Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Attn: President TRUMP!

NO PC, REMEMBER?

LET’s GET TO THAT “NO PC” PART NOW!

KNOW OUR ENEMY FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC!

DECLARE OUR ENEMY!

DO OUR ENEMY! 

THE FRIEND OF OUR ENEMY IS OUR ENEMY WITHIN AND WITHOUT!

NOW!

FERGIT THE BS…

SEMPER PRESIDENT TRUMP!

Gunny G

https://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/gunny-g-no-pc-remember-do-our-enemy-now-bloggin-bad/

 

(more…)

Advertisements

 

https://rightpunditry.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/the-danger-to-america-is-not-barack-obama-but-the-fools-who-elected-him/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WILL WE REALLY DRAIN THE SWAMP?   By J.B. Williams December 21, 2016 NewsWithViews.com Once again, the leftists took another spanking on the 19th when their efforts to derail the Trump electio…

Source: JB Williams — Will we REALLY Drain the Swamp?…..  ~  “…THREE KEYS TO DRAINING THE SWAMP 1. The Article II natural born Citizen clause must be enforced and violators must be investigated and prosecuted. Evidence now proves that the entire Obama Administration was based upon fraud. That fraud, left standing, makes it impossible to protect the Oval Office from foreign invasion and occupation. We cannot drain the swamp so long as this remains the case. Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow criminals must be held fully accountable for that fraud, or the Oval Office is unprotected. (SEE P-I and P-II on NBC) – Congress must immediately open this investigation!…”

Jon Christian Ryter’s Conservative World ~ WHY HILLARY CLINTON CAN’T LEGALLY BE PRESIDENT By Jon Christian Ryter

Author’s Note: I originally wrote and posted this article on my website on June 13, 2004. The URL was hit 11.4 million times in a two-day period and was the most read article onwww.jonchrisitanryter.com in the history of my website. At least one well-recognized constitutional lawyer agreed with the view of the article that, without a Constitutional amendment degenderizing Article II of the Constitution, Hillary Rodham Clintoncannot constitutionally seek—or legally hold—the office of President of the United States. That, of course will not stop the former First Lady and current junior Senator from New York from running anyway and attempting to amend the US Constitution by precedent. If no one files a petition before the US Supreme Court(which is the only court with jurisdiction over this question) and should Hillary win, the Constitution will have been amended by common practice—erasing Article II and opening the door wide for the elimination of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution using the same tactics.

In point of fact, about the time this article appeared in 2004, an effort was being made to enact what became known as “the Arnold Amendment” that was purportedly designed to change the laws of the land to provide for naturalized citizens like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to legally seek the office of President of the United States. The Arnold Amendment was really theScrew America Amendment since it was covertly designed to legalize Hillary Clinton‘s run for the roses. Since Hillary knows that 60% of the American people—men and women—will never vote for her, telling people the purpose of the Arnold Amendment was to degenderize Article II of the Constitution, the amendment would be a nonstarter. But then, even without being told, most people figured it out for themselves because the Arnold Amendment appears to be stuck in limbo.

ven before his term of office expired at noon on January 20, 2001,President William Jefferson Clinton was quietly querying friendly members of the US Supreme Court to see if they would be inclined to rule that the 22nd Amendment prevented a president from serving more than two terms in the White House, or if there might be five justices on the high court who could be legally persuaded that the 22nd Amendment didn’t exclude the president from serving more than two terms, only that it prevented him from serving more than two consecutiveterms. If the Justices could be convinced to frame a ruling based on what Clintonbelieved was “the spirit” in which the 22nd Amendment was offered for ratification rather than the high court adhering to the letter of the language within the amendment,Clinton might have been able to return to the presidential political arena in 2004 and challenge the son of his old nemesis. However, the consensus Clinton sought from the justices of the high court escaped him. It was the view of the US Supreme Court that the22nd Amendment was clear and unambiguous. No man could hold the office of President for more than two terms. And, any president serving two years and one day of the unexpired term of a former president was ineligible to seek reelection at all.

