This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our freedom. County, State, and National Assemblies are forming across our world nullifying the corrupt corporations. Watch and become AWARE! Participate and be a part of making history!
62 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH
Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.
US President Barack Obama has made public his stands on issues that are not exactly aligned with the Christian faith. He is pro-gay, and actively pushing for same-sex unions and rights of homosexuals even outside America. He is also pro-abortion, funding the killing of the unborn in his controversial health programme.
ADVERTISEMENT
Does this make President Obama the Antichrist? Not exactly, according to Christian evangelists, but they believe the American leader is "paving the way" for the Antichrist.
Pastor Robert James Jeffress, Jr. of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, said Obama has shown how leaders can still win votes even if they contradict God's laws.
"Although President Obama is certainly not the Antichrist, his policies are paving the way for the Antichrist," the Christian pastor said.
"While I am not suggesting that President Obama is the Antichrist, the fact that he was able to propose such a sweeping change in God's law and still win re-election by a comfortable margin illustrates how a future world leader will be able to oppose God's laws without any repercussions," he added.
Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham, meanwhile, said Obama's "anti-Christian" stand on issues has already infected the rest of the US government.
"There is an anti-Christian bias that is now in our government. It has permeated our government," Graham said.
He added that Obama is forcing a "new morality" on Americans that is against the teachings of God.
"It's a morality that does not include God or His standards. That's what we're facing today. It is an anti-Christ movement that we're seeing taking place," Graham said.
Columnist Jennifer Leclaire, meanwhile, pointed out that Obama "has made plenty of Antichrist moves during his presidency."
"I don't believe Obama is the Antichrist, but the fact that so many people are utterly convinced is telling... The chatter continues. One thing is clear, believers are paying close attention to the signs of the times—including the rise of the Antichrist," Leclaire said in an opinion article published on Charisma News.
There
is a maneuver for people of the world to bring Peace with making
contracts with others, and Iran, Iraq, and Russia are some of them.
Mehran
Keshe is the man that is making deals for the Peace side of it, yet
We The People of the United States need to force the issue with their
own communities by mandating their local governments work to sign an
agreement with the Keshe Foundation to get the technologies in their
community to bring in a Clean environment and most likely more
employment.
Once
more and more of the local governments are working to bring Peace and
Clean technologies to the USA then the word would get out that We The
People will be receiving a Republic back the way it was.
What we have seen over the last years is massive price increases where records are being hit constantly, projections from the U.S. government showing that prices are expected to increase even more, food shortages and examples of what happens to a population when they go hungry, such as what we have seen in Venezuela over the past year.
At the end of this article readers will be asked to share their shopping experiences, what foods have increased dramatically in prices in their local stores, what items are harder to obtain, what products their stores seem to run out of faster than previous experiences.... the best way to accurately see what is happening in your neighborhood, your city is by hearing directly from you.
The ultimate UN and elite agenda is mass depopulation, but to get from point A to point B, we see a systematic use of food control has been implemented, which will be used to engineer famine that will provoke the people into looking to the government to feed them. People will willingly walk into FEMA camps if that is the only way to eat and feed their families. From there will it be just a matter of what "list" they are on, to determine whether they belong in the FEMA camps, the prison/reeducation camps, or the extermination camps.
Charts, graphs, projections and rising food prices show the U.S. is already seeing this agenda play out right before out very eyes.
FOOD PRICES & SHORTAGES
Using the government's own data we see that from October-December 2013 to October - December 2014, last updated May 2015, grocery store prices have increased by 3.5 percent, shown in the first chart below. Meats, seafood, eggs, fruits and dairy products have risen in price the most. The second screenshot again uses the USDA government website showing the food price "outlook" into the year 2016 and how much more prices are set to increase. Original spreadsheet, aspx format, found here. (Downloads to your computer and opens in Excel)
The California drought is causing crop failures, bird flu has contributed to the rise in poultry prices, pork still has not recovered from the deadly PEDV virus, beef prices are expected to rise even more, and those are just a sample of issues that will make food problematic and cause shortages. The most recent example comes from IBT, where they ask "Is A Shortage Or The Dreaded ‘Baconpocalypse’ On The Horizon?
