Wednesday, November 30, 2011
New York Times
Published: November 29, 2011WASHINGTON — Defying the Obama administration’s threat of a veto, the Senate on Tuesday voted to increase the role of the military in imprisoning suspected members of Al Qaeda and its allies — including people arrested inside the United States.
By a vote of 61 to 37, the Senate turned back an effort to strip a major military bill of a set of disputed provisions affecting the handling of terrorism cases. While the legislation still has several steps to go, the vote makes it likely that Congress will eventually send to President Obama’s desk a bill that contains detainee-related provisions his national-security team has said are unacceptable.
The most disputed provision would require the government to place into military custody any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies. The provision would exempt American citizens, but would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.
A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago.
Full story HERE
By Dr. Patrick Jonston
November 30, 2011
Revelation 13, a Metaphor for Today
The Bible speaks of a government in the last days that “makes war with the Lamb” (Rev. 13). This totalitarian state demands worship of its image – “the beast.” This government mandates a “mark” on the forehead or back of the hand in order to buy or sell. This government slays many martyrs. “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man…” The mark represents the worship of man.
Throughout the book of Revelation, there is a distinction between those who “worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark” and those who “had gotten victory over the beast and his image, and his mark.” The former are judged and condemned to the lake of fire; the latter are received into heaven’s glory to rule and to reign with Christ forever.
What’s so evil about receiving a government-mandated mark in order to buy or sell? One must take care of his family, right? One must obey the “higher powers”, right? (Romans 13:1-4) “Obey those that have rule over you,” right? Receiving the “mark” is evil because one must violate God’s law and worship the image of the state in order to receive it. To worship the state is to commit idolatry, to rebel against God Almighty. God is the “highest power”, and disobeying God’s law to submit to man’s evil mandates is to receive a “mark” that brings condemnation.
The State Demands, “Render Unto Caesar That Which Is God’s”
The Roman pagans asked the church patriarch Polycarp, “What harm is it to say ‘Lord Caesar’ and sacrifice, and save yourself?”
As documented in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Polycarp responded, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never once wronged me. How then shall I blaspheme my king, who hath saved me?”
They would have let Polycarp continue to worship Jesus Christ, as long as He paid homage to Caesar. But God did not give Polycarp the option of serving two masters (Matt. 6:24). God did not give Polycarp the option of being a friend of the world and a friend of God (James 4:4). God did not give Polycarp the option of worshiping the state and the Creator, of yielding to sin and to righteousness (Rom. 6:16). Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.” Polycarp refused to render unto Caesar that which belonged only to God and was burnt at the stake for it.
Comparatively, what little cost there appears to be today to sacrifice to the state, to spurn God’s Word and will for the word and will of government. The greatest cost, however, is losing the blessing of God.
The Pro-Life Movement Prefers Man’s Word and Will to God’s
How does the pro-life movement worship the state over God?
Let’s contrast God’s word and will with the government’s word and will. God’s Word says, “Do no murder” (Sixth Commandment, Exod. 20). God’s Word further mandates the state to protect the innocent through enforcing a penalty sufficient to discourage the crime (Exod. 21, Rom. 13:3-4). God’s Word says that justice is a local matter (Deut. 21). God’s Word says that life begins in the womb. With regard to the killing of innocent children: “It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:14). Not one.
In permitting innocent children of God to be slaughtered unjustly, our government is “at war with the Lamb” and in defiance of Almighty God. Our government is also at war with our U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court declares that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit abortion, including the abortion of healthy babies mature enough to survive outside the womb. Don’t they know that the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”? Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, in 1803, said, “A law repugnant [or repulsive] to the Constitution is void.” Would you cash a check with words “VOID” across the front of it? Well, then why do you respect Supreme Court decisions that are by their very nature just as null and void?
When the federal government rules contrary to the law of God and the U.S. Constitution, states should not obey them. Those who disobey God to submit to the evil commands of evil government, those who “sacrifice to Caesar” to protect and preserve their lives and positions are condemned by God. It is those who disobey the evil commands of evil government - even unto death - that are received into heaven to rule and reign with Christ. This was the understanding of both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin when they both said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” This was the Apostle Peter’s understanding when he said, “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
As the federal judiciary consistently rules contrary to the U.S. Constitution and contrary to the law of God, much of the pro-life movement can be relied upon to tread the word of God and the U.S. Constitution underfoot in their submission to the High Court’s lawless rule.
Striking evidence can be seen in how several large pro-life groups responded to the Mississippi Personhood Amendment (which would have ended abortion in Mississippi, and yet failed to pass on November 8). Shirley Henderson, the director of communications for the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, said this in early November:
“The stance of the Diocese of Biloxi is that the push for a state amendment could ultimately harm the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
The Catholic Diocese of Jackson, which presides over Catholic churches in the upper half of Mississippi, said this in October,
“While we sincerely respect the goal to amend the Mississippi Constitution so as to acknowledge full human rights for every human being, after careful consideration, it is our opinion and that of the legal experts with whom we have consulted that passage of this amendment would not achieve the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. If such an amendment were to pass, we are convinced that a federal district court would strike it down based on Roe. This decision would undoubtedly be affirmed by an appellate court, and the case would either not be granted further review by today’s U.S. Supreme Court, or worse, would lead to a reaffirmation of Roe. The unintended effect would very likely jeopardize current protections in state law and cause a loss of momentum in the ultimate goal of establishing full legal protection of the unborn from the moment of conception.”