There had been idle chatter in Democratic circles in 2004 that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry might offer the vice presidential slot to Bill Clinton—even thoughHillary tried hard to buy it for herself. However, the 22nd Amendment prevented Bill Clinton from being placed on the ticket as Kerry‘s vice presidential running mate just asArticle II of the Constitution prevents Hillary Clinton from constitutionally assuming for the job. In fact, for precisely the same reason that Bill Clinton couldn’t serve as vice president, neither can Hillary.

Why? Because she couldn’t constitutionally fill the vacancy caused by the death, resignation, impeachment and removal of any US president under whom she served. The Constitution of the United States actually prevents Hillary—or any woman for that matter—from ascending to the office of President even though several women have already run for the office.

The first woman to run for President of the United States wasVictoria Woodhull, a stockbroker and “protégé” of railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt. Woodhull ran for President on theEqual Rights Party ticket in 1872. Belva Lockwood, the first woman admitted to practice law before the US Supreme Court became that party’s candidate for president in 1884 and 1888. Both women ran on a platform for which there was no constituency that would vote for them—not even themselves. Neither woman could vote. Womanhood did not get the vote until the ratification of the 19th Amendment on Aug. 18, 1920. While the19th Amendment provided women with the right to vote, it did not provide them the right to seek the highest office in the land—a legality that has been overlooked by office seekers, male and female, since 1920.

In 1964 US Senator Margaret Chase Smith[R-ME] became the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for President by a major political party.Smith was nominated bySen. George Aiken that year. The nomination went to Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater who lost in the general election to President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Because women were not viable candidates for the office of the President, their candidacy was viewed only as evidence that the party hierarchy, whether Democrat or Republican, was solidly behind women’s suffrage—particularly when the National Organization of Women[NOW] became a strong feminist advocacy voice in American politics in the 1960s.

In 1984, pressured by NOW to place a woman on the ticket, Walter “Fritz” Mondale(who was running against Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) selected CongresswomanGeraldine Ferraro [D-NY] as his running mate. Although Mondale andFerraro lost in the biggest election upset since 1820 when John Quincy Adams won only one electoral vote in his fight to win the presidency from James Madison,Ferraro has the distinction of going into the history books as the first female vice presidential nominee of a major political party.

Mondale entered the history books as the man who won only his home State of Minnesota—and its 13 electoral votes—in the Election of 1984. Had Mondale won the election, a Constitutional crisis would have resulted since Ferraro could not have legally succeeded Mondale if he died in office or otherwise became incapacitated without a clarification from the US Supreme Court, or through a constitutional amendment that erases the gender distinctions in Article II, Section 1. In an interesting side note to Ferraro‘s candidacy in 1984, the Republicans captured 57% of all of the female votes that year. It seems that, other than the diehard party loyalists and feminists, not even the working class women of America wanted a woman anywhere near the White House—except as First Lady.

Few Americans are cognizant of the fact that an important legal question exists that has not been constitutionally addressed. They believe that because that because the 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote, and because women serve in Congress, that the office of President of the United States has been degenderized. Not true. The 19th Amendment merely removed the barriers that prevented women from voting—not holding the highest office in the land. The 19th Amendment says: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Had the amendment said, “…the right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold public office shall not be denied…” then the 19th Amendment would have done what the feminists claim it did—degenderize the office of the President of the United States. But, they didn’t. And, it didn’t.

The Susan B. Anthony Amendment (as it was known) passed in the House by a vote of 304 to 89. (It was called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment because the words were actually drafted by the suffragist in 1875 when she tried to get Congress to at least debate the measure. The Senate passed the amendment resolution on a vote of 56 to 25. (Fifty-six Senate Republicans and 20 Democrats voted for passage of the Amendment.) Both the House and Senate deliberately avoided adding language that would allow women the right to seek the highest office in the land because most Senators on both sides of the aisle were in doubt of the Amendment being ratified by the 36 States needed to make it the law of the land. Thus, we can conclude that the language needed to give women the right to seek the highest office of the land was deliberately missing from the debates in the 67th Congress since the Congressmen and Senators knew the 19th Amendment would not have been ratified if such a position was included.

Today’s feminists believe the election process is evolutionary—legalized by common practice. They are convinced that because most Americans believe that someday a woman will be President, together with the fact that women have run—unchallenged in the courts—for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered without the need of a ruling from the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment.

