Has the US Constitution been suspended?

Many called for the impeachment of President Clinton, then it was President Bush and now we have President Obama on the list. But here is my question, who ever heard of a  president “elect” dictator king impeaching himself?

Something I came across recently which gives new insight into the latest outrage of President Obama ordering the attacks on Libya without congressional consent and WHY Congress sits back and does nothing.

Seems, the checks and balance of the US Congress no longer exist, but resides with the executive branch since Aug. 4, 1990. Senate Bill 2834: Senate Intelligence Authorization Act—-IMO, this is why Congress did NOTHING when Obama ordered our troops to attack Libya without congressional authority. If not true, then WHY the inaction from our so-called congress??  (Now I understand why crazy stuff is crammed into bills presented that have nothing to do with what they are supposed to be voting on!—They have been slipping in these Constitution destroying items for YEARS and then they go back and combine them later!)

It was set to law years ago, but not used until the present time. What that tells me, is this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I have felt the “Noahide Laws” would be used at some point in the future, now I see proof, that these “harmless” sounding bills/public laws can and will be used against the American people. Think they don’t know what they are doing ?

This is an ancient evil thousand upon thousands of years old —the work of the ages— is unfolding upon the world! (Very interesting read, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion)

For years, there have been revisions and add-ons to this bill and many others such as the creation of FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, etc,  giving the Executive branch more and more power.

We all should remember how Janet Napalitano-Head of DHS,  sent out alerts to all local law enforcement about US Patriots being domestic terrorist—-think that was an accident? No, it was a TEST and proves that patriots aka Nationalist are a threat to their agenda to come. (I woke up one morning in America only to discover the country I love has been hi-jacked by Lucifer worshiping Fascists….not a dream, but reality in our face!)

In addition, for decades,  presidents have been skirting congress by writing their own laws and policies and term them as, Executive Orders, National Security Council Memos, National Security Directives, and or National Security Decision Directives. During President Reagan’s terms in office, a man I admired for the most part,  is documented to have written over 300 of them!

People, its OVER! Done and gone. The country we knew as America is no more—-they only wait for their appointed time to spring the trap they have set for the sleeping/brainwashed/ delusional masses.

This great EVIL has infiltrated EVERY aspect of our society! They rule from BOTH sides of the political isle.  They control our media, schools, colleges, banking, housing, jobs, industry, healthcare, economy, private property, food supply, seed supply, waterways, transportation, fuel,  electrical power plants; our court / legal systems,  our military and our law enforcement agencies at local, county, state levels and Postal Service.  Think the post office is harmless? Not so,  when you and your family could/would be required to “register” there and they start separating your family for work detail or your children are loaded onto a bus for “re-education”…..and what if you should plan to fight them, they may just shoot you in the head on the spot and take your family anyway.

There is no escaping what is coming according to The New Testament—the time of the Gentiles is about to be fulfilled.

Our once great nation has been blessed with so many freedoms and privileges and I’m THANKFUL to Our Father in Heaven, that I was born and raised here.  Enjoy your freedoms and the life given you by Our Father;  cherish your family time and prepare for the spiritual battles to come. The time for the American people to reap what our nation has sown upon foreign soil is coming back to us full circle!

Here is one patriot, William “Bill” Cooper,  who tried to warn us.

Secret  “Alien” Agenda

.

Evil in the world

Do Not be Deceived! How to fight the demons and deliverance.

.

.

Behold a Pale Horse by Bill Cooper–

This is 1 of 18  audio book videos available on You Tube for those who can not attain the book.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TonyStarkIndustries

Related Links:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1569.cfm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/1990_cr/h901024-ia.htm

A Conspiracy Theory is now FACT! United Nations now dictates to the USA!!

The puppet king speaks!!! International this, international community that, when “the powers that be” have by design, orchestrated these events in order to overthrow the USA and this is all done AGAINST the US CONSTITUTION! When will our military leaders remember their vows and not go along with those who are NOT Americans and those who commit blatant in our face abuse of power????  Serve OUR country and our people, not the special / best interests of foreign nations / entities!

Why are our elected officials who swore to uphold US Law and our Constitution not REVOLTING at this latest abuse of power outrage? IMO—-it’s just a matter of time before they do and on cue, when they are TOLD to by whoever controls their strings. And when the American people finally get enough and rebel, then the UN will treat the USA the same way as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya!

March 20, 2011

Obama Attacks Libya, and Where’s Congress?