Both Catholic Dioceses in Mississippi opposed or would not support the Mississippi Personhood Amendment because they feared the Supreme Court would strike it down. National Right to Life opposes statewide abortion bans and personhood amendments in state after state for the same reason. In 2006, Denise Mackura, the president of Ohio Right to Life bashed House Bill 228 - the Ohio Abortion Ban – as she testified before the Health Committee of the Ohio state legislature on the same grounds: it wouldn’t survive the judiciary. Americans United for Life, who did not support the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, said that it “would not have led to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.”
We see a pattern. Some of the largest and well-funded pro-life groups in America would not support a simple amendment that declares life begins at fertilization – a fact with which they all agree – because of their respect for the lawless decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s word trumped God’s Word and the U.S. Constitution in their mind, and they bowed to the Supreme Court’s word and will in defiance of God Almighty’s word and will. They’ve taken “the mark.”
The Supreme Court’s rule is not supreme: God and the U.S. Constitution are both supreme over the Supreme Court. The High Court’s jurisdiction is limited. Ohio shouldn’t respect the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion any more than we should respect the Supreme Court’s decision to worship a man and take a literal “mark.” Ohio is obligated by God to protect the innocent within our jurisdiction through law and penalty, even if we must defy the Supreme Court in doing so.
Full story HERE
The PPJ Gazette
November 29, 2011
I am sometimes baffled by how quickly many people quickly assume that because they were not personally named in some piece of legislation, that somehow the provisions of that legislation do not and could not apply to them. Having spent a great deal of time over the years dissecting legislative language, backtracking changes to code & title and the ever popular “redefinition of terms” used to change the entire common understanding of what a word or phrase means within these tortured constructs called legislation, I know better.
My recent article on S.1867 elicited comments to the effect that a few commenters had read the bill and that I was simply being inflammatory and emotional. Yes…..of course….that must be it.
Lest anyone forget:
- The insidious Patriot Act followed by
- The Security Enhancement Act of 2003,
- the infamous Military Commissions Act 2006,
- followed by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act 2007 and,
- which called for the suspension of habeas corpus (4th Amendment due process)
- all of which gave the president the power to arbitrarily determine on his own, that any one of us was a “domestic terrorist” and going even further to
- allow the president to strip us of our citizenship at his discretion with no oversight.
Each of these unconstitutional bills was a piece of the puzzle being constructed incrementally as the Constitution and our rights were being trashed.
These anti-American laws were not the only affront to the Constitution, our rights and the advancement of the police state. Now why, you might be asking, would anyone want to give the president of the United States the arbitrary authority to strip any US citizen of their citizenship with no evidence other than his/her belief that one of us is a terrorist, or supports terrorism, without the evidence supporting that contention, or being officially charged with a crime? Hmmm. Where to start on this one.
Let’s go back to the redefining of prisoners of war (POW’s) as “enemy combatants”. This change in terminology allowed the Bush regime, and now Obama, to by-pass the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners, including what has become our government’s proclivity for torture and avoided much of the international rules of war. It didn’t seem like much at the time, but we know now that it was to redefine the individuals targeted; if we don’t call them prisoners of war we don’t have to abide by the rules. Simple.
Next came Homeland Security’s determination that US citizens who oppose government policy, mention the Constitution, support third party candidates like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, were to viewed as possible domestic terrorists along with social advocates, religious advocates and anyone who attended a rally or protest among many other things.
This was followed by the discovery of Homeland Security documents describing who was to be viewed as a clear and present danger to the federal government (not the country) citing the use of REX84 black ops program along with Presidential Directive 51, that no one has been allowed to see, to conduct “Knock & Talk , Sneak & Peek, checkpoints; exigent search and seizure; meaning far more than what would be determined reasonable.
Next came the launching of TSA which had been planned long before 9/11. The unlawful detaining of legal US citizens with the accompanying exigent search and molestation continues to this day for no other reason than they are traveling. HSD has compiled no-fly lists, suspect lists, black lists, suspected domestic terrorists list and a host of other lists most of will never know we are on for reasons we will never actually know. Originally called Total Information Awareness (TIA), the program was shut down in 2003. Like all things the government does, TIA never went anywhere but simply got parceled out to other agencies making it harder to track while the core program was simply renamed TSA.
Most recently, Obama has approved a new program which allows him to authorize the targeted killing of people in foreign countries that the administration decides is a threat (to them) and includes targeting of US citizens right here at home and abroad. This program, which is nothing more than sanctified murder, is a violation of international laws which prohibit the killing of individuals outside of armed combat zones.
The program will allow the CIA or the military the unchecked authority to murder at will, US citizens and others, around the globe without any evidence of crime, threat or violent activity towards the United States, other than they said so.
The intent through all of these assaults on the Constitution and our protected rights has been to find the means to redefine any one of us as a non-military enemy combatant to facilitate the police state. Once redefined, once the definitive description of who and what we are has been altered to suit the government agenda, it is open season on any one of us.
This brings us right back to S. 1867 Defense Authorization Act of 2011. The striking of an amendment stating clearly:
S.1254 included Section 1031
(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
S.1254 was the predecessor to S.1867 and the latter no longer contains this provision. Now why would anyone remove what is clearly a section meant to protect the citizens of the United States from the actions of their own government?