Bacon-mania may be sweeping the food industry, but how much longer can that continue with the price of the popular pork product soaring? The Huffington Post reported the price of bacon is at an all-time high, statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate. In June, a pound of bacon rose 6 cents, upping the cost to $6.11 per pound in American cities.
While 6 cents won't break anyone's piggy bank, this recent price hike comes as the latest in a dramatic rise over the past two years. Bacon today costs 14 percent more than it did this time last year and 41 percent more than June 2012, when there was an impending “Baconpocalypse.”
In fact, the Huffington Post noted the price of bacon today is 21 percent higher than its peak price in 1982 after adjusting for inflation.
Ask yourself, what are the odds that a variety of issues would coincide as to affect almost all of our food sources? The ask yourself how soon before an average family cannot afford to feed their children? WELFARE NATION
This means there is already a significant portion of the American populace, 35 percent, that cannot feed themselves and/or their families and are already looking to the government to feed them. THE CAMPS
While many wave away that theory, I noted in July 2015 that in the past as racetracks, stables, county fairgrounds and warehouses were all turned into "FEMA" camps, but at that time they were called "internent" camps or "concentration camps," or "relocation centers", which were set to house Japanese Americans in 1942.
I am sure those building the racetracks, fairgrounds, warehouses, etc in the past.... never imagined they would be used as internment camps either, but they were. So while these malls, may very well be just malls, it is a historical fact that the government can, has, and will commandeer locations that match their "needs."
Food is the ultimate weapon in the elite's depopulation agenda. Control the food, you control the people. Food shortages cause riots, riots across a whole nation can cause martial law to be declared. Hunger will have some people willingly walk themselves into the FEMA Camps, where depending on what list you are on -meaning sheep that will obey, people that can be "reeducated" or those that will never comply to a locked down nation where there are no constitutional rights anymore - will be divided up into either the FEMA camps, the prison camps or the extermination camps.
US GENERALS, ADMIRALS SIGN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF IRAN AGREEMENT
General James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is one of the signatories of the letter to back Iran agreement.
Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:9PM
Retired United States generals and admirals have signed a letter to back the nuclear agreement between Iran and the global powers.
The retired brass said there existed “no better option” than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between Tehran and P5+1 and backed by the UN Security Council in July, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
The letter was the latest expression of support to the administration of President Barack Obama, engaged in nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic, amid opposition by the Republican-weighted Congress in the backdrop of a row between US dominant parties.
“And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark,” read the letter.
Iran has time and again said that it pursues solely civilian purposes in its nuclear energy program.
The letter was signed by senior generals and flag officers, including four-star Marine Gens. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the US Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the US Air Force.
Last weekend, 29 leading American scientists wrote a letter to Obama, calling the agreement, reached in Vienna on July 14, “technically sound” and “innovative.”
JCPOA will “provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons,” it read, adding, the historic agreement “will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements.”
The Obama administration has to retain enough Democratic votes in support of the agreement as pro-Israelis are busy campaigning against final approval of any accord with Tehran by the Congress.
For now, the
Swiss are easing restrictions on harmless things such as precious
metals. But Iran’s military procurers will have made note of recent
reports that Switzerland has eased restrictions on arms exports. Swiss-made tanks (known, puzzlingly, as Piranhas) and ammunition are already used widely across the Middle East. How long before munitions makers from Switzerland join the stampede toward Tehran?
But perhaps
more important than the specifics of the trade between Switzerland and
Iran is the message it sends the US Congress, where a mighty—and
mightily futile—bipartisan effort is under way to scuttle the deal. And it is entirely
fitting that the message should come from the country that has
represented American interests in Tehran for the past 35 years. The
message: Move on.
It is true that the Obama administration’s defense of the deal has taken on a shrill note of panic—the president himself has suggestedcritics of the agreement are warmongers, and secretary of state John Kerry has warned that they could jeopardize the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. Even so, the betting is that the proposal Obama and Kerry presented the legislature is a fait accompli. Even if Congress votes against it, there’s little prospect of overriding the president’s veto.