By J.B. Williamshttp://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_attacks_libya_and_wheres.html

On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered U.S. troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the U.S. Congress and majority support from the U.N. Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the U.N. and without even consulting Congress.

Acting alone while Congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on Libya — a dictatorial maneuver to force a regime change in a foreign land.
Under what authority did Obama green-light this dictatorial assault?  To be certain, Qadaffi is no prize, but what Obama just did is nevertheless unacceptable.  Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his oath of office, Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution, and the War Powers Act — all in one mindless, knee-jerk decision.
Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution identifies the U.S. president as the commander-in-chief and the civilian oversight of the U.S. military.  But the clause gives the U.S. president no authority to use military might to enforce his political will upon foreign nations.
Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution bestows the power to declare war solely on the U.S. Congress.  It requires both the commander-in-chief and Congress to commit U.S. troops to combat, without which any deployment of troops is wholly unconstitutional.
The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a U.S. president from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
A U.S. commander-in-chief can order use of military force under only three specific conditions:
  • 1. a declaration of war,
  • 2. specific statutory authorization, or
  • 3. a national emergency created byan attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The U.S. Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII.  But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil, not only did he not consult Congress in advance, but he sought and received specific statutory authorization from Congress before ordering troops into combat.  Bush complied with the Constitution and the War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3).  He also had a broad coalition of U.N. partners driven by years of U.N. resolutions defied by Iraq.
In the case of Obama and Libya, none of the three necessary conditions exist.
  • 1. Congress did not declare war.
  • 2. Congress was not consulted and did not give specific statutory authorization.
  • 3. The U.S. was not attacked in any way by Libya, which presented no threat to the U.S. or U.S. assets.
As a result, Barack Obama had no constitutional authority to attack Libya with over $70 million worth of U.S. taxpayer-provided Tomahawks, placing American soldiers in harm’s way in yet another war which cannot be justified even by the pursuit of oil.
Obama has acted alone, well beyond the scope and authority of his office and at odds with the national interests of the United States and the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold and defend…..go here for more of the story.
.
.

AGENDA 21 Exposed (via AfterAmerica’s Blog)

Excellent information and well written post by AfterAmerica.

AGENDA 21 Exposted Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, also known as the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” was published in 1992, a product of the Earth Summit as a manifesto to create a “new global partnership for sustainable development (pg 15)” based on the December 1989 United Nations General Assembly resolution 44/228. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was founded in 1990 … Read More

via AfterAmerica’s Blog

Being a Conservative: What does it REALLY mean?

Media spin and networking blog sites are deceiving Americans!

Being a conservative is not about being a political party.  After listening to the media rhetoric for the past two years, Conservative this, conservative that, Tea party this, Tea party that, Blue dog, yellow dog–all designed to stick a label on individual Americans, so they can be lumped into one big hate feast to be demonized and destroyed by those who oppose what they stand for and represent!

So what exactly IS a Conservative you ask?

Well, It’s very simple really and it’s all about connecting deeds to action, principals to our founding fathers beliefs and God’s Natural law.

A person lives conservatively or they do not.

Let’s do a little analysis on one issue to dissect this elusive creature called conservative.

From a Financial Standpoint

Conservatives learn to make do when they have not.  What does this mean? Well, mostly about going to work bringing home a paycheck  or owning a farm or ranch with animals depending on you caring and feeding them, which produce is marketed to consumers. We have Small Business owners who put sweat and money into a business, not only to make a living, but who go to work every morning knowing that others depend on them to make that business successful in order to provide jobs for others, so they too can provide for their own  families.

Seems our society has become one of no one wants to bother showing up for practice, but ‘everyone wants to be the star quarter-back”, and if that is the case, who is  left on the field to catch the ball? How can a game be won if everyone plays the same position?  I’ll tell you. The game can not be won, nor does the team.

Learning to budget income to debt, are also part of this, and the motto Live within our means is a BIG part of being a conservative. It’s what we do and understand in everyday REAL life, we conserve.

The pundts and political activists have taken the conservative lifestyle based on self-initiative, twisted the meaning in order to demonize those beliefs,  just as the communists did when they infiltrated  the Democratic party.  Being a conservative is a set lifestyle that dates back to our founding fathers and the founding principles that our founding documents were created from. The natural law of God the Creator of us all, can clearly be found in them if a person will only see with his own eyes and hear with his own ears.

Being a conservative is not about forcing one lifestyle onto another, nor about forcing ones belief onto another.

