GOOD THOUGHTS.....
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Google CEO to Run Pentagon’s Surveillance Programs
GOOGLE CEO TO RUN PENTAGON'S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS
“They” will hear us even more clearly thanks to the fact that former Google CEO, now the head of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Eric Schmidt has been appointed to run Pentagon on surveillance.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced his intention to establish what he’s calling a Defense Innovation Advisory Board, meant to provide advice to the Department of Defense from a Silicon Valley point of view. Carter’s lead choice to head up this new board is no stranger to violating electronic privacy. Carter’s choice is former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt.
An unnamed Google source told me I was making “much ado about nothing”. Really? Nothing? Schmidt is presently the executive chairman of Google parent company Alphabet, as well as a tech adviser to the president of Google.
There is no doubt that these moves were made to avoid the public appearance of impropriety. As Google technology moves to supersede existing technology, Schmidt, still bolstered by his present Google retirement stock will be there to guide America’s obliteration of the Fourth Amendment, to the financial benefit of Google and to the detriment of our cherished Bill of Rights.
Google makes a record of where you visit on the Internet. Therefore, when you log on next time, you see an ad on your screen related to a recent visit. Will there ever be any limits to spying on the American people, from our out of control tyrannical government with Google running the Pentagon’s cyber security?
With innovations, such as Google Glass, the American public cannot even begin to imagine how much more our civil rights will be compromised with the technological innovations that will surely be coming our way. And with Eric Schmidt, with his financial interests in Alphabet (aka Google), will there be less or more incentive to violate the Fourth Amendment Rights of Americans?
Isn’t it interesting that nut all the Fourth Amendment violations has been uttered in tot one word abohe presidential debates?
Published on Mar 3, 2016
Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media | Andrea Shalal for Reuters reports, Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive officer of Google, will head a new Pentagon advisory board aimed at bringing Silicon Valley innovation and best practices to the U.S. military, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Wednesday.
See the report here: https://youtu.be/l9Mqd0au9zA
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/former-google-c...
See the report here: https://youtu.be/l9Mqd0au9zA
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/former-google-c...
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/03/04/google-ceo-to-run-pentagons-surveillance-programs/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=google-ceo-to-run-pentagons-surveillance-programs
Thousands Sign Petition to Arrest Bill Clinton
03 Mar 2016
Shawn
Did former President Bill Clinton violate Massachusetts state law on Super Tuesday? That’s the claim of at least one online petition, which is calling for Clinton to face charges.
“This is a call for the immediate arrest of President Bill Clinton for clear, knowing and egregious violation of the campaign laws to swing an election in a significant way,” says the Change.org petition, which racked up more than 65,000 signatures within 24 hours.
The problem stems from Clinton’s activities on Tuesday night. In support of his wife, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the former president visited polling stations in Boston and Newton, shaking hands and taking photos with voters as they lined up to cast their ballots.
According to several reports, Clinton went inside the Boston location, possibly in violation of electioneering laws. Massachusetts law states:
No person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election within 150 feet of a polling place.A spokesman for the Massachusetts secretary of state said that the allegations had little merit. “No one was prevented from voting,” said spokesman Brian McNiff. “The city and voters were notified well in advance of the event.”
But the secretary himself, Willian Galvin, admitted to the New York Times that Clinton may have overstepped his bounds. “We had to remind some of our poll workers that even a president can’t go inside and work a polling place,” he said. “We just took the extra precaution of telling them because this is not a usual occurrence. You don’t usually get a president doing this."
There’s a greater chance of Bill Clinton jumping in the race and campaigning against his wife than there is of him being arrested by Massachusetts authorities, but this is just one more example of a couple that has a palpable disdain for the law. And while this petition is being driven by Bernie Sanders supporters who feel jilted by election results that don’t match their online enthusiasm for the Vermont senator, it doesn’t change the fact that Clinton did indeed violate the law.
But when it comes to the Clintons, the regular rules simply don’t apply. It’s one scandal after another. Their arrogance is legendary, and their ability to consistently elude prosecution is nothing short of miraculous.
Political ideology aside, do the American people really want the presidency tarnished again by their wanton disregard for the law?
http://unfilteredpatriot.com/thousands-sign-petition-to-arrest-bill-clinton/
Clinton: The Last Words She Wanted To Hear
FBI Director Just CRUSHED Hillary’s Super Tuesday Momentum With The Last Words She Wanted To Hear
"I am very close, personally, to that investigation..."
