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!

Accept the Deed ............. for tax and power grab attacks

Recommended  viewing by one of our readers for those who may be experiencing problems such as Anna Von Reitz wrote about in :  "Pay Attention! -- If You Want to Save Your Butts" and  Power to Sell" -- The Latest Land Grab

 

 

Designate the Muslim Brotherhood As A Terrorist Group

MORE WORK to 'CLEAN THE SWAMP'!

Demand That Congress and President Trump Designate the Muslim Brotherhood As A Terrorist Group

 

You can 'thank' muslim traitor Obama along with the about 28 unlawful muslim brotherhood 'czars'  (and Cair - Richardson, TX) appointed by Obama for the heavy infiltration of muslim jihadis in to the US.  

 

If America does not export the muslims, confiscate their training manuals and weapons, and destroy their American 'training camps,' then we had better make some serious preparations for the coming terrorist events such as are taking place throughout Europe, Sweden, Africa and elsewhere.  

 

President Trump, Dunford and military - if you do nothing about this imported terrorist population planned, financed and directed by American 'congressmen' traitors (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton and others), some serious sh*t will happen.

 

There are 22 Islamic Jihadist Training Camps across the United States with open FBI investigations into terrorist operations now in all 50 states.

It is time to demand that Congress and President Trump designate the Muslim Brotherhood and its umbrella group - Muslims of America – as terror organizations, so that federal law enforcement can adequately investigate their activities before more Americans are murdered.

Please go to bottom of page:  http://petitionstocongress.org/demand-that-congress-and-president-trump-designate-the-muslim-brotherhood-as-a-terrorist-group/     to sign the petition!!  Thank you!
 
http://petitionstocongress.org/demand-that-congress-and-president-trump-designate-the-muslim-brotherhood-as-a-terrorist-group/
http://time.com/3516927/history-of-white-house-czars/   

Shingles Vaccine Side Effects

Posted By: Vaxxter Staff 03/07/2017

The shingles vaccine is one of the most widely marketed vaccines on the market. It is difficult to turn on your  television in any capacity without enduring some celebrity endorsement over Zostavax. 

Approved in 2006, the vaccine uses a live virus, and it’s a big seller. But Merck’s manufactured goldmine also has a bit of a “murky” history in terms of side effects.

First, in 2015 the vaccine was found to cause cases of  chickenpox (the precursor to shingles). This led to a side effect being added to the label: Shingles. The vaccine targeting people looking to prevent or cure shingles was actually listing shingles as a potential side effect.

This past February, the situation worsened for Zostavax consumers as the FDA listed eye disorders to the list of side effects. Specifically listed was necrotizing retinitis and keratitis. This disorder causes scarring and inflammation of the eyes. It can lead to a loss of vision if left untreated.  

Researchers found that 20 cases of keratitis in both children and adults occurred within one month of taking the chickenpox of shingles vaccine. The researchers declared there was a likely relationship between the eye disorder and the vaccine but also stated that the research wasn’t intended to prove such. Instead, researchers put out this warning:

“While this is a rare occurrence, it’s important for physicians to know when giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of the condition because it could be reactivated by the vaccine,” he said. 

This vaccine also contains monosodium glutamate, or MSG, as it is more popularly known as. The American Heart Association calls MSG  “common trigger for Atrial fibrillation.” It has also been linked to killing brain cells, obesity, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s.

The shingles vaccine has the highest concentration of gelatin of any vaccine. Gelatin is a protein that can cause inflammation. There is a strong relationship between systemic allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis and injected gelatin. Allergic cross-reactions also occur to gelatin-containing foods.

More Shingles Vaccine Side Effects

Here is a list of side effects the manufacturer claims:

• allergic reactions, which may be serious and may include difficulty in breathing or swallowing
• chickenpox
• fever
• hives at the injection site
• joint pain
• muscle pain
• nausea
• rash
• rash at the injection site
• shingles
• swollen glands near the injection site (that may last a few days to a few weeks)

Before taking any vaccine, know and understand the potential for side effects. Read the labels and do the research. Treat vaccines the same as any medicine you might be prescribed. The primary difference? If you have a reaction to a medication you can stop taking the pills. Have a reaction to a vaccine? You can’t un-vaccinate.

http://vaxxter.com/shingles-vaccine-side-effects/

Holder & DOJ botched up 'Fast and Furious' Operation

HOUSE  COMMITTEE  ACCUSES  HOLDER,  DOJ,  OF  COVERING  UP  BOTCHED  'FAST  AND  FURIOUS'  OPERATION



June 7 2017


Wednesday morning saw the release of a scathing report from the House Oversight Committee that former Attorney General Eric Holder and the DOJ tried to hide the facts of the botched ‘Fast & Furious’ operation.