A recent discovery I made, is that there are many out there today who claim to be ‘Conservative” or to represent conservative values and lifestyle, yet in reality, they push ONLY a Neo-Con agenda and use the label term ‘conservative” in order to deceive people. They gather information about individuals who donate money to political causes or those who buy certain books, etc and use that info to generate more sales or donations to whatever agenda THEY are getting paid to promote.

Here is one example:

http://www.blogherald.com/2009/01/31/pajamas-media-shutting-down-ad-network-leaves-bloggers-in-the-poor-house/

Some of these same people, mostly people I refer to as two-faced trolls, are using the blogsphere to push a set agenda and get PAID thru networking and pushing the Neo-con agenda.  Proof can be easily found on their blogroll list which shows ad’s or promotes those paying the blog owner for setting their prescribed agenda.

The poser “conservatives” appear as everyday concerned Americans just blogging to voice their opinion, but that is not what they are doing, but instead get paid for their POV,  which invalidates their opinion as I see it, due to conflict of interest and ethical issues.

Word to the wise: Always remember that actions speak louder than words.

If a political person is NOT living or supporting the conservative lifestyle, then they are NOT conservative.  If they advocate for a person who is NOT conservative, QUESTION both of those candidates and the cyber “friend” because something is NOT as it seems to be, truth is being hidden.

If you are within a conservative blog network and find they refuse to address issues about a candidate who they claim is “conservative”, but one you have found to be out of sink in the conservative beliefs or on the issues, and these self-proclaimed conservative bloggers turn it around on you and demonize you for finding it, THERE is your answer! They are NOT true friends, nor or they real conservatives with just an opinion, but instead have a paid agenda to promote.

My advice? Disassociate asap,  because they are also posing as attack trolls from HELL or create multiple ID’s with different persona’s, and as such, play BOTH sides using your convictions and beliefs to make one big nasty wasteland. They feed off your comments, may attempt to “reset” your opinions or beliefs.  LABELING you  this or that, is the most viable weapon they have on hand, but ALWAYS understand the nature of the beast you are dealing with.  The blog “owner” gets paid by your participation and you clicking it’s site and will twist your NORMAL REAL thinking and that of others,  into whatever the agenda is they get paid to do.

Though not fixed or limited to these ten key principals, the link below deals with basic principals of  a Conservative that I happen to agree with.

Ten Conservative Principles

by Russell Kirk

“Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims. In various editions of my book The Conservative Mind I have listed certain canons of conservative thought—the list differing somewhat from edition to edition; in my anthology The Portable Conservative Reader I offer variations upon this theme. Now I present to you a summary of conservative assumptions differing somewhat from my canons in those two books of mine. In fine, the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays.

  • First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

  • Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

  • Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.
  • Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.
  • Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.
  • Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.
  • Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

  • Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

  • Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

  • Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.”
Go here for the list: http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

==========================================================

Though I do not agree with Fred Thompson 100% of the time, I think he spoke well in this video.

==============================================================

 

Glenn Beck finally catching up with Alex Jones?

I must say, personally I have listened to Glen Beck allot and found that I would be just thrilled with many of the topics he was exploring on the MSM, getting some facts and real history out there. But I also  must say by that same coin, there are times I have to wonder at what the heck he is doing or what agenda is he really promoting?

Koran burning! The outrage heard round the world! America was it worth it?

Matthew 7:15-21
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits…”

It was not my plan to add more hype to an already disturbing act, but I find I need to point out a few possible reasons for what has recently taken place with the insult of anothers culture and the burning of their religious Holy Scripture.

I enjoy the privilege of  having freedom of speech and being able to express my opinions uncensored and unedited–unmoderated and respect others to have that same God Given Right and firmly believe you OWN, are personally responsible for, what you say or write.

However, for me personally and morally, this right does not include doing so with malice nor at the expense of creating  outrage from one person, muchless 5 Billion,  and justifiable so, Islamic followers, nor extends to the detriment of others in life and death situations, such as may concern our soldiers in a war zone.

This does not mean creating laws against it, but shows that morally, some things are best left unsaid or undone, OR at the very least, not media hyped,  if it could cause bodily harm to another.

Rhetoric and hate speech are fine to do if that is what a person lives for—they are easily ignored and discounted on a personal or local level,  click a button, change a channel, stop participation of; but when the actions of a few extremist coupled with an agenda driven corrupted media uses it as a world wide weapon, where do we draw the line? What can be done?