To be clear, I have argued that the deal is a bad one,
mainly because it unshackles both the Islamic Republic’s hegemonic
ambitions in the Middle East and its ability to export terror. But now
that the United Nations Security Council has unanimously endorsed it, and America’s allies are beginning to make bilateral deals with Iran, there seems little point in Congress going through the motions and voting against it.
Rather than
grandstanding for its own sake, American lawmakers should channel their
energies to ensuring that Obama works with European and Middle Eastern
allies to stymie Iran’s efforts to foment mischief and mayhem beyond its
borders. This task is harder now, and it is an ill omen that the Obama
administration is trying to restrict Congress’ ability to renew the Iran Sanctions Act—a
vital tool that the next president will need, should Tehran misbehave.
But this is exactly why Congress should avoid wasting its time trying to
undo the deal, and instead work to limit the damage it will do. LINK
TIANJIN, China (TheBlaze/AP) — Huge, fiery blasts at a warehouse for
hazardous chemicals killed at least 50 people and turned nearby
buildings into skeletal shells in the Chinese port of Tianjin, raising
questions Thursday about whether the materials had been properly stored.
Hundreds of people were injured in the explosions shortly before
midnight Wednesday, which sent out massive fireballs that turned the
night sky into day and shattered windows several kilometers (miles)
away. Twelve of the dead were from among the more than 1,000
firefighters sent to the mostly industrial zone to fight the ensuing
blaze.
Stunning photos taken the morning after the blast showed the apocalyptic scene in the Chinese city:
A
damaged car is covered with shattered wall tiles and window parts at
the site of the massive explosions in Tianjin on August 13, 2015.
Enormous explosions in a major Chinese port city killed at least 44
people and injured more than 500, state media reported on August 13,
leaving a devastated industrial landscape of incinerated cars,
toppled shipping containers and burnt-out buildings. (Photo credit:
STR/AFP/Getty Images)
Breakthrough Memorandum of Law obliterates in 20 pages the fraud
that has made the 3,837-page Internal Revenue Code a monolith of
impenetrability. General knowledge of the contents of the Memorandum
ultimately will result in withdrawal of cooperation on the part of a
sufficient number of former victims of the fraud so as to lead to its
elimination.
The commercial artifice known as “income tax” has its origins in 1622
in Amsterdam, Holland, and is the creation of goldsmith-bankers of the
private Bank of Amsterdam[1] (est. 1609), parent bank of the private Bank of England[2] (est. 1694), in turn, parent bank of the private Federal Reserve[3]
(est. 1913), and whose principals are the collective architect of the
Internal Revenue Code and, in this country, sole beneficiary of the
object thereof: revenue from collections of income tax (see Memorandum for evidence and proof).
When principals of the private Bank of Amsterdam in 1622 fail to sell
the Dutch government on the idea of income tax they decide to procure
their own government and country and thereafter hire Oliver Cromwell,
finance and foment the English Revolution, orchestrate the execution of
King Charles I of England, and install their own puppet, the Dutch
prince, William III of Orange, on the British throne.
William’s most important act is the granting, on July 21, 1694, of
the charter of incorporation of “The Governor and Company of the Bank of
England,” the world’s first state-sanctioned “fractional reserve
banking” institution, allowing the bank to masquerade as a department of
government (“Bank of England”) and circulate (lend) its own promissory
notes, each of which bears the bank’s promise to pay to the bearer on
demand a certain quantity of gold, but for which there is no gold in the
bank’s vaults. The arrangement permits the private Bank of England to
loan its own paper currency at no cost to itself (i.e., Monopoly™ money) under the protection of the government; to wit:
“The bank hath benefit of the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”[4] William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England.
“It [the Bank of England] coined, in short, its own credit into paper money.”[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, Professor of Economics, Oxford University.