When Victoria California Claflin Woodhull announced she was seeking the office of President of the United States in the 1872, she was 34 years of age—one year less than required by the Constitution. (No one cared that she was too young to run because no one considered her to be a real candidate.)

Woodhull‘s benefactor, Cornelius Vanderbilt, used his influence to make certain that Woodhull was allowed to run. In fact,Vanderbiltstructured a bond issue to finance her campaign. The bonds would “mature” only if Woodhull was elected president—which, of course, could not happen under any circumstance sinceWoodhull was only 34 years old when she ran (and even moreso since her running mate wasFrederick Douglas, the former slave.). Furthermore, the Woodhull-Douglas ticket was not on any ballot in any State in the union. The Equal Rights Partygarnered only slightly more than 15,000 votes nationwide.

When she met Vanderbilt, Woodhull was a fortuneteller in a medicine show. As she read his palm, Vanderbilt became smitten by the sexually outspoken, gregarious woman and invited her to join him in New York. Although she was married to Dr. Canning Woodhull, the medicine show owner, she became Vanderbilt‘s mistress. He set Woodhull and her sister,Tennessee Claflin, up in a brokerage business,Woodhull & Claflin, on Wall Street in New York and urged his friends to do business with her.

Even though Woodhull did not meet the basic Constitutional requirements (the fact thatshe was a woman notwithstanding), the precedent allowing women to vie for the office of the presidency was credibly established when Belva Lockwood ran for President in 1884. WithoutWoodhull‘s baggage, her name appeared on the ballot in several States and thus, the confusion over whether Woodhull orLockwood was the first woman to run for President of the United States.

In any event, regardless which woman was historically construed to be the first female presidential candidate, collectively they established what the feminists today believe is the legal precedent which suggests that even though the Constitution specifically defines the President of the United States as a male, women are now construed to have a legal right to seek the office of President of the United States even though it was the firm intent of the Founding Fathers to limit that high office to men..

In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution appears to establish only three ironclad qualifications for president. The president must (1) be at least 35 years old, (2) have lived in the United States at least 14 years, and (3) be a natural-born citizen. Yet,Article II, Section 1 declares that the President will be a man 16 times. Further, as noted by J.A. Corry, principal of Queen’s University in London, and Henry J. Abraham, Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, in their political science text book, Elements of Democratic Government (©1964; Oxford University Press) that in addition to the “written” qualifications for the office, there are also several “unwritten” qualifications and customary requirements that precedent has added to the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.Corry andAbraham insist these prerequisites must be viewed in the light of the entire composite.Being male is necessarily one of them.

Moreover, the Founding Fathers specifically wrote into the Constitution a male-gendered office called President. Article II, Section 1 begins: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold hisoffice during the term of four years, and with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows…” You really do not have to read further to realize the role of President of the United States is gender-specific. Note the qualifications for the office of Congressman found in Article I, Section 1:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States…No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years, and been 7 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen…” There is no gender specification in the description of a Congressman. Nor is there any in the qualifications for Senator found in Article I, Section 2: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the legislature thereof…No person shall be a Senator who shall have attained the age of 30 years, and been 9 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” Only one time, in one sentence, in Article I are the members of the House and/or Senate collectively referred to in male gender, and that is in Section 6, paragraph 2. In that instance, the usage is basically generic since there is no individual gender specific reference made for an individual person. In this single instance, the Constitution is clarifying that Congressmen and Senators may not serve a dual role in the Executive Branch of government.

Four times in Article I, Section 7 the President is referred to specifically as a man. Again, this was not an accident. The President is referred to, by gender, a total of 20 times in the Constitution. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a male gender national leader. In doing so, they explicitly barred women from ever becoming the President of the United States without first enacting a constitutional amendment that would allow them to accept the office if elected (since there appears to be nothing that bars them from seeking the office—only serving it if elected). In his book,“America’s Constitution: A Guided Tour,” Yale law professor Akhill Reed Amarsuggests that the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, also granted them the implied corresponding right to seek the office of President of the United States. “In effect,”he said, “that amendment required that the word ‘he’ in the original constitutional clauses dealing with the president would henceforth be read to mean ‘he’ or ‘she.’”