Could implementing laws against harmful freedom of speech be the REAL purpose of insulting 5 Billion followers of Islam around the world?

I agree, that the actions of a FEW American’s to exercise their freedom of speech/expression of burning another Religions Holy Book here at home is 100% Constitutional but ONLY IF,  in addition and in accordance with State and LOCAL CODE (Something most Americans are ignoring or failing to even consider given nothing but the media spin). 

This being said though, I personally find the very thought of doing such an outrageous and hurtful act, so very disturbing and ominous, filling me with a sense of foreboding on so many levels,  its hard to get my mind wrapped around it!

By that same token,  I must wonder and find it odd, that for some ELUSIVE reasons, a few EXTREME points of view,   were broadcast  repeatedly by the main stream media, then sent around the world with up to the minute updates, which in essence rallied a WHOLE Religion against us, which has endangered not only us, but has also created more hatred for our honorable soldiers who fight on foreign ISLAMIC soil—they are the closest to the fire,  least ye forget!

It is at this point in the drama,  that I find, I don’t blame the extremist doing the book burning, but those who gave them one second of air time to begin with!

Funny thing,  how the media works in today’s time and filters what THEY want us to feel or see–I call it selective coverage.  They for the most part,  can sure ignore approximately 2 million American people from all over the USA who marched on DC to protest the government corruption, yet, almost every channel was broadcasting a handful of  those threatening or doing the act of,  burning another Religion’s Holy Sacred Book?? Go figure?

Whose agenda does this benefit?  IMO—Not that of the USA for sure.  Those of the Islam faith who may have supported the USA have just been given one of the greatest insults I can think of, because IMO, that is how I would feel if it was done to me.

So this agenda in the media, who benefits from it? Who is pushing the NWO? Could the United Nations maybe somehow have a solution already worked up and ready to implement?  I say stay tuned in to what takes place within the UN for what is coming!

“It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

Can America say INTERNATIONAL LAW, governed by the UN? Because of the actions of a few, blasted in the media, do you not see what it coming?

IMO—The UN has the solution already worked out—-wait for it to be revealed soon and sanctified by our  government leadership with the forfeiture of our Constitution and all the rights thereof.

Where could all of this malicious activity be leading us? Maybe a war with Iran=WWIII?  From my understanding and interpretation of chapters 10-11 of Daniel, The Archangel Michael is in alliance with the King of Persia.  Could the emergence of the Mahdi in the Koran, be that of  Michael? Read them and decide for yourself their meaning.

With that being said, here is one more simple matter to consider while we are at it. China + Russia + Islam uniting under ONE banner, are not GOOD things for those arrogant Americans who seem to think WE are on the high road. IMO–WWIII will end with the USA, British and IsRaEl’s destruction and then the coming battle of Armageddon.  Our Father in Heaven’s Will shall be done.

Dan 10:13 “I will remain WITH the Kings of Persia;  20) “I will return to fight WITH the Prince of Persia

The word “With” refers to being aligned with, going with, standing with = An Alliance, in the example above.

“Gabriel was bringer of enlightenment and God’s message and is often depicted with a vessel containing the sacred water of God’s salvation.  By contrast, Michael was the instrument of God’s wrath and is often depicted with a sword and the severed heads of the Lord’s enemies.”

Below is a compelling video which I agree with.

Here is another intriguing one from the same source.

——————————————————————————————————–

Here is one possibility to consider that could affect the USA

Clear and present danger is a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States,[1] concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

Following Schenck v. United States, “clear and present danger” became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[2][3] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen’s First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a “clear and present danger”. However, the “clear and present danger” criterion of the Schenck decision was later modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[4] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an imminent lawless action.

The vast majority of legal scholars have concluded that in writing the Schenck opinion Justice Holmes never meant to replace the “bad tendency” test which had been established in the 1868 English case R. v. Hicklin and incorporated into American jurisprudence in the 1904 Supreme Court case U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams. This is demonstrated by the use of the word “tendency” in Schenck itself, a paragraph in Schenck explaining that the success of speech in causing the actual harm was not a prerequisite for conviction, and use of the bad-tendency test in the simultaneous Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States decisions (both of which cite Schenck without using the words “clear and present danger”).

However, a subsequent essay by Zechariah Chafee entitled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” argued despite context that Holmes had intended to substitute clear and present danger for the bad-tendency standard a more protective standard of free speech.[5] Bad tendency was a far more ambiguous standard where speech could be punished even in the absence of identifiable danger, and as such was strongly opposed by the fledgling ACLU and other libertarians of the time.