Section 1031 d) now reads:
Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. http://www.govtrack.us
Considering the president has already been given the authority to strip us of our citizenship, declare us a domestic terrorist and non-military enemy combatant, and to have us killed if he chooses to what is there to limit or expand?
In what is clearly an effort to manipulate public thinking,
“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
Apparently, I was not as inflammatory and emotional as some would have you believe. Shocked, maybe. Angered for sure.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
November 28th, 2011
Disclaimer: Here is another excerpt from my upcoming book, Beyond Flesh and Blood: The Ultimate Guide To Angels and Demons. Some of the thoughts and ideas presented may change by the time this is published.
How do you get people to voluntarily sacrifice their children in a modern world? You rewrap the old concept of Eugenics as Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, held many of Hitler’s beliefs, including a belief in Eugenics. Eugenics is the belief that only the smartest, wealthiest, and genetically pure people should be allowed to reproduce. The belief also teaches that the poor and genetically imperfect should be sterilized or encouraged to abort their unborn children. Andrew Hoffman wrote a very thorough book on Eugenics and how it ties in to the end time scenario and spiritual deception. His book is called, The NWO and The Eugenics Wars. It is highly recommended for anyone that wants to know what Eugenics is all about.
When Hitler’s ovens started sacrificing millions of Jews, the Foo Fighters showed up in mass shortly after. In our modern times UFO sightings are on the rise and the number of abortions worldwide are estimated to be 42 million per year. To put this in perspective, there are an estimated 205 million pregnancies per year. Roughly 1/5 of those children are being exterminated before birth. The fetuses that are not used in stem cell research are then incinerated by medical professionals. This practice of burning children ties directly back to the Old Testament.
There are many people that recognize this practice for exactly what it is. The scientific response was to redefine what it means to be alive so that people would not view abortion as murder. Hitler sacrificed roughly 6,000,000 people during a period of three years, not counting the ones that died from the concentration camp conditions. If his sacrifice of nearly 6,000,000 people heralded the arrival of the Foo Fighters, is it a coincidence that we currently kill 42,000,000 unborn children per year and UFO sightings have increased since the 1940s? In the Old Testament, this same practice of child sacrifice was addressed in the book of Psalms.
“And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.” – 2 Kings 17:17
“Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.” – Psalm 106:37-40
The abortion issue in America is not just a right vs. left or a right vs. wrong issue, it is an issue of continuing pagan rituals designed to worship demons and provoke God to anger. It was also through these human sacrifices that many cultures claim to have obtained various aspects of their knowledge and technology.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't have a personal relationship with Christ, it's as simple as asking forgiveness of your past sins, believing that He is the son of God, believing that He died and resurrected to save you from your sins, and inviting Him into your heart to be your Lord and Savior. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." - Romans 10:13
November 28, 2011
Deborah Dupre, Human Rights Examiner
Martial Law 'National Defense Authorization Act bill' versus Udall Amendment
As the Senate readies to vote on an amendment that would enact Martial Law and human rights violations worse than the United States has seen to date as John McCain and Levin are supporting, an afront on the U.S. Constitution, ACLU said Monday in a written statement that senators need to hear from Americans now to urge Senators to vote instead for the Udall Amendment that Senator Mark Udall has written about in the Washington Post Monday.
"I have no doubt that my colleagues had the best of intentions when they wrote those provisions, but their proposal is deeply flawed," stated Mark Udall in his op-ed in the Washington Post Monday. "If the Senate passes this legislation in a vote expected this week, we risk harming our ability to combat terrorism and weakening our national security."
Monday, November 28, 2011
By Sarah Foster
November 23, 2011
Josephine County, Ore. -- Two months ago Gil Gilbertson, the sheriff of this rural county in southern Oregon, drafted a 10-page report exploring the origins and extent of federal power within a state and emailed his findings to various parties, asking for comment.
Since the report was in rough-draft form he was somewhat surprised that it went viral, but it shows there are a lot of people hungry for information about how much power (particularly law-enforcement power) the federal government actually wields within a state, where that power comes from, and the limits to that power.
Gilbertson continued his research and recently completed a 13-page revised and updated version, retitled: Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction within a State. It is highly footnoted with references to statutes and court decisions.
This a “must read” for anyone concerned about infringements against the 10th Amendment and federal encroachments in general – like road closures, Wild Lands and Monument designations, mining and other resource uses. In other words, this is for anyone and everybody with an interest – no matter how casual -- in accessing the public lands, either as a “resource user” (a rancher or miner) or simply a casual vacationer who enjoys weekend camping.
“If you’d told me two years ago that I would be writing such a document, I would have probably walked away from you shaking my head,” the sheriff notes in the introduction.
“This paper is a result of a clash with the federal [U.S. Forest Service] law enforcement in this county, from citizens complaining of what can only be described as harassment and violations of their rights,” he explains. “The first time I approached the USFS the door closed regarding any discussion. The USFS advised me to file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. “
Eventually Gilbertson was able to discuss the issue with the Forest Service. “Most of my questions were answered except for one: Where does the USFS’s authority come from? (bold-face in original). The answer(s) were surprising.”