Amar is, unfortunately, “reading” words or meanings not in evidence. The 19th Amendmentmerely grants women the right to vote. Although liberals have mastered the art of creating supra rights in existing case law by implication, there is no implied corresponding right to be construed here—particularly for women seeking the office of President of the United States which, constitutionally, is uniquely a male job. Sexist, isn’t it?

Simply stated, the 19th Amendment says: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Granted, starry-eyed liberals will automatically see the expansive nature of the phrase “…shall not be…abridged…” and will expand that phrase sufficiently to drive a Mack truck through it since the entire Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 were crafted from the “commerce clause” inArticle I, Section 8. But the simple truth is that all the 19th Amendment does is provide women with the right to vote in federal, State, county and local elections. While women have never been denied the right to seek public office (even when they could not vote for themselves or for other female candidates for office), there is nothing in the 19th Amendment(or any other amendment for that matter) that neutralizes the gender specific qualities required of those who become the President of the United States.

Without looking too far beyond the tip of our noses, we will find several liberal federal judges—particularly female judges—who would vehemently argue that the 19th Amendment’s vote-granting to the “fair sex” tacitly degenderized all masculine references to the office of President. That argument has legal merit only if you can honestly conclude, after reading the entire document, that the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a national leader who was specifically male.

Remember, at that time there were many female monarchs in Europe, so the notion of female heads of state was not alien to their thinking. And, while the door was not closed…………..

MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: Jon Christian Ryter’s Conservative World

 

 

34m ago

 

 

 

The US Military’s Silent Generation | US Defense Watch….. ~ “…The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Joe Dunford and his cowards of the round table have taken a La Cosa Nostra vow of silence as the military takes its final breath and the lights are finally turned off in this great land.Have no doubt, the US military is in its death throes, courtesy of the Obama Administration and its willing, treasonous executioners.From Mike Mullen to Martin Dempsey to Joe Dunford, the Chairmen of the JCS have stood silent as the military implodes around them.Sadly, the Pentagon has no modern Colonel David Hackworth’s. In 1971, Hack was a highly decorated combat vet and leader who was being groomed for his first star. He was on a high trajectory in the lean green machine. But, Hack threw his career away when he…”

EXCERPT !!!!!!!!! ……….

……..The US Military’s Silent GenerationBy Ray Starmannsalute-U.S.-flagThe US armed forces are being strangled to death by the agents of political correctness, feminism, cultural Marxism and the LGBT agenda. Those agents defined as Barack Hussein Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Ash Carter, Ray Mabus, Eric Fanning and Deborah Lee James.Not a day passes now without some new and completely absurd directive emanating from the Pentagon with one goal; the total feminization and destruction of the US military.Yet, as transgenders demand unisex latrines and women are authorized to serve in Delta Force, not a sound emanates from those Rubber Men of Arlington, those spineless mannequins called the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Joe Dunford and his cowards of the round table have taken a La Cosa Nostra vow of silence as the military takes its final breath and the lights are finally turned off in this great land.Have no doubt, the US military is in its death throes, courtesy of the Obama Administration and its willing, treasonous executioners.From Mike Mullen to Martin Dempsey to Joe Dunford, the Chairmen of the JCS have stood silent as the military implodes around them.

Sadly, the Pentagon has no modern Colonel David Hackworth’s. In 1971, Hack was a highly decorated combat vet and leader who was being groomed for his first star. He was on a high trajectory in the lean green machine. But, Hack threw his career away when he went on the ABC talk show, Issues and Answers and told the world that the Army’s strategy to fight the Vietnam War wasn’t working and wouldn’t work unless drastic changes were made.

While Hack was a polarizing figure who was both loved and hated by his men and readers (most of the love came from the lower ranks and the hatred from the higher ranks and the men he deemed the Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon), no one can argue that the man had the courage of his convictions, aka moral fortitude, aka guts.Where is such moral courage and indeed concern about the dire situation in the military today among not only the JCS, but the other members of its ranks?