FBI Director James Comey was called before a House Judiciary Committee Tuesday to comment on the government’s demands to have Apple unlock the encryption codes of cell phones used by the San Bernardino terrorists.
But when Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) had a chance to question Comey on the matter, he turned the tables and used the opportunity to ask Comey about the ongoing investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information on a private email server.
After acknowledging the intent of the hearing was unrelated to his questioning, Chabot said, “A few weeks back, the FBI’s general counsel James Baker acknowledged the the FBI is, quote, working on matters related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server" unquote.
Then Chabot quoted White House press secretary Josh Earnest saying, “Some officials over there (referring to the FBI) it’s said that Hillary Clinton is not a target of this investigation and it’s not trending in that direction, unquote. The president then weighed in even though he apparently had never been briefed on the matter commenting that, ‘He didn’t see any national security implications’ in Hillary’s emails and obviously this is a matter of considerable import. Is there anything you can tell us as to when this matter might be wrapped up one way or the other?” Chabot asked Comey.
Comey responded, “I can’t, congressman, as you know we don’t talk about our investigations. What I can assure you is that I am very close, personally, to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it’s done the way the FBI tries to do all of it’s work — independently, competently and promptly. That’s our goal, and I’m confident that it’s being done that way, but I can’t give you any more details beyond that."
Chabot then said he had expected Comey not to be able to comment on the matter, and then the subject of Apple’s refusal to unlock the terrorists’ cell phones continued.
What can be gleaned from the exchange is there is, in fact, an ongoing investigation of Clinton at the highest federal levels. Comey, the director of the FBI admitted he’s closely and personally involved in the investigation. And while the White House press secretary and the president himself seem dismissive of the allegations, it’s almost certain the FBI does not make a regular habit of investigating non-issues.
Chabot’s question and Comey’s answer can be seen below. The question regarding Clinton’s emails starts at 18:18.
FBI DIRECTOR ANSWERS QUESTIONS AT HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON APPLE-FBI ENCRYPTION | PART-1
Published on Mar 1, 2016
Apple Inc (AAPL.O) and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation will make their cases before a congressional panel on Tuesday regarding a court order to force the technology company to give the FBI data from the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters.
On Thursday, Apple filed a motion to vacate the court order, maintaining its stance that Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said he would be willing to take all the way to the Supreme Court.
A federal judge handed Apple a major victory in a phone unlocking case in Brooklyn on Monday, ruling that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to disable the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.
Apple's general counsel, Bruce Sewell, will argue Tuesday that creating a tool to unlock the phone would weaken the security of hundreds of millions of Apple devices, according to Sewell's prepared remarks before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
"Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety," he said in those remarks.
Sewell will testify directly after FBI Director James Comey, who told lawmakers last week that creating an unlocking technique would "unlikely to be a trailblazer" for setting a legal precedent and would not be useful for breaking into later generation Apple devices.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch called for greater cooperation between tech companies and the U.S. government in prepared remarks for the RSA Cybersecurity conference in San Francisco on Tuesday, saying "we don’t necessarily have to be locked in perpetual and perfect agreement – but we do have to be engaged in open dialogue."
Comey will tell the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI is "not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority," but rather to maintain its ability to obtain electronic information under legal authorities that Congress has already provided, according to his prepared remarks.
Comey told a congressional panel on Thursday that the phone could have "locator services" that would help the agency fill in a gap in its knowledge of the route that Rizwan Farook and Malik Tashfeen traveled as they fled police after their shooting rampage in December that killed 14 and wounded 22 in San Bernardino, California.
"We've looked at every gas station camera, every intersection camera, we have the whole route, but we're missing 19 minutes before they were finally killed by law enforcement," Comey said. "The answer to that might be on the device."
"Many members" of the House Judiciary Committee believe Congress, rather than the courts, should decide how to balance security and privacy concerns in such cases, according to a Democratic aide on the committee.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance will also testify in support of the FBI, arguing that default device encryption "severely harms" criminal prosecutions at the state level, including in cases in his district involving at least 175 iPhones.
Vance's office has drafted legislation it wants Congress to enact that would go beyond the single court case and require companies like Apple to ensure that their devices could be accessed in unencrypted form.
"My colleagues from jurisdictions around the country have been running into the same road blocks in their efforts to investigate and prosecute serious crimes," Vance said in prepared remarks.
The U.S. Justice Department has sought court orders to force Apple to extract data from 15 devices in the past four months, beginning with a case in Brooklyn in which Apple declined to cooperate with investigators in October.