Finding the answer is one of five tasks he set himself, which he lists as follows:
1. Identify true jurisdictional authority of the Federal Government
2. Examine and expose how the reserved powers of the States are usurped by federal agencies writing and enforcing their self-imposed codes and regulations
3. Examine how the health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens within the State are undermined
4. Provide a positive and equitable solution
5. Coordinate with like-minded Sheriffs to take a formal stance on these issues.
To sum up his conclusions regarding federal authority in a very small nutshell: the original idea was for the federal government to hold public lands within a state in trust, with the intention being for eventual disposal. Gilbertson writes:
“The public lands (out West) were considered by many as the ‘problem lands.’ However, the approved procedure, since the passage of the Resolutions of October 1780, was that the central government held the lands in trust. Upon a state being admitted to the Union, the federal government had the trust authority and obligation to dispose of the lands for expansion, exploration, occupancy, and production by setters.
“Slowly, over the years many of these ‘public lands’ held in trust seemingly became more desirable to retain, rather than for disposal. Newly formed federal regulatory agencies worked their way into existence, each taking an increasingly expanding role (enter ‘mission creep’). By 1976 complete and total disregard for the trust obligation to dispose of public land was made clear in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which states: ‘…that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership.’”
Sheriff Gilbertson talked with NWV about his report, expanding on his views about the division of power between federal and state governments.
He strongly questions the legality and constitutionality of executive orders and various regulations, as well as laws like FLPMA, observing that Congress has the sole authority to make law, not the president, not the agencies. Not surprisingly he takes sharp issue with President Obama who has declared he’ll “circumvent the Constitution” through the use of executive orders.
“The Constitution is clear on who has police and legislative powers. Those executive orders are not law,” said Gilbertson.
And while FLPMA is a congressionally passed statute, it delegates undue powers to the agencies. “Congress cannot give an agency the ability to write rules and regulations and enforce them as if they were law,” he said. “Congress has to do that. These agencies write their own rules and regulations as they go along and enforce these as law.”
“The big issue, as I see it,” he continued, “is that all these things combine. You have DEQ, EPA, all these federal entities. And as all these federal agencies evolved over the years, there’s been mission creep. They decided, well, we need to fix this; this gives us more powers, and so forth, so we’ll just write down more rules and regulations. They were allowed to get away with it for whatever reason, and now they enforce those as laws. But it’s clearly stated that that can’t be done -- I spelled that out in my document,” he said.
Moreover, “Forest reserves were not federal enclaves subject to the doctrine of exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States. Local peace officers were to exercise civil and criminal process over these lands. Forest Service rangers were not law enforcement officers unless designated as such by state authority.”
The federal government sees it otherwise, so in addition to expanding claims for general regulatory power agencies like the Forest Service are attempting to extend the reach of law enforcement authority – a matter that adds to Gilbertson’s concerns.
“The U.S. Forest Service and BLM are really stepping outside their authority in that the Constitution does not give them that,” he observed. “The Tenth Amendment clearly reserves police rights to the states.”
Law Enforcement Power Grab
Sheriffs in other counties have taken note of this development. In his report Gilbertson refers to a one-page position paper by the Western States Sheriffs’ Association that concurs with his observations, and in fact grew from his earlier one. He writes, quoting from the WSSA statement:
“The USFS recently sent out a communication dated July 15, 2011, titled Federal Register publication of Final Proposed Rules [Title 36] 262, 261, and 212 purportedly to clarify and expand their authority.
On Sept. 21, the Western States Sheriffs Association responded with a position paper to this USFS publication by writing: “The membership of the Western States Sheriffs Association has reviewed the proposed rule changes and believes they exhibit the following: (1) an absolute disregard for the sovereignty of the individual States, (2) a disregard for the authority of the Office of Sheriff, and (3) A continued inability of the Forest Service to understand the mission and function of its Law Enforcement component."
Additionally, “This effort is viewed as an unnecessary and unauthorized expansion of federal police powers. The ultimate legal and constitutional authority for the protection of the public and the land within an individual county is vested in the Office of Sheriff. The Roles and responsibilities for the Office of Sheriff are well enumerated within the laws of each State, and the Sheriff possesses the authority to extend enforcement powers as appropriate.
“It is the position of this committee that the membership of the Western States Sheriffs’ Association utilizes all appropriate methods and resources to oppose this effort.”
Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations deals with the U.S. Forest Service. Section 212 is about Travel Management within the national forests.
NWV contacted Dave Brown, Sheriff of Skamania County, Wash., for additional information. Sheriff Brown is the chair of the Public Lands Committee of the WSSA that drafted the Position Paper. He said he hoped to have it adopted by the association at its annual meeting.
“It has not been adopted, but my hope is that it will be at our spring conference next March when it’s presented to the entire membership,” Brown said.
Brown said his committee relied for background on the first report Gilbertson sent out in mid-September. His further observations to NWV were particularly chilling.
“Essentially they are nationalizing their ability to do law enforcement. Right now the ability for them to enforce is based on … rules that are made at the district ranger’s office or the forest supervisor’s office,” he said. “They want to take that authority away from local rangers and forest supervisors and basically put it into their back pocket to do consistent enforcement nationally.”
A National Police Force in the Making
And this is about more than simply the road closures which are going on in all the national forests. As Brown sees it, these new provisions spell the way to a national police force. The new rules will give the federal law enforcement the authority to enforce state laws on county roads across national forest land and on roads outside the national forests.
Asked if they’d be enforcing all laws and ordinances on land outside the national forests, Brown said, “no – They would essentially be enforcing those state traffic laws that we would currently enforce and some drug enforcement laws, abandoned property issues, things like that.” “Most people don’t follow this or pay attention to it, but if we don’t [the federal government] will have everything they want to basically create a national police force,” he said.