In over seven years, as the Obama White House has taken a chainsaw and meat cleaver to the military, not one word of protest has come from the JCS, the senior leaders of the military, the middle management of the military, the non-commissioned officers of the military and the civilian bureaucrats who work for the military.A silence has descended upon the military that is not only stifling, but a talisman of ruin and destruction for it.

You might expect someone from the Joint Chiefs to come forward and express their dismay at the Maoist Cultural Revolution destroying the armed forces. The Joint Chiefs have reached their glass ceiling. There is nothing left for them except a pension and a defense contractor position…….MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: The US Military’s Silent Generation | US Defense Watch

*****

MORE!!!!!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/27/a-duty-to-disobey-all-unlawful-orders/

***

http://web.archive.org/web/20091220000623/http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/12/the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-should-be-worried/

***

http://usdefensewatch.com/2015/11/we-were-just-following-orders-the-joint-chiefs-and-the-war-with-isis/

***

24 Years Ago Today the Federal Govt Changed its Rules to Launch a Sniper Attack on Off-Grid Family…

Skip to comments.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

24 Years Ago Today the Federal Govt Changed its Rules to Launch a Sniper Attack on Off-Grid Family
Free Thought Project ^ | 8/21/2016 | Claire Bernish

Posted on 8/22/2016, 9:10:48 AM by HomerBohn

Randall and Vicki Weaver and their children wanted nothing more than to be left to live an isolated life in peace in their cabin enclave on a northern Idaho mountain top called Ruby Ridge. Untrusting of the federal government and of the belief society had taken an insurmountable turn for the worse, the Weavers — as many residents in the remote and breathtaking area — taught their children to be self-sufficient and defend themselves with firearms from unwanted intrusions onto the family’s property.

But the Weaver’s seemingly idyllic life came to an appallingly violent end over several hours from August 21 to 22, 1992, in a horrendously botched federal raid that would also profoundly alter perceptions about the U.S. government in the minds of even ordinary Americans.

 

Often afterward reported to be white supremacists, the Weavers considered themselves race “separatists” only — and intended no harm against others beyond that belief — though their stance often included the company of people with a more vehement ideology.

Regardless of the Weavers’ beliefs, the account of what federal agents perpetrated against the family under the premise of effecting law enforcement action implores Americans of every race to consider the telling outcome of untrammeled government power run amok.

In 1989, Randall “Randy” Weaver came under the scrutiny of federal agents intent on infiltrating sometimes-violent white supremacist organizations like the Aryan Nations — and eventually wound up charged for selling two illegal sawed-off shotguns to an undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [now, also, explosives] (ATF).

Weaver, notably, claimed he had been set up — thus flatly refusing the government’s offer to drop the charges if he would turn informant, feeding the feds information about various Aryan Nations members — and was indicted in December the following year.

Though Weaver’s insistence about the set-up leaves his failure to show up for a scheduled court date in February 1991 an altogether open question, a clerical error marking that court date for March didn’t prevent authorities from issuing a warrant for his arrest.

Knowing the Weavers possessed a relative arsenal — which Randall, Vicki, and their children were well-trained how to use — agents weren’t entirely sure how to carry out the warrant and so began intense surveillance of the family’s mountain home while carefully formulating a plan of action.

During this period, Vicki reportedly penned several darkly but vaguely threatening letters to federal agents, containing phrases such as “the tyrant’s blood will flow.”

Considering the family originally relocated to their outpost over mistrust of the government coupled with Randall’s claims concerning the charges which ultimately generated the warrant, Vicki’s language is understandable.

Remember, whatever narrative about dangerous white separatists federal officials proffered about the Weaver family, Randall had only sold — under questionable circumstances — two sawed-off shotguns to a federal agent, and his failure to appear in court, for all intents and purposes, was the fault of the court clerk’s ultimately egregious error.

All in all, an isolationist family on a remote mountain hardly posed an imminent threat to anyone.

Nonetheless, federal marshals set in motion a plan in August 1992 that would send shockwaves across the country and around the world for its deadly ineptitude and wholly disproportionate use of force.

On August 21, marshals surprised Randall, his 14-year-old son Sammy, friend of the family Kevin Harrison, and the Weaver’s family dog, Striker, on a road near the family’s property. Though some of what happened next remains a matter of conjecture, the events mark a disturbing turn in the use of force for the purposes of an otherwise relatively innocuous warrant.