On Thursday, Apple filed a motion to vacate the court order, maintaining its stance that Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said he would be willing to take all the way to the Supreme Court.
A federal judge handed Apple a major victory in a phone unlocking case in Brooklyn on Monday, ruling that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to disable the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.
Apple's general counsel, Bruce Sewell, will argue Tuesday that creating a tool to unlock the phone would weaken the security of hundreds of millions of Apple devices, according to Sewell's prepared remarks before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
"Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety," he said in those remarks.
Sewell will testify directly after FBI Director James Comey, who told lawmakers last week that creating an unlocking technique would "unlikely to be a trailblazer" for setting a legal precedent and would not be useful for breaking into later generation Apple devices.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch called for greater cooperation between tech companies and the U.S. government in prepared remarks for the RSA Cybersecurity conference in San Francisco on Tuesday, saying "we don’t necessarily have to be locked in perpetual and perfect agreement – but we do have to be engaged in open dialogue."
Comey will tell the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI is "not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority," but rather to maintain its ability to obtain electronic information under legal authorities that Congress has already provided, according to his prepared remarks.
Comey told a congressional panel on Thursday that the phone could have "locator services" that would help the agency fill in a gap in its knowledge of the route that Rizwan Farook and Malik Tashfeen traveled as they fled police after their shooting rampage in December that killed 14 and wounded 22 in San Bernardino, California.
"We've looked at every gas station camera, every intersection camera, we have the whole route, but we're missing 19 minutes before they were finally killed by law enforcement," Comey said. "The answer to that might be on the device."
"Many members" of the House Judiciary Committee believe Congress, rather than the courts, should decide how to balance security and privacy concerns in such cases, according to a Democratic aide on the committee.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance will also testify in support of the FBI, arguing that default device encryption "severely harms" criminal prosecutions at the state level, including in cases in his district involving at least 175 iPhones.
Vance's office has drafted legislation it wants Congress to enact that would go beyond the single court case and require companies like Apple to ensure that their devices could be accessed in unencrypted form.
"My colleagues from jurisdictions around the country have been running into the same road blocks in their efforts to investigate and prosecute serious crimes," Vance said in prepared remarks.
The U.S. Justice Department has sought court orders to force Apple to extract data from 15 devices in the past four months, beginning with a case in Brooklyn in which Apple declined to cooperate with investigators in October.
AM I A REAL JUDGE??
POPEYE
Judge Anna von Reitz
Every day I am asked, "Are you a 'real' judge?"
Judge Anna von Reitz has eloquently answered this question for her own
constituents. I share her answer and re-post it here. Thank you, Anna.
Alaska
State Superior Court Judge, Anna von Reitz – Judge of the actual
Alaska State, one of the Several States of the Continental
United States.
On Apr 28, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:
To answer that question and give you the fair full depth of it, you have to learn a lot of history and learn it right now. I am sick and tired of having people say I am not a judge and asking me in what sense I am a judge and coming up with all these silly suppositions and accusations, so I am going to answer you and then I am going to post this letter and let everyone else read it to their heart’s delight.
Please bear in mind that if you feel stupid or overwhelmed at the end, that’s normal, and we all go through that in the process of waking up. Just realize that you were intentionally defrauded and kept uninformed, so it isn’t your fault that you never knew any of this. You simply weren’t told. So let’s begin.
From the founding of this country onward the jurisdiction over the land was split from the jurisdiction over the sea.
The Continental United States — the actual geographically defined states with physical borders, etc.,– were given jurisdiction over the land, and their Citizens known as American State Citizens are the ones protected by The Constitution for the united States of America and vested with all powers of the civil government on the land.
The Federal United States was created (and limited) by The Constitution for the united States of America and given jurisdiction over the international jurisdiction of the sea. Circa 1868, the Federal United States started operating as a corporation doing business as the United States of America, Inc., and published its corporate charter as a look-alike, sound-alike “Constitution” we are all familiar with as the Constitution of the United States of America.
This is a different kind of document (a corporate charter) as well as being a different document in and of itself. As part of this reorganization the Federal United States created “State franchises” for itself. These are “States of States” such as you find described in the Uniform Commercial Code’s Definitions section. They exist only on paper and are corporate franchises in the same sense as your local Dairy Queen is a franchise of the national parent corporation.