The difference between the promissory notes of the private Bank of
England and Federal Reserve Notes of the private Federal Reserve is that
Fed bankers did away with the promise-to-pay-gold nuisance a long time
ago (House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933), having swindled and
shipped to England and Germany nearly all of America’s gold between 1916
and 1932. Enjoying a monopoly as they do, today’s banks “loan” computer-keypad
keystroke entries of digits, called “credit” (modern equivalent of the
Bank of England’s hollow promissory notes), at no cost to themselves. As
explained by the senior government banking official, then-Secretary of
the Treasury Robert B. Anderson:
“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the
borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. This
money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously
paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for
the use of the borrower.”[6]
The Federal Reserve banking system cannot endure without constant
extraction, by way of collection of income tax by the Internal Revenue
Service to hide the fraud of inflation, of a huge percentage of the
digits created and injected into circulation by banks in the loan
process; hence the need for the overwhelming complexity of the Internal
Revenue Code and heartlessness of those who enforce its provisions.
Notwithstanding the best-laid plans of the architects thereof, however,
and efforts of their enforcers, no one can stop a grass-roots movement
and anyone can disabuse himself of the hoax in the pages of the attached
Memorandum.
[1] J. De Vries and A. Van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997), p. 107.
[3] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, Second Edition, 1992 Election Edition (Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization: Staunton, Va., 1992), p. 102.
[4] William Paterson, quoted in Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations: A Financial Study of English History, First American Edition (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1936), p. 30.
[6] Robert B. Anderson, quoted in “How Much Will Your Dollar Buy – Interview with Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson,” U.S. News & World Report, August 31, 1959, pp. 68-69.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents incontrovertible evidence that every Federal trial court in America is a territorial (not a constitutional) court with jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia or other Federal territory.
Notwithstanding this legal fact—which no one denies—the Supreme Court on June 8, 2015, issued an order denying certiorari.
This means that there is some other overriding non-constitutional
(statutory) factor—unknown to Petitioner at time of filing of the
petition but known by all bench officers involved in this case—that
allows the Justices to approve of the judgment of the appeals court
affirming the judgment of the district court despite the fact that the
district court is a territorial court with no jurisdiction in Texas
(where Petitioner resides).
Supreme Court Rule 44.2 provides that under certain extraordinary
conditions a petition may be presented a second time, through a
“Petition for Rehearing.”
Such conditions have arisen since the original filing April 29, 2015.
Wherefore, Petitioner on June 30, 2015, filed a Petition for Rehearing.
The Petition for Rehearing, though only 14 pages in length, is comprehensive and reveals, among other things:
On what, exactly, the district court relies for authority to
exercise jurisdiction, despite the fact that Petitioner resides (and
Petitioner’s property is located) without the territory over which the
court has jurisdiction;
The particular section of the Internal Revenue Code that is used to ensnare American nontaxpayers
into an implied contract that makes them liable to Federal income taxes
no matter where they may reside, but also provides the exact procedure
whereby any such American can reverse the process, extinguish the
implied contract, and be relieved of liability to Federal income taxes;
The precise meaning of the definition of the most important
statutory term in existence, around which literally everything else
revolves: “United States”;
The universal and simple but semi-secret rules of statutory
construction (used by Congress to legislate the law into existence and
every Federal judge and magistrate and Supreme Court Justice to
interpret and pronounce it thereafter) that allow anyone to determine
the exact meaning of any definition (no matter how vague, complicated,
or confusing) of any statutory term in any body of law; and
Documentary evidence in the record of the case that shows that the
district judge is not an impartial arbiter but rather an agent of the
plaintiff, i.e., the United States, secretly working in its behalf to
defeat Petitioner—a setting known as a kangaroo court:
kangaroo court. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in
which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or
parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or
irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible.
3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359
Israel’s Defence Minister has appeared to imply that his country is
prepared to assassinate Iran’s nuclear scientists following a historic
deal with the West.
ADVERTISEMENT
Moshe
Ya’alon, the former chief of staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, gave a
damning assessment of the nuclear agreement between Iran and a number
of western nations in an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel.
The
65-year-old minister condemned the deal, reportedly telling the
newspaper “ultimately it is very clear, one way or another; Iran’s
nuclear programme must be stopped.”
Asked whether Iran
would see further deaths of its nuclear scientists, he allegedly told
the newspaper: "We should be ready to defend ourselves. I’m not
responsible for the lives of Iranian scientists."