The operation, which involved allowing marked firearms to be sold in Phoenix-area shops with the intention of tracking them once they made their way to Mexico, went off the skids when 1400 of the 2000 guns used in the attempted sting went missing.

Two of them were recovered at the scene of Brian Terry’s death. Terry was a Border Patrol agent.

From Fox News:

More than five years after Brian’s murder, the Terry family still wonders about key details of Operation Fast and Furious,” the report states. “The Justice Department’s obstruction of Congress’s investigation contributed to the Terry family’s inability to find answers.”

The new report states that the Justice Department knew before Terry’s death in 2010 that the ATF was “walking” firearms to Mexico and knew the day after the agent’s death that weapons from Fast and Furious were involved in the shootout, despite denying these facts to the media.

The report also says that Holder’s Justice Department stonewalled inquiries from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and deceptively told him that the “ATF makes every effort to interdict” firearms purchased by straw buyers. 

The controversial act of straw purchases – where a person who is prohibited from buying firearms uses another person to buy a gun on his or her behalf – has been a popular method that Mexico’s drug cartels use to obtain guns.

We’ll have more on another revelation about Holder’s DOJ in a few minutes…stay tuned.

http://bucksexton.com/house-committee-accuses-holder-doj-of-covering-up-botched-fast-furious-operation/   
 

Bad news from the past for Comey

BREAKING:  SOMEONE  FROM  COMEY'S  PAST  JUST  CAME  FORWARD  WITH  SOME  BAD                                                              NEWS 

June 8 2017

The Obama spying scandal continues to grow in scope. Now, the FBI under its former director, James Comey, are accused of aiding Obama.

Late last month, the investigative website Circa released declassified documents revealing that the FBI illegally spied on American citizens. Now, a former employee is SUING James Comey for allegedly allowing that illegal activity to take place. (via Circa)

Dennis Montgomery, a former intelligence contractor, has filed a lawsuit against former FBI Director James Comey and other top-level government officials.

The spying scandal, which originated when President Trump accused Obama of spying on his political campaign, is shaping up to be larger than the Edward Snowden leaks.

In 2013, Edward Snowden, who was also an intelligence contractor, illegally copied and leaked classified information to British journalist Glenn Greenwald.

Snowden worked as a contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) and revealed the chilling details of the NSA’s global spying apparatus, including the program known as PRISM.

Under PRISM, the NSA compelled seven major telecommunications companies to monitor and store information on their customers, including American citizens, in clear violation of American law.

Now, Dennis Montgomery is revealing that the FBI has similar programs that may be larger in scope. Snowden revealed that the NSA was collecting data indiscriminately on American citizens while the FBI’s efforts are targeted.

According to Montgomery’s allegations, the FBI was illegally targeting and spying on American citizens for political purposes, including judges, members of Congress, and major businessmen such as Donald Trump. This illegally obtained information was sometimes shared with third parties lacking security clearance.

Montgomery is now suing former FBI director James Comey for covering up evidence of the widespread and illegal spying. Montgomery claims he approached Comey and provided him with overwhelming proof of the illegal activity and that Comey refused to acknowledge the crimes and attempted to cover up the evidence.

Montgomery has been offered limited immunity so he can explain how he was able to smuggle 47 hard drives of highly classified information from multiple intelligence agencies.

Montgomery is proving himself to be a true patriot. He is risking everything to expose the extent of Obama’s crimes, and he is using the proper channels to do it — instead of illegally leaking documents to the press.

What do you think will happen when the trial begins this summer? 

http://conservativefighters.com/news/breaking-someone-comeys-past-just-came-forward-bad-news/?utm_content=bufferf6353&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

"Power to Sell" -- The Latest Land Grab

By Anna Von Reitz

All over the country alarmed homeowners and landowners are getting unexpected demands to pay large amounts of taxes that they never heard about.  These bills appear out of the blue, usually with a "Notice of Power to Sell". 

What is happening is that the UNITED STATES, INC. is in liquidation.  That means that the STATE OF IDAHO is in liquidation.  So is CRAWFORD COUNTY.  So is JOHN MICHAEL DOE.  These are all franchises of the UNITED STATES, INC., so they are all being liquidated, too. 

The bankruptcy trustees are going around and trying to settle the debts of CRAWFORD COUNTY by  taxing or selling off property belonging to franchisees like JOHN MICHAEL DOE who happen to have property in CRAWFORD COUNTY for the benefit of Secondary Creditors to the bankruptcy liquidation. 

They are able to do this because they are trying to claim that the whereabouts of the actual owners and their identities are unknown, so that the property is abandoned. 

What to do?  

Go do the Land Recording Office and get a certified copy of the present deed. 