Thus, you have the Ohio State (land jurisdiction) and you have the State of Ohio (sea jurisdiction) operating side by side, one being the natural jurisdiction owed the living people on the land, the other being a corporate franchise in the business of delivering governmental services and administrating the affairs of the Federal United States, its employees, and service contracts– all operating in the international jurisdiction of the sea.
The Continental United States is under the plenary (complete) control of the living People– the so-called “birthright” American State Citizens. We each have more civil authority on the land than the entire federal government.
The Federal United States is British-controlled and always has been.
All those “courts” that you think are your courts are not your courts, if you are an American born on the land of the Continental United States. They are a mish-mash of corporate administrative tribunals and martial law courts operated by the Federal United States and the Washington DC Municipality, all operating in the foreign international jurisdiction of the sea.
For example, THE SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA is run by the ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, INC., which is a federal corporation doing business as the “THE SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT” — a privately owned and operated for-profit corporate franchise which is under contract to act “FOR” the STATE OF ALASKA which is another private, mostly foreign-owned corporate franchise of the UNITED STATES, INC., which is owned and operated by the IMF, which is an agency of the UNITED NATIONS, INC.
Got that?
Now, does the local Burger King franchise have any right to haul you over to the side of the road and demand that you produce a license? No? Not unless you are a Burger King employee. Does the local Sears franchise have authority to foreclose upon you and kick you out of your house? No? Not unless you have a valid fully disclosed contract with Sears allowing them to do that.
It’s the same with the situation above. The fraud is that these yahoos are merely local franchises of national-level governmental services corporations—not the actual government at all, yet they are pretending to operate as public institutions.
How do you know that what I am telling you is true— that these really are nothing but private, for-profit corporations? They are listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. They have Employer Identification Numbers. The “laws” they use in these “courts” are all under private copyright. Just open up one of their “State Statute” books and look. Since when are public documents subject to copyright? They aren’t. If these crooks represented the actual State, all the documents would be Public Domain.
So, what kind of Judge am I?
I am their worst nightmare. I am a Judge of the actual Alaska State, one of the Several States of the Continental United States. I occupy the actual public office and operate the actual Alaska State Superior Court.
Note the difference:
Alaska State = actual State on the land, actual public office, using actual Public Law and operating under the American Common Law, which is the law of the land.
State of Alaska, STATE OF ALASKA, ALASKA = all various corporate franchises, private offices, operating under either administrative (purely private in-house corporate “laws”) or international law in the jurisdiction of the sea.
On Apr 28, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:
To answer that question and give you the fair full depth of it, you have to learn a lot of history and learn it right now. I am sick and tired of having people say I am not a judge and asking me in what sense I am a judge and coming up with all these silly suppositions and accusations, so I am going to answer you and then I am going to post this letter and let everyone else read it to their heart’s delight.
Please bear in mind that if you feel stupid or overwhelmed at the end, that’s normal, and we all go through that in the process of waking up. Just realize that you were intentionally defrauded and kept uninformed, so it isn’t your fault that you never knew any of this. You simply weren’t told. So let’s begin.
From the founding of this country onward the jurisdiction over the land was split from the jurisdiction over the sea.
The Continental United States — the actual geographically defined states with physical borders, etc.,– were given jurisdiction over the land, and their Citizens known as American State Citizens are the ones protected by The Constitution for the united States of America and vested with all powers of the civil government on the land.
The Federal United States was created (and limited) by The Constitution for the united States of America and given jurisdiction over the international jurisdiction of the sea. Circa 1868, the Federal United States started operating as a corporation doing business as the United States of America, Inc., and published its corporate charter as a look-alike, sound-alike “Constitution” we are all familiar with as the Constitution of the United States of America.
This is a different kind of document (a corporate charter) as well as being a different document in and of itself. As part of this reorganization the Federal United States created “State franchises” for itself. These are “States of States” such as you find described in the Uniform Commercial Code’s Definitions section. They exist only on paper and are corporate franchises in the same sense as your local Dairy Queen is a franchise of the national parent corporation.
Thus, you have the Ohio State (land jurisdiction) and you have the State of Ohio (sea jurisdiction) operating side by side, one being the natural jurisdiction owed the living people on the land, the other being a corporate franchise in the business of delivering governmental services and administrating the affairs of the Federal United States, its employees, and service contracts– all operating in the international jurisdiction of the sea.
The Continental United States is under the plenary (complete) control of the living People– the so-called “birthright” American State Citizens. We each have more civil authority on the land than the entire federal government.
The Federal United States is British-controlled and always has been.