Mr
Ya’alon’s comments following a deal signed between Iran and the US, UK,
China, France, Germany and Russia on 14 July that promised to control
Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme in exchange for sanctions relief.
The
deal – hammered out over months of fraught negotiations and still
awaiting approval from both US and Iranian political houses – has
brought US-Israeli relations to a new low, with Benjamin Netanyahu’s
government staunchly opposing the agreement.
Mr Ya’alon,
who is noted for his conservative right-wing views in the Israeli
parliament, apparently said that Israel “should be ready to defend”
itself and that his country “would act in any way”.
Five
Iranian scientists have died in car bombings and although Israel was
blamed by Iran, the country has never admitted to any involvement in the
scientists’ deaths.
A
CBS report last year claimed that the Obama administration had leant
heavily on the Israeli government over the deaths of the scientists –
the most recent in 2013 – as talks approached a critical juncture.
Mr
Ya’alon also poured scorn over hopes that partially lifting sanctions
would facilitate a liberal movement within Iran. There is “not going to
be any Iranian spring,” he said. “And you can forget about McDonald's in
Tehran.”
A federal judge’s order that a county
clerk must violate her Christian faith and issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples to meet the constitutional right to homosexual
unions newly created by the U.S. Supreme Court now is under challenge
at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The notice of appeal was filed by attorneys with Liberty
Counsel immediately after U.S. District Judge David Bunning
ordered Rowan, Kentucky, County Clerk Kim Davis to violate her deeply
held religious beliefs, protected by the First Amendment, and issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The judge’s ruling appeared to advance President Obama’s
ongoing campaign to replace “freedom of religion” with “freedom
of worship.” WND has reported that for
years the Obama administration has referenced the First Amendment
constitutional protection in new language.
Most recently, a big list of prominent faith leaders joined to ask
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to fix a
problematic document that references “worship” rather than
“religion.”
“We … write to you with deep concern about the wording of the
answer to question 51 on the study materials for the civics portion
of the naturalization exam. The question asks students to provide two
rights guaranteed to everyone living in the United States, and listed
among the possible correct answers is ‘freedom of worship.’ We
write to you requesting that this answer be immediately corrected to
the constitutionally accurate answer – ‘freedom of religion,’”
the recent letter said.
“We believe that the wording change we are requesting represents
much more than a ‘distinction without a difference.’ Many
totalitarian forms of government have allowed for the freedom of
worship in their governmental documents but in practice severely
restricted individual religious freedoms. The phrase freedom of
worship, as it has been used throughout history, articulates an
intentionally limited freedom that restricts a citizen’s rights to
the four walls of a government-sanctioned house of worship and only
for specific times and events.” Who
put the American family in the bull’s-eye? Read “Takedown, From
Communists to Progressives How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and
Marriage” to read the origins of the war.
The letter was assembled by the Weyrich
Lunch participants. The group is named after the late chairman of
the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation Paul Weyrich.
Bunning wrote that Davis can believe what she chooses privately.
But he ruled she cannot exercise her “freedom of religion”
publicly. Homosexual activists early Thursday demanded marriage
licenses from Davis’ office, but were turned away. See the Big List of
Christian Coercion compiled by WND, where business owners, officials
and others have been bludgeoned by the law, activists – even judges
– for their faith.
“The state is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral
or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a
variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her
Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice
a week, participate in Bible study and ministry to female inmates at
the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a
union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do,” the
judge wrote.
“However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from
performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan
County Clerk,” he said, citing the same-sex marriage right that was
created only weeks ago by the Supreme Court. WND has reported on the use of
“Freedom of Worship” by the federal government before.
Early in President Obama’s tenure in the White House, Catholic
Online and other media outlets reported what appeared to be a
deliberate attack on the Constitution’s “freedom of religion”
protections.
The report noted a crucial change in Obama’s language between
his June 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, where he spoke of a Muslim
America and its “freedom of religion,” and the November 2009
memorial for the Fort Hood soldiers gunned down by a radical Muslim,
where he termed it “freedom of worship.”
From that point on, “freedom of worship” has become the term
of choice, the report said.
The use of the term in the naturalization process recently got
attention in Congress.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., charged during a recent hearing that
included Johnson that the government is “misrepresenting” the
First Amendment.