Having read Chafee’s article, Holmes decided to retroactively reinterpret what he had meant by “clear and present danger” and accepted Chafee’s characterization of the new test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States just six months after Schenck.[6] Significantly unlike Abrams, the cases of Schenck, Frohwerk, and Debs had all produced unanimous decisions. Justice Brandeis soon began citing the “clear and present danger” test in his concurrences, but the new standard was not accepted by the full court until its official adoption in Brandenburg v. Ohio fifty years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

Here are a few to consider along with a few from the United Nations

“The United Nations is the centre of the world’s efforts to advance mutual respect, understanding and dialogue.  We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists on different sides with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict.”

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sgsm11483.doc.htm

Quran-Burning Plan Draws Worldwide Condemnation

Afghans protest against Koran burning for third day

WHEN ISRAELIS BURNED BIBLES, MOST CHRISTIANS WERE SILENT

————————————————————————————————–

Related Posts:

http://poeticedda.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/when-israelis-burned-bibles-most-christians-were-silent/

Obama grants immunity powers to FOREIGN INTERPOL OVER our Constitution?

Could the photo above represent what is in store for Americans?

This is a duplicate post from the one published on Dec. 29,2009.  Seems the original post link pulls up an ‘error” and is no longer “Found”? This makes TWICE that censorship has found it’s way to my blog and my post links disappeared and are not found. It is truly a sign of the times people.

“I do solemnly swear  that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Federal Government of the United States is the central government entity established by the United States Constitution, which shares sovereignty over the United States with the governments of the individual U.S. states.

The policies of the federal government have a broad impact on both the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States. In addition, the powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, states that all powers not expressly assigned to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.

Below are other links with ties back to the European Union and the United Nations. I wonder HOW granting a foreign Police force immunity from our Constitution and laws can be considered DEFENDING, PROTECTING or PRESERVING that precious document?

An international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been ELEVATED above OUR CONSTITUTION upon our OWN SOIL! America  get ready for the guys in Blue Helmets, they are coming!!

Wither Sovereignty

Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America – Is The ICC Next?

By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton | December 23, 2009

Post Source found at: http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009

Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425

EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Context: International Criminal Court

The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection – and elevation above the US Constitution – afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.

We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC’s Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute – the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential – if not likely – specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama’s words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely “premature to commit” to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama’s roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama’s former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

“Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to “show a different face for America.” He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far “in America’s interests.” The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with “inviolable archives” from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama’s quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

Methodology Of INTERPOL

Each member country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB) staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the Interpol General Secretariat, regional bureau and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. This is especially important in countries with many law-enforcement agencies. This central bureau is a unique point of contact for foreign entities, which may not understand the complexity of the law-enforcement system of the country they attempt to contact. For instance, the NCB for the United States of America is housed at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). The NCB then ensures the proper transmission of information to the correct agency.

Interpol maintains a large database charting unsolved crimes and both convicted and alleged criminals. At any time, a member nation has access to specific sections of the database and its police forces are encouraged to check information held by Interpol whenever a major crime is committed. The rationale behind this is that drug traffickers and similar criminals have international ties, and so it is likely that crimes extend beyond political boundaries.

In 2002, following United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 passed in the aftermath of September 11, Interpol began maintaining a database of lost and stolen identification and travel documents, allowing member countries to be alerted to the true nature of such documents when presented. Passport fraud, for example, is often performed by altering a stolen passport; in response, several member countries have worked to make online queries into the stolen document database part of their standard operating procedure in border control departments. As of early 2006, the database contained over ten million identification items reported lost or stolen, and is expected to grow more as more countries join the list of those reporting into the database.

More about INTERPOL at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

Current Secretary General of INTERPOL: Ronald Noble

Current President of INTERPOL: Khoo Boon Hui

———————————————————————————————————————-

Another IMPORTANT Executive order—Obama’s FIRST one after swearing in as President of the US.

On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law  Executive Order 13489.

For those of you who can’t take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:

“Sec.2

Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records

When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records  pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”

Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama’s birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn’t this strike you as just a little odd?

That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?

This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?

If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-executive-order-barring-release-of-his-birth-certificate/

===============================================

Related Links:

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seed-1-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seeds-2-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/terminator-seed-3-plot-to-control-our-food-supply/

https://lisaintx.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/bilderbergers-creating-a-new-world-order-or-completing-work-of-the-ages/