Which is why the proposal has created a “firestorm” among western sheriffs. “We recognize it as them kicking us in the face and saying, ‘We don’t really care about you being the sheriff: we are going to give ourselves this authority,’” Brown said.
Corralling Runaway Government
The question for concerned Americans is how to stop the train, something easier said than done, though not necessarily impossible. “The real solution is to encourage Congress to comply with, and enforce the Constitution with the intent and guidance as written,” Gilbertson writes. “The PEOPLE vested the authority in Congress to accomplish this task. Put law enforcement aback where it belongs, within the several states. “It is my hope this letter [report] will serve as an awakening to the public and for elected officials to exercise the proper conduct to stop this runaway government. It is also my hope that Sheriffs throughout the United States will join to bring our Republic form of government back to the people.”
NOTE: Josephine County is on the California-Oregon state line across from Siskiyou County, a county that ranchers, farmers, miners and their allies are calling “ground zero” in the intensifying battle over land use and access to public lands. Siskiyou County is where the federal government, in lockstep with local environmentalists, seeks to remove three clean hydro-power dams on the Klamath River – an action that will wipe out what’s left of the once vibrant ranching and farming communities. A fourth dam, in Klamath County, Ore., is also slated for demolition.On Oct. 22, eight brave sheriffs – seven from northern California and one from central Oregon -- put their careers in law enforcement on the line by addressing an audience of nearly 1,000 people at a rally in Yreka, the county seat of Siskiyou County. The event was sponsored by Support Rural America and other groups; the panel was introduced and chaired by Jon Lopey, Sheriff of Siskiyou County.
“By their testimony these fine sheriffs’ verbally documented the assault on sovereignty and the abridgement of individual rights … that they have personally witnessed,” says retired Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow in a recent NewsWithViews column.
Sheriff Gilbertson was not among the eight panelists. He and his wife had made vacation plans and reservations over a year ago and it was not possible to change these. But although not able to attend in person, his report on federal jurisdiction speaks eloquently for him.
The event was videotaped and posted at ConstitutionalSheriffs.com.
Contact Sheriff Gil Gilbertson
1 - Sarah Foster: Oregon Sheriff Stands Up Against the U.S. Forest Service: July 2, 2011
Archive of articles by Sheriff Gilbertson
1 - Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction within a State, Nov. 8, 2011
2 - Federal Jurisdiction Within a State: Posted by US-Observer, Oct. 8, 2011 (10 pages)
3 - Sheriff Wants Holders of Concealed Weapon Permits to Remain Private: 11-28-08
4 - Sheriff Seeking Stable Funding for His Office: 7-22-08
5 - Introducing Sheriff Gil Gilbertson 10-30-07
For More Information
1 - Public Lands Committee, WSSA: Position Paper: Re. Proposed Rules Changes by the U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement: Sept. 21, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
The PPJ Gazette
November 26, 2011
Occasionally, amid the mountains of mindless legislation produced by those fools in congress, one or two really stellar examples of “what the hell were you thinking?” surfaces and leaves us wanting to bang our heads against the wall repeatedly out of frustration at the sheer stupidity of what is offered as necessary legislation. Never has this been quite as extraordinary as it is in the Covered Bond Act of 2011, a bill that is intended to avoid the hassle and exposure of public debate over bailing out the criminals while leaving the country twisting in the wind. Of course this will be supported by the full faith and credit (me & you) of the United States.
“So long as the Federal Reserve exists and/or other financial regulatory agencies continue to be run by a revolving door staff that moves in and out of industry and government, crony capitalism will be alive and well in America. No amount of Dodd-Frank or Volcker rule legislation will ever protect savers, taxpayers or the American people. Profits will continue to be privatized and losses socialized.”
This bill will just confirm the practice of privatizing profits while nationalizing the losses, as a legal response to criminal activity.
From the folks over at Patrick.net:
“The United States Covered Bond Act of 2011 is designed to allow bundling of any kind of debt including derivatives, into marketable securities guaranteed at full face value by the FDIC.”
Derivatives? Weren’t those instruments the same ones that caused the near collapse of the system? So what are they, exactly?
Avery Goodman from seekinglapha.com explains them this way:
“Derivatives are highly volatile financial instruments that are occasionally used to hedge risk, but mostly used for speculation. They are bets upon the value of stocks, bonds, mortgages, other loans, currencies, commodities, volatility of financial indexes, and even weather changes. Many big banks, including Bank of America, issue derivatives because, if they are not triggered, they are highly profitable to the issuer, and result in big bonus payments to the executives who administer them.”
You can’t even mention the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or the Stimulus Package of 2010 without raising the hackles on otherwise uninvolved individuals in the national political fracas we call government. In 2010 in particular, and as the country screamed “NO!” in the face of yet another bailout of corrupt and criminal Wall Street and banking cartels and insurance companies, congress and the president bailed out the crooks and thieves at the expense of the American people and then stood by and watched as the housing market collapsed, home foreclosures went through the roof and massive unemployment spiraled out of control. What was obviously very clear was….these guys were to big to be allowed to fail, but if the rest of the country failed as a result of saving the criminals…..so be it.