Go home and create a Corrected Deed to file on top of it. 

You are going to correct the name of the owner from JOHN MICHAEL DOE to Doe, John Michael or Doe, J.Michael, or some other variation that suits you. 

Next, you are going to correct the address.  If it was "1911 Sugarplum Lane" you are going to change it to in care of a Post Office Box or your business address or your Mom's mailing address.  One way or another, you are going to change it. 

Next, you are going to change the land description itself.  If they were using Lot and Block, you are going to use the Plat Numbers, or a Metes and Bounds description.  If you can afford it, get a land surveyor to do a new survey and attach that to the corrected deed.  The point is, you are going to change it.  

As part of the land description you are going to add a tag line of new information. 

If you were born in say, Montana, you are going to write the following on your corrected deed: 

Covered under Private Indemnity Bond AMRI00001 RA393427640US Montana. 

This tells the Bankruptcy Trustees to back all the way off  until their butts hit seawater. 

I set up a Private Indemnity Bond at the U.S. Treasury covering every one of the fifty states.  You can indemnify your property against all and any claims against JOHN MICHAEL DOE by piggy-backing onto your home state's indemnity bond and making reference to the bond in your land description.  

The rats will have to discharge their claim and set it aside because the actual Principal Priority Creditors have come forward and staked their claim.  

Spread the word and the instructions and help your neighbors.  This is all about helping each other through this onslaught of fraud.  Go door to door if need be. 

-----------------------------

See this article and over 600 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com

Pay Attention! -- If You Want to Save Your Butts!

By Anna Von Reitz

Apparently a lot of people didn't notice or didn't pay attention or didn't know what it meant when I told everyone that I had established a Private Indemnity Bond at the U.S. Treasury covering every state of the Union---- but that is critical information to have branded on your foreheads in the days to come.

The UNITED STATES, INC. is in liquidation. The Bankruptcy Trustees are going to try to liquidate, sell, tax, or otherwise raise funds off of all the franchises of the UNITED STATES, INC. This includes the STATE OF MINNESOTA and CRAWFORD COUNTY, MINNESOTA, and JOHN MICHAEL DOE, too.

When your land deeds and car titles and mortgages are all in the NAME OF a UNITED STATES franchise, what do you think is going to happen? You are going to be "assumed to be a surety" and "collateral" for the debts of all these fictitious entities, and the secondary creditors---- banks and foreign investors--- are going to be howling for your blood and for the auctioning off of your assets to pay the bills of the UNITED STATES.

Get it? This is a repeat of what FDR did back in the 1930's only worse. This time the rotten bastards want it all. They want the copyright to your name, they want your DNA, they want your body, your house, your business, your land---- anything that is "assumed" to belong to the JOHN MICHAEL DOE version of your NAME. See "Power to Sell -- The Latest Land Grab".

If you are like most people, you had no idea that any such secretive claim against you or your assets existed and unless you have been reading the news posted here, this is going to catch you blind-sided. You are not going to know what to do and you are not going to have anything in place to defend yourself--- UNLESS--- you remember that you and your property are indemnified against loss.

How, why, by whom? By me and by my team because we were awake and got things in place for you. Just as neighbors, we did all the work so that at this crucial moment in history, you could remember in which state you were born and write the following:

"Held under Private Indemnity Bond AMRI00001 RA393427640US Montana" ----or the same numbers and whatever your birth state is, on your land deeds, vehicle titles, or any other property assets they come after and try to seize.

AMRI00001 RA393427640US Alaska
AMRI00001 RA393427640US Alabama
AMRI00001 RA393427640US Arkansas.....

This is your "Home Free" Card, your indemnity policy, your means to rebut all and any claims that come addressed against actual assets held in the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS NAMES.

Please do all that you can to help and inform your friends and neighbors and countrymen. I have given specific instructions for those facing sudden huge "tax" bills, and "Notices of Power to Sell" and similar demands being made against their homes and land holdings in the article called: "Power to Sell" -- The Latest Land Grab.

P.S. --- Use the Private Indemnity Bond to Protect Your Bank Accounts and IRA's and 401K's, too. Inform the banks and IRA / 401K managers via Registered Mail that your accounts are private accounts and are held under Private Registered Indemnity Bond AMRI00001 RA393427640US - Your Home State.

-----------------------------

See this article and over 600 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com

The way it ALWAYS is with liberals

DOUBLE STANDARDS 

THE PROTECTION WALL FOR THE 

'POLITICIAN' TRAITORS

AND HOPE FOR THE BEST FOR CIVILIANS

Obama's wall around his new Washington

 'spy headquarters' home

Paul Ryan has wall around magnificient home for

the future 'president' of the united states

WHO is kowtowing to the Russian government?