“We in the United States actually have freedom of religion, not
freedom of worship,” Lankford said. See his comments:
Watch Video:
He said, "The questionnaire civics test has in it one of
these things, 'What are two rights of everyone living in the United
States, and it listed out six different things: freedom of
expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to
petition the government, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms.
I'd love to see 'freedom of worship' switched to 'freedom of
religion.'"
Sarah Torre of the Heritage Foundation said the difference is
significant. In practice across America, the "freedom to
worship" seldom has been challenged or even questioned. But
"freedom of religion" is under direct fire.
Bunning charged that the Supreme Court's creation of a new
fundamental right to same-sex marriage means that those demanding
those licenses cannot be denied. And his ruling puts the First
Amendment's protections regarding freedom of religion in a secondary
position.
Roger Gannam, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel, which is
representing Davis, submitted a notice of appeal to the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals immediately, and that was accompanied by a
motion to the court to stay the ruling pending appeal.
"Davis is entitled to a stay of the injunction entered
against her by this court's August 12, 2015, Memorandum Opinion and
Order pending her appeal of that ruling," it said.
That explains, "A SSM license issued on her authorization and
bearing her name and imprimatur, substantially (and irreparably)
burdens her conscience and religious freedom because it represents
endorsement of, and participation in, a proposed union that is not
marriage according to her sincere and deeply held religious
convictions."
It continued, "That searing act of validation would forever
echo in her conscience – and, if it happened, there is no
absolution or correction that any earthly court can provide to
rectify it. … To protect her fundamental, inalienable, and
inviolate religious liberties from such coercion, she has filed an
immediate appeal of this court's injunction order."
The document pointed out that those who brought the case have the
option to obtain their license in more than 100 other locations, but
refused to do that in order to bring a complaint against Davis.
The document noted Bunning's reference to the fact that Davis'
rights "are, in fact, being both 'threaten[ed]' and
'infringe'd]' by plaintiffs' demands for her approval of their
proposed unions."
"The court stated that 'this civil action presents a conflict
between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American
jurisprudence,'" the document explains.
Dan Canon, a lawyer representing the same-sex duos, said of the
ruling, "It reaffirms the idea that we've been trying to stress
all along, which is that individual elected officials are not allowed
to govern according to their own private religious beliefs."
Davis canceled procedures to issue any marriage licenses after the
Supreme Court's ruling in June.
The American Civil Liberties Union then sued her. It argued the
homosexual duos should not have to drive anywhere else to get their
licenses. WND earlier reported that
Davis also has brought a case against her own governor, Steve
Beshear, for arbitrarily picking and choosing religious beliefs for
exemptions from the law, and thus putting her in the position to be a
defendant in the current case.
The newest case from Davis asks that Beshear be made liable for
any damages that might be assessed against her in the marriage fight.
"Beshear is unlawfully picking and choosing the
conscience-based exemptions to marriage that he deems acceptable,"
says the complaint, brought by Liberty
Counsel on behalf of Davis against Beshear.
"For instance, when Attorney General [Jack] Conway refused to
defend Kentucky's marriage laws, Beshear did not admonish Conway that
'neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must
believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must
act,' but Gov. Beshear did so direct county clerks like Davis."
The complaint also explains, "Beshear did not command Conway
that 'when you accepted this job and took that oath, it puts you on a
different level,' and 'you have official duties now that the law puts
on you,' but he did deliver this command to county clerks like
Davis."
Further, "Beshear did not publicly proclaim that Conway was
'refusing to perform [his] duties' and failing to 'follow the law and
carry out [his] duty,' and should instead 'comply with the law
regardless of personal beliefs,' but he did make this proclamation
(repeatedly) about county clerks like Davis. Who
put the American family in the bull's-eye? Read "Takedown, From
Communists to Progressives How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and
Marriage" to read the origins of the war.
"Beshear did not instruct Conway that 'if you are at that
point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply
cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, then
obviously the honorable course to take is to resign and let someone
else step in who feels that they can fulfill these duties,' but he
did issue this instruction to country clerks like Davis … Beshear
did not ominously declare that 'the courts will deal appropriately
with' Conway, but he did so declare as to the 'two or three' county
clerks who are not issuing marriage licenses."