With the country still seething from what was perceived as two near mortal wounds, and with the added insult of not seeing even one of the criminals charged with a crime, prosecuted or jailed for criminal activity, the wound is still raw and festering. Wanting to avoid another national discourse on why the citizens of the US should be made responsible for the massive financial corruption, essentially paying the bills for the crimes committed by these ever so special friends of government, Kay Hagan D(NC) and Bob Corker R(TN) have come up with a wonderful plan. They have decided it would be best to allow the bundling of these toxic instruments and to insure them in the FDIC.
Patrick.net fine tunes this for us:
“Asset classes eligible to be rolled into Covered Bonds are shown below including “H” which leaves the door open for anything left over, What would qualify would be the decision of one unelected official, the treasury secretary/Goldman Sachs representative.
(A) a residential mortgage asset class;
(B) a commercial mortgage asset class;
(C) a public sector asset class;
(D) an auto asset class;
(E) a student loan asset class;
(F) a credit or charge card asset class;
(G) a small business asset class; and
(H) any other eligible asset class designated by the Secretary, by rule
and in consultation with the covered bond regulators
This should make your eyes explode from your head:
Bloomberg reports that Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion.
75 TRILLION? 75 trillion worth of hedges, bets and speculation? I can’t help note the word “obligation”. Whose obligation? Ultimately mine and yours according to Corker/Kagan.
I noted that the bill had a big bolded S.___ (with no number) on the front page, meaning it is a Senate bill which can’t be and hasn’t been submitted yet because the Constitution requires all bills to originate in the House. I can’t find a corresponding, preceding House bill. Obviously this Senate bill will be sent over to good friends of the financial sector in the House who will dutifully write up a House bill identical to the Senate bill to get the ball rolling.
By Greg Evensen
November 26, 2011
Even if it were possible to travel in time, I do not believe we could change what has taken place, or what is yet to come. This is not about those subjects, but rather this is a journey to observe where the train went off the tracks and a few of the reasons why.
It is the classic “we can’t see the forest for the trees syndrome” and it is a constant in our vision. It is so, because the galactic battle for the destiny of earth has pitted the forces of evil against the forces of good. God against Satan. It truly boils down to this: Satan is winning on all fronts because human beings are sin filled creatures that choose the “easy” path of the fallen every single time. What’s more they believe they are “entitled” to think that way and you better not argue or they will send the state police.
So what was it during those first five centuries (1600-2000) that brought us to where we are at this moment? Can it be as simple as greed, power and control of people by those in authority? Absolutely, yes, but it reaches out to every single soul that ever lived through the failings of each one of us. NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT ALONE, NOT EVEN THE BANKS, NOT THE MILITARY OR POLICE AND SECURITY FORCES,…….., BUT IT IS US.
Small business owners, farmers, teachers, parents, pastors, laborers, ranchers, doctors, and inventors, because of our refusal to recognize personal responsibility for this disaster, we stand at the door of complete and total national disgrace and destruction. There is very little chance that we will ever be free again in the historical sense. The personal sacrifice of millions of veterans is now in vain. Freedom, liberty and a moral, honest republic are irrevocably dead. This is not a new thought or one that has not been considered by us all. It just bears repeating, because the complete surrender we have offered to the inept, corrupt, immoral and vicious forces in control of Washington, indeed the world, must be understood, called out to do battle with, and to wage war with, until one side lies defeated, imprisoned and no longer a threat to the other. If we do not do battle, then slavery through cowardly surrender is inevitable and soon to be upon us.
Do you have the guts to look at this unholy scene or will you just stop here and go to the fridge for something to make you feel better?
We must face this monster down and not stop until the job is done. Will God allow us the wisdom and strength to do this, or is He saying, “your national sin is too great, you have been judged in the scales and are found wanting…..prepare for the end.”
We must understand why we are at this supremely critical moment in all of human history. In our understanding, will come peace and repentance, if not national renewal. Let us review and discuss why we are so desperate and so despondent.
In the great overview of history there has been a point and counterpoint to every attempt to improve the lives of men and women in America. It started with the journeys of the Pilgrims and the Puritans seeking a missionary land to build in the image of God Almighty and His son Jesus Christ. This is not debatable, this is historical. Famine, pestilence, violence and a near extinction of the original band of Americans almost destroyed the dream before it grew. Because of the insatiable appetite for riches and territory, the British would not let the new land remain free. That has been the ongoing struggle since those first days. When you add to it the greed and control not only through the Crown, but the English bankers/investors who saw only money for themselves and the elite of that day, slavery has been a constant in America. That situation has never changed to this moment.
How could we have changed it? We could have been much more zealous in destroying all attempts that the bankers heaped upon the young nation, exiled Alexander Hamilton and his crowd, and defeated big government Lincolnites and the Union forces in 1865. The United States, adopting the sovereignty destroying 14th amendment, employing the 1871 further expansion of government’s “corporate” status, and the war on silver, America could have emerged with the ability to grow and expand outside the elite’s rule and thus may have avoided the 1910-1913’s evil reign of the founding of the Federal Reserve, the income tax and the loss of each state’s appointed senators to occupy Washington.
Fast forward the time machine to the nationalization of state guard units for deployment during WWI, and the communist rule of internationalist Franklin Roosevelt, America’s bankrupt 1933 Constitution killing national emergency decree just about finished off any hope that the Republic might survive.