All those “courts” that you think are your courts are not your courts, if you are an American born on the land of the Continental United States. They are a mish-mash of corporate administrative tribunals and martial law courts operated by the Federal United States and the Washington DC Municipality, all operating in the foreign international jurisdiction of the sea.
For example, THE SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA is run by the ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, INC., which is a federal corporation doing business as the “THE SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT” — a privately owned and operated for-profit corporate franchise which is under contract to act “FOR” the STATE OF ALASKA which is another private, mostly foreign-owned corporate franchise of the UNITED STATES, INC., which is owned and operated by the IMF, which is an agency of the UNITED NATIONS, INC.
Got that?
Now, does the local Burger King franchise have any right to haul you over to the side of the road and demand that you produce a license? No? Not unless you are a Burger King employee. Does the local Sears franchise have authority to foreclose upon you and kick you out of your house? No? Not unless you have a valid fully disclosed contract with Sears allowing them to do that.
It’s the same with the situation above. The fraud is that these yahoos are merely local franchises of national-level governmental services corporations—not the actual government at all, yet they are pretending to operate as public institutions.
How do you know that what I am telling you is true— that these really are nothing but private, for-profit corporations? They are listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. They have Employer Identification Numbers. The “laws” they use in these “courts” are all under private copyright. Just open up one of their “State Statute” books and look. Since when are public documents subject to copyright? They aren’t. If these crooks represented the actual State, all the documents would be Public Domain.
So, what kind of Judge am I?
I am their worst nightmare. I am a Judge of the actual Alaska State, one of the Several States of the Continental United States. I occupy the actual public office and operate the actual Alaska State Superior Court.
Note the difference:
Alaska State = actual State on the land, actual public office, using actual Public Law and operating under the American Common Law, which is the law of the land.
State of Alaska, STATE OF ALASKA, ALASKA = all various corporate franchises, private offices, operating under either administrative (purely private in-house corporate “laws”) or international law in the jurisdiction of the sea.
http://www.americanlawoftheland.com/announcements/am-i-a-real-judge
The CFR declares war on Donald Trump!
The Council of Foreign Relations Declares War On Donald Trump - His Days Are Numbered
By Dave Hodges|March 1st, 2016
There will be no parades and no media shows which start out as… “we interrupt this broadcast to bring you this breaking news item…”, but the almighty Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) has spoken and they are endorsing a Hillary Clinton, but mostly they have issued a position statement that Donald Trump must be stopped at all costs.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is their choice and has always been their choice to follow Obama into the White House, with her criminal behavior notwithstanding. (that's exactly WHY she is their choice)
Look at the background behind Mrs. Clinton. This is how the CFR gives tacit approval. No matter how criminal, no matter how long the trail of bodies becomes, the CFR is “all in” for their support of America’s modern day version of Lizzy Borden.
As an average American, any time the CFR, or its first cousin the Trilateral Commission, endorses a candidate, no matter how subtle the endorsement, I assume it is opposite day and move in the other direction.
Relevant CFR History
Do you know your CFR history? The CFR was the first “modern-day”
globalist organization that arose in the early 1920’s when President
Wilson was unable to convince the Senate and the American people that it
would be a good idea to join The League of Nations, which arose out of
the ashes of World War I.
These people are intent on owning all
energy on the planet through unrealistic caps on our energy usage. Their
system of carbon trading will reduce the lifestyles of the average
person to about the 1870’s in terms of lifestyles, if we are lucky.
Dehumanization and Depopulation are central themes of this approach.Pat Wood details this in his book Technocracy Rising.
Valerie Jarrett, who is really in charge of the White House?
The ushering in of these strict environmental regulations is why
Obama is sitting in the White House. At some future date I will, in
great detail, Obama’s connection to this group. Suffice for now, let’s
just say that his original membership in the Joyce Foundation where
Obama worked for Valerie Jarrett, now the senior-White House advisor is
noteworthy. With the support of notables such as Al Gore, Warren Buffet and George Soros, the Joyce Foundation morphed into the intended carbon trading organization, The Chicago Climate Exchange.
When the smoke clears, Obama may not get his entire package codified into law. However, that is why the CFR has Hillary Clinton. At stake, is the world economy.
The 'elite' power structure of the CFR is in charge of the smart grid, and ultimately the use of all energy on this planet including the world’s new economy, carbon trading, the new global currency.
This is the most important presidential race in our history because of the specter of technocracy. If Hillary secures the White House, the 'elite' in the CFR are going to get exactly what they want, absolute power over the planet and with that, the complete power over who lives and who dies.