The issue raised in the complaint is that the state's attorney
general, Jack Conway, earlier had simply refused to defend the
state's marriage laws, which were challenged in court, because of his
beliefs.
He said, "I can only say that I am doing what I think is
right."
Beshear simply hired outside attorneys to do the job to which
Conway was elected.
But when the Obergefell decision was announced, Beshear ordered
clerks to start granting same-sex "marriage" licenses even
if it violates their religious beliefs. He said they should quit if
they couldn't do what he wanted.
The case is based on the First Amendment's speech and religion
provisions, which even the Obergefell decision recognized, as well as
the constitutional ban on a religious test. There are similar
provisions in the Kentucky Constitution, too.
Filed in federal court in Kentucky, the case seeks a ruling that
Beshear has violated the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Constitution's Article
VI.
The fight is one of the first cases to develop since the U.S.
Supreme Court created in its Obergefell decision a direct conflict
between the new homosexual "marriage" right and the
Constitution's protection of freedom of religion.
"This case is not about whom a person may marry under
Kentucky law. No statewide ban is preventing any plaintiff from
marrying whom they want to marry. This case is also not about whether
plaintiffs can obtain a Kentucky marriage license. They can. Such
licenses, including same-sex 'marriage' licenses, are readily
available across Kentucky, and plaintiffs can obtain a license from
any one of more than 100 counties (including counties surrounding
Rowan County, and the counties where multiple court hearings attended
by plaintiffs have been held)," said the filing in the fight
over the ACLU's attempts to force Davis to violate her religious
faith.
When the Supreme Court announced its marriage decision June 26,
Justice Samuel Alito said it "usurps the constitutional right of
the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional
understanding of marriage."
"The decision will also have other important consequences,"
he said. "It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling
to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the
majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal
treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this
analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out
every vestige of dissent."
OBAMA ORDERED TO STOP GRANTING AMNESTY ...... NOW!
'The court does not consider mere substantial compliance to be acceptable'
A federal judge who last winter ordered a halt to President Obama’s de facto amnesty and then ordered federal officials to testify when they were found to be in violation of his injunction is relenting, just a little.
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen said Tuesday he will release certain defendants from testifying, but he warned that he expects the federal government to comply with his order to stop its delayed-deportation program before an Aug. 19 hearing.
Fully.
“The court does not consider mere substantial compliance, after an order has been in place for six months, to be acceptable and neither should counsel,” Hanen wrote in his newest order in a case brought by 26 states.
Hanen’s injunction disrupted Obama’s plan to delay deportation for up to 5 million illegal aliens under a 2014 initiative called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.
DAPA would offer three-year work permits to illegal aliens who have been in the United States since 2010 and have children who are American citizens or lawful permanent residents. The Obama administration, in compliance with Hanen’s order, apparently hasn’t enacted that provision.
But when the federal government began carrying out a DAPA provision that changes a 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Hanen reacted.
The provision extends a two-year reprieve on deportation to three years, and federal government lawyers granted the extra year to 100,000 applicants, prompting a rebuke from Hanen.
Hanen’s new order releases “individual defendants,” including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, from an order to testify, but he said he still has concerns about illegal aliens who have “credentials issued in violation of the court’s injunction.”
The government “needs to be prepared to discuss the reasons that these individuals are not in compliance,” Hanen ordered, “the steps the government has taken and will continue to take to achieve complete compliance and the time table to achieve that goal in the very near future.”
It was Feb. 16 when Hanen granted a preliminary injunction to the 26 states that sued Obama for changing immigration law through executive action rather than by proposing legislation to Congress.
Government attorneys now are attempting to satisfy the judge, explaining they are trying to fetch the documents they issued that were in violation of the his order.
The change in attitude is in sharp contrast to previous reactions from the administration.
Shortly after the judge’s order, the Washington Times reported Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director, addressed the issue: “It’s important to put [Hanen's order] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving forward. The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by the court’s ruling.”
But Hanen’s original order had said: “The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.”