WWII brought an unparalled tyranny of virtually all government and was ultimately as much about waging war on American’s rights and institutionalizing taxes as it was about Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan’s regional wars of aggression. If it was not, then why didn’t Korean War imbecile Harry Truman set us back on the path of a sovereign republic in August of 1945? Instead the treasonous Truman exacerbated our dilemma by firing a wise Gen. Douglas MacArthur and allowing the Rothschild’s empire machine, the United Nations, to destroy US military control over the Korean War by appointing a dynasty of Soviet Generals to know of and convey to the North Koreans EVERY LAST MILITARY OFFENSIVE the U.S. ever planned costing the U.S. thousands of soldier’s lives?
The ongoing Soviet UN strategy of turning over US military secrets continued through Viet Nam and has been a conscious, all consuming effort by them and also those in the State Department since the early 1930’s. For God’s sake, we are surrounded in every branch of government, career politicians, the general staff, the pentagon as an extension of the White House foreign policy planning group, the CIA, FBI, BATFE, NSC, NSA, NRO, DIA, and most recently the armed SWAT units of the FDA and the USDA’s chicken and milk police. This includes nearly all of the state capitols and county commissions infiltrated and destroyed by the UN Agenda 21 SS block captains handing out money and influence to inept bungling jokesters playing politicians. So, let me ask………do any of you historically ignorant and culturally void morons still think that Obama and his Muslim cohorts are just about change? Quit reading, there’s no hope for you.
Enough said, again. This message has gone out to millions, tens of thousands of times, and still democrats and republicans march toward the end singing songs of victory over those bastard patriots, constitutionalists, Christians, tea partiers, three per centers, oath keepers, home schoolers, cottage fellow shippers, and a few here and there in the military and police forces who have seen through the crap and know they take orders from guys in black on the death star.
So let’s elect Obama again. Or, put Gingrich the slick CFR, supreme lobbyist, “I really didn’t serve divorce papers to my dying wife,” health care supporter, Knight of Malta Jesuit, very dangerous internationalist as president. He is the lesser of two evils, don’t you know. Or maybe the drooling, former democrat, Al Gore’s right hand man, Perry. How about anything is ok with me Romney? Or, Cain, the former Federal Reserve Kansas City chief banker that needs to bone up on Libya you stud, can’t be all bad. Former democrat and US tax attorney Bachmann, at least she knows the system. Ron Paul……now there’s the only real decent candidate, almost. That’s why he is completely ignored by the media at all levels.
Our trip is mercifully almost over. We are back at the present day national catastrophe ready to lunch at the “buffet of disasters.”
Oh, just one more little thing to consider. In case you haven’t dropped to your knees and begged God for forgiveness and the blessed hope of our salvation Jesus Christ (because you won’t hear it from the convention center preachers in Texas), then contemplate this soul changing bit of information.When they come to your door, or when the TSA randomly (roadblock) searches you on the interstate highways for firearms, cash or natural vitamins, your only choice may be to accept the chip in the hand remedy so that you can continue on your way. If this, or any other application of such an ID is required and forced upon you, refuse it at the loss of your life, rather than subscribe to a system that may save your life, but you will lose your eternal soul in the process. I will go down resisting in the most dramatic way I have at hand, rather than submit to that anti-Christ assault on my person. Death to traitors and tyrants comes to mind at this point.
Choose this day who you will serve. History, as the time machine reveals, may be lied about, confused and forgotten. The present may not make sense or be something you can apply to your life. But do not be confused about the truth and finality of the Lord your God. You alone, will answer for your self delusion, greed and selling out to the ruler of this world. You have been warned, you have been instructed, and you have been given clear and truthful choices so that your life may have meaning and purpose. The choice, like always, is yours and yours alone. For once, do the right thing, the only thing that matters, and do it now. Your life and the life of your country, depends on your courage and devotion to God and your fellow countrymen.
(the author, as most do, seems to believe that this is a Liberal vs. Conservative issue . . . I think that it's more along the lines of the fake Right/Left paradigm, where the Liberals are openly advocating, but if/when the Conservatives get in power, they do nothing to turn back or stop the progression of the evil . . . "abortion" is the perfect example . . .)
By Marsha West
November 26, 2011
This probably won’t shock most people because we live in an age where the envelope has been pushed so far it’s disappeared over the horizon. According to the Daily Mail, pink and leopard-print thong panties with no crotches sized to fit a seven-year-old were being sold at Kids N Teen in Greeley, Colorado. The panties were yanked after a mortified mother complained. As one writer put it: “It’s a new kind of memory: A daughter’s first pair of crotchless panties.”
It’s also a sign of the times when a retailer decides there’s nothing wrong with selling sleazy leopard-print thong panties with a split crotch alongside stuffed animal backpacks.
While I’m on the subject of seven-year-olds, the Parents TV Council (PTC) reports that there’s some disgusting kid’s programs being aired on TV during the family hour. The PTC released a Special Report “exposing the shocking levels of sexual content in animated programs on cable networks popular with children.” One such program is Allen Gregory. According to the PTC “The program’s namesake, Allen Gregory, is a precocious seven-year-old who has sexual fantasies about his sixty-something-year-old school principal. The program includes Allen circulating rumors of a sex tape of him with the principal; and some of the most explicit language imaginable, including vulgar euphemisms for male anatomy and bleeped f-words.”
Gone are the days when the producers of children’s cartoons would sooner have their hair set on fire than allow cartoon characters to use any sort of profanity. I mean, can you imagine Mickey Mouse and Crusader Rabbit using the f-word? The bad news is that R-rated material that includes gross profanity has wormed its way into many animated children’s shows.
