no one defended the President, not a single Senator, Democrat or Republican. 

5.The Senate panel allowed Mr. Comey to demonize Russia for election meddling without providing one shred of evidence. The former FBI director continued to read from the Russian meddling script, and every sitting member of the committee sat there, not disagreeing in the slightest. Even though there is still no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, Mr. Comey was allowed to speak as if President Trump had already been convicted of working with Moscow. 

Now, more than ever, we need to be praying for our nation, and specifically for President Donald Trump. Even before he had won the election in a stunning defeat of the Obama-Clinton regime, the Dark State had already put their diabolical scheme in place to de-legitimize this President. It has been a never-ending battle that continues to this day, and no where was that more obvious than in the testimony before Congress of former FBI director James Comey. 

Understand this: this Dark State attack is not merely an attempt to assassinate the character of Donald Trump. This is a direct attack on the PEOPLE that elected this maverick president to office.  

When you see government officials lying, scheming, and destroying the character of President Trump and his team, then you need to know that it is an attack on YOU.

 

Walmart - two pairs of pajama bottoms

 

4 Things You Are NOT Supposed To Know

4 Things You Are NOT Supposed To Know

A nation divided

A nation divided

  1/2 allegiance is NO allegiance to our nation

Snowden is NOT a liar!

Snowden is NOT a liar!

 

Published on Jun 8, 2017

Putin Tells Oliver Stone: "Snowden Is Not A Traitor" - http://bit.ly/2rbgsz0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preview for a new four-part series that premieres on Showtime June 12, Putin Tells Oliver Stone: “Snowden Is Not A Traitor,” and he explains why Showtime just released the first trailer and extended clip for The Putin Interviews, a sit-down with the Russian president conducted by the film-maker Oliver Stone and Edward Snowden is one of many controversial topics discussed.

Drain the county swamp!

Would you like to join other like minded people to drain our county swamp?

Join us in the formation of an assembly of We THE People of name county name state.
http://michiganassembly.info/index.php/handbook

UK TAKE OVER of UK with NUKES!!

 UK TAKE OVER of UK with NUKES!!

How the British have passively succumbed to the Muslim invasion:

 

Mayor of London ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Birmingham ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Leeds ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Blackburn ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Sheffield ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Oxford ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Luton ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Oldham ... MUSLIM

Mayor of Rockdale ... MUSLIM

Over 3,000 Muslim Mosques

Over 130 Muslim Sharia Courts

Over 50 Muslim Sharia Councils

Muslims-Only No-Go Areas Across The UK

Muslim Women ... 78% don't work and are on FREE benefits/housing

Muslim Men ... 63% don't work and are on FREE benefits/housing

Muslim Families ... 6-8 children planning to go on FREE benefits/housing

... and now all UK schools are ONLY serving HALAL MEAT!

 

All this achieved by just 4 million Muslims out of the 66 million population!