A fully camouflage-clad marshal shot and killed Striker — prompting Sammy to return fire at the group of marshals. Shots then rang out from both sides — in the end, both Sammy and U.S. Marshal Michael Degan lay dead. After the brief gun battle, Weaver and Harrison retreated to Ruby Ridge and marshals regrouped, bringing in FBI agents and setting up a sniper to watch movements on the property.

One of the most contentious aspects of following events concerned an abhorrently arbitrary relaxing of the FBI’s rules of engagement to handle the case.

Larry Potts headed the FBI’s criminal division and oversaw the deployment of the agency’s Hostage Rescue Team to break the standoff at Ruby Ridge — but in doing so, loosely nullified longstanding rules of engagement preventing agents from firing in anything other than self-defense. In doing so, Potts created a monstrously rogue agency capable of firing at will — and the results were expectedly disastrous.

Agents were ordered to shoot any armed man on sight — on the Weaver’s private property — and when Randall appeared with a weapon alongside his 16-year-ol daughter Sara and Harris, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi opened fire, hitting Weaver in the arm.

Weaver, Harris, and Sara sprinted back to the safety of the cabin, but another shot from Horiuchi hit Vicki in the head, killing her as she clutched the couple’s 10-month-old daughter in her arms — but the bullet passed through her and also wounded Harris.

An incredibly tense 11-day standoff ensued, as the terrified survivors holed up in the Ruby Ridge home, but ended when mediators convinced Randall to turn himself in.

Horiuchi later claimed he had not been aware Vicki stood in the doorway when he fired the fatal shot. Though he was charged in 1997 with involuntary manslaughter for the killing of Vicki Weaver, a federal judge dismissed the charges the following year under the controversial alleged immunity of federal officers from state prosecution.

In 2001, a federal appeals court overruled that claim to immunity, stating federal officials who violate the U.S. Constitution can, indeed, be held accountable at the state level — but the Idaho prosecutor never pursued the manslaughter charge.

Randall and Harris both faced murder charges for the death of the federal marshall — but in a surprising move by an Idaho jury, all charges against them were dropped, save the original failure to appear charge against Weaver that generated the fateful warrant.

Surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death lawsuit, and in 1995, the patriarch received $100,000 and three of his daughters, $1 million each.

To this day, the grievous abuse of power fuels doubt in segments of the public about federal agencies’ ability to restrain itself in the use of unnecessary force disproportionate to putative threats.

Though the enormity of consequences of Ruby Ridge certainly echoed far into the future, the events have unfortunately sometimes been clouded by the Weaver family’s controversial ideologies. But those beliefs — as the families of countless other victims of a growing epidemic of state violence can attest — are of little consequence when the government acts with reckless impunity against a wide range of people from grossly different backgrounds.

Agents participating in and overseeing the siege of Ruby Ridge forced a sweeping internal investigation and concurrent reevaluation of policy — particularly due to the removal of imperative rules of engagement meant to protect civilians from the exact massacre that took place there.

And as is widely known, when the government receives the green light to abandon strictures protecting the public one time, it’s virtually guaranteed to happen again. As testament to this, the deadly and terroristic siege in Waco, Texas, by federal agents occurred shortly after the incident at Ruby Ridge.

On the 20th anniversary of her mother’s and brother’s murder by agents of the government, Sara Weaver poignantly recalled the harrowing details of her experience in an interview with the Associated Press — though she noted her father refuses to do the same. Losing her mother, who was indeed unarmed when she was killed, has been the most difficult aspect for Sara to come to terms with.

“We miss her terribly,” Sara lamented. “It never goes away.”

Despite the unprecedented mishandling, the payout to the surviving Weaver family, and the sh*tstorm of debate and controversy ensuing from the incident at Ruby Ridge, the government has never fully admitted any wrongdoing in the case…. MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: 24 Years Ago Today the Federal Govt Changed its Rules to Launch a Sniper Attack on Off-Grid Family

About these ads

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here
You can hide these ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.