PTC president, Tim Winter, gave this warning:
Adult content isn’t just creeping into the cartoons that kids today are watching the most; it has overtaken much of that animated programming. We’re not talking about cartoon characters slipping on banana peels and ramming into doors. Our data demonstrates that today’s norm is profanity-laden storylines involving everything from rape and cocaine to STDs and crystal meth. There is now more sexual content on these cartoons than violence – even when counting traditional ‘light’ cartoon violence.
The major findings from the report are disturbing on so many levels. What youngsters are being exposed to on TV includes “simulations or obscured scenes of sexual intercourse, pornography, masturbation, pedophilia and prostitution.” Moreover, there are “incidents relating to drugs, including cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth, psychedelics and alcohol. Eighty percent of the drug-related incidents were depictions rather than references.” Advertisements on TV-PG and TV-14 shows included ads “for adult media, including TV-MA DVDs, TV-MA shows, and R-rated movies.”
Does this make you angry? It should! Unprincipled entertainment executives are going to great lengths to expose children to grunge. And equally unprincipled advertising executives are willing to do just about anything to sell their products, including exposing youngsters to filthy images that are meant to attract adults.
This is the Godless liberal mindset – anything goes, nothing is off limits, not even innocent children.
While liberals are busy making it ‘cute’ for a seven-year-old to have sexual fantasies about a senior citizen (seems kids are being programmed by perverts that prefer the term "intergenerational sex" to pedophilia) conservatives are working their tails off to counteract what sleaze balls are doing to corrupt the next generation. For those who haven’t noticed, the people trying to counteract the lack of moral restraint in our society are conservatives!
David Kupelian wrote an article titled Selling Sex in the U.S.A. In his piece he noted:
Many people seem to think having sex with children is a good thing, as 100,000 websites now offer illegal child pornography, reports Internet Filter Review. Worldwide, child porn generates $3 billion in revenues every year. And culturally, adult-child sexuality is creeping, ever so artfully and gradually, into the public consciousness.
David wrote the article seven years ago. So you can bet these numbers have climbed.
Full article HERE
Friday, November 25, 2011
November 9, 2011
By Ralph Lopez
It's real money, especially since "Bank of America Deathwatch" financial pundits have multiplied on the web and it has become a bit of a geek guessing game. When will BoA finally tank? And when it tanks, the question becomes, who will walk away with all their money, and who will be left holding the bag? The deal just snuck through with the Federal Reserve's, and implicitly, Congress's approval insures Wall Street casino gambler's debts by moving them into accounts meant for penny-pinching grandmas.
Citing Bloomberg, financial commentator Avery Goodman tells us:
"Even if we net out the notional value of the derivatives involved, down to the net potential obligation, the amount is so large that the United States could not hope to pay it off without a major dollar devaluation, if a major contingency actually occurred and a large part of the derivatives were triggered."
A bailout for one company's most irresponsible investors triggering a major dollar devaluation? This is the kind of thing that starts revolutions.
"Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion."Without going too far into bewildering financial jargon, it's like this: Your wildest son is asking you to co-sign for a debt. If he can't make his payments, you are on the hook. How much is the debt? He doesn't know. Just sign on the dotted line.
Meanwhile the "super committee" is looking for a trillion or so dollars in hits to everything, including Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, to keep the budget from going any more out of whack. It's urgent, they say, for us to stop spending like drunken sailors. But at the same time they just whipped out a pen and signed for junior, crossing their fingers that something won't happen which is almost inevitable.
Where did I stumble across this news item? Sure as heck not on MSM, which is focused on the smoke grenade of BoAs recent $400 million fee case settlement. $400 million fits into $72 trillion almost 2 million times. Now which is the bigger story?
I stumbled across it posted by an outraged Occupy Wall Street-type on one of their Facebooks. You don't need to read Karl Marx to become an Occupy Wall Streeter. The American financial pages will do it.
It is unlikely the taxpayer's hit will be as much as $72 trillion. Again, no one knows. But it will be a chunk of money.
BusinessWeek writers Phil Mattingly and Bob Ivry point out that Dodd-Frank is not strong enough to prevent the BoA move:
"Separating complex transactions from FDIC-insured savings has been a cornerstone of U.S. regulation for decades, including Dodd-Frank, the regulatory overhaul enacted last year. Bank of America's transfer prompted some lawmakers to push for stronger rules than were included in that sweeping law. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent who supported legislation to separate trading operations from commercial banking, said the transaction is a "perfect example why we should break up too-big-to-fail financial behemoths.""
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat who pushed to require splitting commercial and investment banking, said "What Bank of America is doing is perfectly legal -- and that's the problem."
Hinchey is among more than 40 House lawmakers who have signed on to a bill that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that enforced separation of depository institutions from investment operations. Most are Democrats, but that leaves roughly 180 House Democrats who have not signed onto the bill, and at the moment have no intention to. Not to mention the "super committee" eyeing your Social Security.
The Black Sheep tries to warn its friends with the truth it has seen, unfortunately herd mentality kicks in for the Sheeple, and they run in fear from the black sheep and keep to the safety of their flock.
Having tried to no avail to awaken his peers, the Black Sheep have no other choice but to unite with each other and escape the impending doom.
What color Sheep are you?