Let’s take a look at the CFR’s condemnation of Trump and their de facto endorsement of Clinton so there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of what I am speaking about.
Relevant Excerpts From The CFR’s The Economist
…the Republican nomination could be all but over. Donald Trump has already won three of the first four contests. On March 1st, Super Tuesday, 12 more states will vote. Mr Trump has a polling lead in all but three of them. Were these polls to translate into results, as they have so far, Mr Trump would not quite be unbeatable. It would still be possible for another candidate to win enough delegates to overtake him. But that would require the front-runner to have a late, spectacular electoral collapse of a kind that has not been seen before. Right now the Republican nomination is his to lose...With the statement the CFR alarm was sounded. But there is more…(The traitors within this nation, influenced by the CFR, are all out to conduct a media smear campaign unlike any ever seen before in this nation)..
When pollsters ask voters to choose in a face-off between Mr Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner wins by less than three percentage points. Mr Trump would have plenty of time to try to close that gap. An economy that falls back into recession or an indictment for Mrs Clinton might do it for him.
That is an appalling prospect. The things Mr Trump has said in this campaign make him unworthy of leading one of the world’s great political parties, let alone America. One way to judge politicians is by whether they appeal to our better natures: Mr Trump has prospered by inciting hatred and violence. He is so unpredictable that the thought of him anywhere near high office is terrifying. He must be stopped (Editor’s Note: Stopped at all costs?).This last statement is a declaration of war by the self-appointed 'elite' in this country and this is so reminiscent of what happened to Bobby Kennedy.
When one is losing an argument, they resort to name-calling and that is what we see here where the power-brokers are so desperate that they resort to infantile name calling, taking quotes of out of context and engaging in the worst type of yellow journalism.
There’s more…
,,,hinted that Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, was murdered (Editor’s Note: He was murdered); proposed banning all Muslims from visiting America (Editor’s Note: Trump stated that all immigrants should be screened, a sentiment embraced by most Americans with common sense).
Conclusion
What is the fate of all effective reformers.
When the Council of Foreign Relations
declares war on an individual, history shows (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, et al)
have a short shelf-life. One can only imagine how John F. Kennedy felt
when he knew that the interlocked and combined forces of the Federal
Reserve, the oil industry and the military industrial complete were
closing in on him. Donald Trump is in a very similar position.
This
is often the fate of those who would dare to buck the CFR power elite. I
liken Trump and his future to Larry McDonald more than I do John Kennedy. I
see it ending the same way.
I do not want to end this article on a note of doom and gloom. Those
of us who work in the independent media know that if you are going to be on
the list, you better be on the top of the list. Right now, placing
extreme attention on the topic of Trump’s safety is the best way to
keep him alive until 'election' day.. (THEN, 'THE ONE" they have chosen to fill that position will be the 'winner' irregardless of the 'voting public.' That's the way it is - like it or not.)
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/03/01/the-council-of-foreign-relations-declares-war-on-donald-trump-his-days-are-numbered/
ONE NAZI POPE SUPPORTS ANOTHER NAZI ABORTIONIST
PRO-LIFERS EXPRESSED SHOCK AFTER POPE FRANCIS PRAISED THE "MARGARET SANGER" OF ITALIAN POLITICS
In an interview early in February the Pope called former Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino one of the nation's "forgotten greats." Bonino for decades has been known as Italy's most outspoken abortion-rights activist.
In his interview with the Italian daily Corriere Della Serra, the Pope acknowledged that his praise, in which he compared her to historical figures such as Konrad Adenauer, who was the first post-world War II chancellor of Germany, and the famed French statesman Robert Schuman, could be considered controversial.
He noted she has critics but dismissed them, saying, "True, but never mind. We have to look at people, at what they do." He also praised her work and advice in dealing with Africa.
The Pope's remarks surprised church traditionalists.
"How can the Pope praise a woman that is best known in Italy for practicing illegal abortion and promoting abortion?" said Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro, who was until last year the head of the Rome office of Human Life International, reports the pro-life website LifeSiteNews.
Bonino, a leading member of the Radical Party and former European commissioner, is well known for having an abortion at the age of 27 and then working with the Information Centre on Sterilization and Abortion, which was responsible for 10,000 abortions, notes LifeSiteNews.
She entered politics after being acquitted on charges of performing illegal abortions, the site says, and there are photos of her performing abortions using a homemade device operated by a bicycle pump.