And even Obama himself said the Constitution barred him from acting alone.
For example, in October 2010, Obama said: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
‘Unilateral legislative action’
Hanen’s ruling marks the second time federal courts have ruled against Obama’s amnesty actions. WND reported the ruling of a federal court in Pennsylvania. “President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause and, therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”
“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”
The judge wrote: “The court was first apprised by the government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions – violations which have not yet been fixed. This court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the government has taken with regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation. The government promised this court on May 7, 2015, that ‘immediate steps’ were being taken to remedy the violations of the injunction. Yet, as of June 23, 2015 – some six weeks after making that representation – the situation had not been rectified.”
He warned, “At some point, when a non-compliant party refuses to bring its conduct into compliance, one must conclude that the conduct is not accidental, but deliberate.”
A panel of three judges at the appeals court said Obama’s plan “makes aliens who were not otherwise qualified for federal public benefits eligible for ‘social security retirement benefits, security disability benefits, [and] health insurance under Part A of the Medicare program.’” “Further, ‘each person who applies for deferred action pursuant to the [DAPA] criteria … shall also be eligible to apply for work authorization for the [renewable three-year] period of deferred action.’”
Such procedures would allow illegal aliens to “‘obtain a Social Security Number,’ ‘accrue quarters of covered employment,’ and ‘correct wage records to add prior covered employment,’” the opinion said.
It warned that should the program ultimately struck down, the illegal aliens who participated would have benefited improperly.
The injunction, the appeals judges said, preserves the status quo. Hanen previously expressed frustration with the government for failing to inform him that officials also had given deferred action to 108,000 applicants shortly after Obama announced his plan in November.
“The court expects all parties, including the government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote.
At one point, WND reported, Hanen bluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not President Obama and federal officials can be believed.
The Texas lawsuit, joined by 25 other states, was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been subject to deportation.
(This
is still important info, but it is only from the USA Corporation
constitution of 1871 as the 'Organic Act of 1871' made our government
a corporation, including War Profit, and the original constitution
for the Republic is stated as The Constitution for
the united
States of America!)
The Constitution of the United States of
America, Article IV
Full faith and credit shall be given
in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings
of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe
the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be
proved, and the effect thereof.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but
no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of
any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or
more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the
legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the
United States, or of any particular state.
Section
4.
The United States shall
guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of
government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on
application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the
legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Are you in doubt that the real original jurisdiction De Jure Republic is being restored? Do you have Questions that you want answered? Do you want to get involved? Visit https://national-assembly.net/ for more information and to participate. Check out the forums as the national assembly is 100% transparent to the public and welcomes public participation. This is the real deal folks. This is our last chance to do it right and nullify the 1871 contract that employed the U.S. Corporation to provide 19 governmental services to the people. This is our right under Article 1 of the Bill of rights. This also nullifies General Order 100 of 1863.
Search This Blog "if this search box is working"
Donation to assist in efforts to restore our republic
The DUKE - Patriot!
Born in 1948 Died in 2015
National Assembly of the people returning to self governance
Join the forums and introduce yourself so your state coordinator can connect with you.
Question -- What is the goal of this website? Why do we share different sources of information that sometimes conflicts or might even be considered disinformation?
Answer -- The primary goal of Nesaranews is to help all people become better truth-seekers in a real-time boots-on-the-ground fashion. This is for the purpose of learning to think critically, discovering the truth from within—not just believing things blindly because it came from an "authority" or credible source. Instead of telling you what the truth is, we share information from many sources so that you can discern it for yourself. We focus on teaching you the tools to become your own authority on the truth, gaining self-mastery, sovereignty, and freedom in the process. We want each of you to become your own leaders and masters of personal discernment, and as such, all information should be vetted, analyzed and discerned at a personal level. We also encourage you to discuss your thoughts in the comments section of this site to engage in a group discernment process.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle
11
Followers
The articles on this blog are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
US Supreme Court, in 1985, “Dowling v. United States”, unequivocally held that allegations of copyright infringement can be prosecuted only under copyright-specific legislation, not criminal law.
PRESIDENT OBAMA THE ANTICHRIST? 