Italian politician Luca Volonte, president of the pro-life Novae Terrae Foundation, suggested to LifeSiteNews that the Pope "was not really informed about how much Mrs. Bonino has done in Italy and at the international level to promote abortion and euthanasia."
In his interview with the Italian daily Corriere Della Serra, the Pope acknowledged that his praise, in which he compared her to historical figures such as Konrad Adenauer, who was the first post-world War II chancellor of Germany, and the famed French statesman Robert Schuman, could be considered controversial.
He noted she has critics but dismissed them, saying, "True, but never mind. We have to look at people, at what they do." He also praised her work and advice in dealing with Africa.
The Pope's remarks surprised church traditionalists.
"How can the Pope praise a woman that is best known in Italy for practicing illegal abortion and promoting abortion?" said Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro, who was until last year the head of the Rome office of Human Life International, reports the pro-life website LifeSiteNews.
Bonino, a leading member of the Radical Party and former European commissioner, is well known for having an abortion at the age of 27 and then working with the Information Centre on Sterilization and Abortion, which was responsible for 10,000 abortions, notes LifeSiteNews.
She entered politics after being acquitted on charges of performing illegal abortions, the site says, and there are photos of her performing abortions using a homemade device operated by a bicycle pump.
Italian politician Luca Volonte, president of the pro-life Novae Terrae Foundation, suggested to LifeSiteNews that the Pope "was not really informed about how much Mrs. Bonino has done in Italy and at the international level to promote abortion and euthanasia."
Obama to appoint foreigner to Supreme Court?!
Obama moving forward with nominations to replace former Judge Antonin Scalia
JUDGE WOULD BE FIRST INDIAN-AMERICAN NAMED
TO SUPREME COURT
MARIA SUDEKUM
Mar 3 2016
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (AP) — Sri
Srinivasan, a federal appeals judge who was born in India and grew up in
Kansas, would be the first foreign-born justice to serve on the Supreme
Court in more than 50 years.
The 49-year-old
Srinivasan is one of several people being mentioned prominently as a
potential successor to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died
last month. Replacing Scalia has become a major issue in this year's
presidential race as Republicans insist that the next president, not
President Barack Obama, should choose a successor.
A
judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, Srinivasan would bring to the high court previous experience as
an attorney in private practice, a law clerk to two
Republican-appointed judges and a high-ranking official in the Obama
Justice Department.
He has a "first-rate intellect, an open-minded
approach to the law, a strong work ethic, and an unimpeachable
character," high-ranking Justice Department veterans of Democratic and
Republican administrations said in a letter endorsing him for the
appeals court. He had a 97-0 confirmation vote by the Senate in 2013.
Srinivasan
told the Senate Judiciary Committee then that he has "a deep respect
for the need for strict objectivity and impartiality in the task of
judging," citing both his work for Vice President Al Gore after the 2000
presidential election and his later work in the Justice Department
under Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the lead lawyer for George W.
Bush in the Supreme Court case that decided the 2000 race.
"I
think any objection to Sri would have to be based on notions that he's
either not conservative enough or not liberal enough," said Stephen
McAllister, a law professor at the University of Kansas. "It could not
be intellectual ability, could not be writing ability, it could not be
his general competence in the law."
Srinivasan would be the
court's first Indian-American and its first Hindu, on a bench with five
Catholics and three Jews. The last justice who was born overseas was
Austrian-born Felix Frankfurter, who retired from the court in 1962.
Srinivasan
received his bachelor's degree, law degree and MBA from Stanford
University. He clerked for U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson in
Virginia and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, both
appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He also worked as the top
political deputy in the Solicitor General's office in the Obama
administration.
If nominated
and confirmed, Srinivasan would have to step aside from high court
consideration of two cases he has been involved with on the federal
appeals court. He has been considering challenges to the Obama
administration's plan to address climate change, and "net neutrality"
rules that regulate how the Internet is delivered to consumers.
EDITOR'S
NOTE _ First in a series of profiles of potential nominees to the U.S.
Supreme Court, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-first-indian-american-named-supreme-court-135443527.html
OBAMA IS REPORTEDLY VETTING JANE L. KELLY AS A POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE TO REPLACE THE LATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
MARCH 2, 2016
Kelly, 51, is a federal appellate judge in Iowa. The FBI has been conducting interviews with Kelly as part of the process to find a new justice, The New York Times reported Wednesday. Obama is expected to choose Scalia’s successor in the next few weeks, but might face a block from congressional Republicans.
The possibility of Kelly’s nomination may make it awkward for Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has vowed to block confirmation of the appointee until after November’s general election. Grassley is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and can decide whether to hold confirmation hearings.
Grassley praised Kelly in a speech on the Senate floor in 2013 prior to her being confirmed for her current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He also urged his colleagues to support his decision.
According to The New York Times, Democrats have said privately that if Obama does select Kelly it may change Grassley’s stance on whether to hold hearings. However, Grassley has said he wouldn’t support nominee hearings even if Obama selects an Iowan.
Kelly told the Times, through an assistant, that she’s not going to give interviews on the subject.
Last week it was thought that Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval could be named the successor to Justice Scalia. However, he said he told the White House he wasn’t interested in the nomination.
Earlier today, I notified the White House that I do not wish to be considered at this time for possible nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Sandoval said in a statement, adding he’s told key Senate leaders the same. “The notion of being considered for a seat on the highest court in the land is beyond humbling and I am incredibly grateful to have been mentioned."
Other potential candidates on the short list include Judges Patricia Millett and Sri Srinvasan, both who are on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/obama-reportedly-considering-judge-jane-l-kelly-for-supreme-court-seat.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html?_r=2
Click for more from The New York Times.
Kelly, 51, is a federal appellate judge in Iowa. The FBI has been conducting interviews with Kelly as part of the process to find a new justice, The New York Times reported Wednesday. Obama is expected to choose Scalia’s successor in the next few weeks, but might face a block from congressional Republicans.
The possibility of Kelly’s nomination may make it awkward for Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has vowed to block confirmation of the appointee until after November’s general election. Grassley is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and can decide whether to hold confirmation hearings.
Grassley praised Kelly in a speech on the Senate floor in 2013 prior to her being confirmed for her current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He also urged his colleagues to support his decision.
According to The New York Times, Democrats have said privately that if Obama does select Kelly it may change Grassley’s stance on whether to hold hearings. However, Grassley has said he wouldn’t support nominee hearings even if Obama selects an Iowan.
Kelly told the Times, through an assistant, that she’s not going to give interviews on the subject.
Last week it was thought that Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval could be named the successor to Justice Scalia. However, he said he told the White House he wasn’t interested in the nomination.
Earlier today, I notified the White House that I do not wish to be considered at this time for possible nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Sandoval said in a statement, adding he’s told key Senate leaders the same. “The notion of being considered for a seat on the highest court in the land is beyond humbling and I am incredibly grateful to have been mentioned."
Other potential candidates on the short list include Judges Patricia Millett and Sri Srinvasan, both who are on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/03/obama-reportedly-considering-judge-jane-l-kelly-for-supreme-court-seat.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html?_r=2
Click for more from The New York Times.
Friday, March 4, 2016
THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY EXTORTING TAXES FOR THE CROWN! A DOCUMENTARY REVIEW OF CHARTERS AND TREATIES
THE
UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
EXTORTING
TAXES FOR THE CROWN!
A
DOCUMENTARY REVIEW OF CHARTERS AND TREATIES
August
17, 1996
An
Expose'
An
introduction by the "Informer"
This
is the latest from a man who visits me quite often. He and another
man researched my theory that we have never been free from the
British Crown. This disc shows the results. I have states that we
will never win in their courts. This shows conclusively why. We have
the hard copy of the treaties that are the footnotes. This predates
Schroder's material, my research of the 1861 stats by Lincoln that
put us under the War Powers confiscation acts, and John Nelson's
material. All our material supports that the real Principal, the King
of England, still rules this country through the bankers and why we
own no property in allodium. This is why it is so important to start
OUR courts of God's natural (common) Law and break away from all the
crap they have handed us. This is one reason Virginia had a law to
hang all lawyers but was somehow, by someone, (the King) set aside to
let them operate again. Some good people put in the original 13th
amendment so that without the lawyers the King could not continue his
strangle hold on us. James shows how that was quashed by the King. I
am happy that James' research of six months bears out my theory, that
most people would not listen to me, that we are still
citizen/subjects under the kings of England. My article called
"Reality" published in the American Bulletin and the
article of mine on the "Atocha case," wherein Florida in
1981 used it's sovereignty under the British crown to try to take
away the gold from the wreck found in Florida waters supports this
premise. James makes mention of the Law dictionaries being England's
Law Dict. you will not is lists the reign of all the Kings of
England. It never mentions the reign of the Presidents of this
country. Ever wonder Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