Upgrade now Dismiss message

(more…)

Human Identity in Crisis… ~ “…Yes! Human ID in crisis, but the following is not what Rush is referring to above…!!!!!!!!!…”

Skip to comments.

 

Human Identity in Crisiswww.truthXchange.com ^ | 08/19/2016 | Dr. Peter JonesPosted on 8/19/2016, 12:31:01 PM by truthxchangeA few weeks ago Rush Limbaugh announced

Source: Human Identity in Crisis

Yes! Human ID in crisis, but the following is not what Rush is referring to above…!!!!!!!!!

https://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/globalism-a-psychological-gps-system-for-the-masses-jon-rappoports-blog-here-is-an-article-by-jon-rappoport-i-find-it-an-exceptional-article-and-i-think-it-relates-also-to-such-top/

***

ALSO: Human Farming/The story of Enslavement

https://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/human-farming-the-story-of-your-enslavement-page-1-now-blog-this-gunny-g-american-gunny-g-cocked-and-locked-once-a-blogger-always-a-blogger/

*****

 

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/1568e5fc7c8ff812

***

Post navigation

The Individual unshackled from old space and time

The Individual unshackled from old space and time

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2016

Here is an excerpt of an introduction I wrote to my second collection, Exit From the Matrix:

“Global solution” means the individual is cut out of the equation, he doesn’t count, he doesn’t mean anything in the larger scheme of things, he’s just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

And as more duped and deluded people sign on to this agenda, the whole concept of the individual shrinks and becomes irrelevant.

This is purposeful.

 

This is the script for the future: create problems whose only solution appears to be collective.

Psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually divert the individual’s attention from his own vision, his own profound desires, his own consciousness, his own imagination—and place it within The Group (“all of humanity”).

Propagandize the idea that, if the individual concerns himself with anything other than The Group, he is selfish, greedy, inhumane. He is a criminal…………..MORE!!!!!/LINK BELOW!!!!!

(more…)

Devvy Kidd — It’s the People vs. the Government….. ~ “……..And: “The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil. Our civilian-military face-off””One startling quote in this article is from Admiral Stanley Arthur, Commander of U.S. naval forces during the Gulf War, where he says, “Today the armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve. More and more, enlisted as well as officers are beginning to feel they are special, better than the society they serve.””When you turn to page two of this story, the headlines read, “Bill of Rights no obstacle for the Corps.” Another disturbing quote jumps out at you, “Because of the rising potential for civil disobedience within the inner cities it is ‘inevitable’ the U.S. military will be employed more often within American borders.”…”

EXCERPT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ……………….

…..And: “The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil. Our civilian-military face-off””One startling quote in this article is from Admiral Stanley Arthur, Commander of U.S. naval forces during the Gulf War, where he says, “Today the armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve. More and more, enlisted as well as officers are beginning to feel they are special, better than the society they serve.”

“When you turn to page two of this story, the headlines read, “Bill of Rights no obstacle for the Corps.” Another disturbing quote jumps out at you, “Because of the rising potential for civil disobedience within the inner cities it is ‘inevitable’ the U.S. military will be employed more often within American borders.” Timothy Reeves, The U.S. Marine Corps and Domestic Peacekeeping, a paper written at the Marine Command and Staff Colleges. Why the concern that there is a potential for civil disobedience by Americans?

Where did this come from? I can make an educated guess based on my 14 years of research. In case no one has noticed, the bulk of our population is being forced into these big inner cities whose infrastructures are unable to sustain such masses.”Further into this shocking story: “…

Continue reading

(more…)

VLADIMIR PUTIN: “I swear, if they (the Islamic State savages) ever bomb Russia, in half an hour every Muslim will die”

VLADIMIR PUTIN: “I swear, if they (the Islamic State savages) ever bomb Russia, in half an hour every Muslim will die”

Source: VLADIMIR PUTIN: “I swear, if they (the Islamic State savages) ever bomb Russia, in half an hour every Muslim will die”

That is what i call a message !

Noscomunicamos  The Russian leader is reportedly mounting an enormous military mission to take control of the ISIS terror group’s stronghold of Raqqa. The city is the self-declared capital of ISIS in Syria and is patrolled by as many as 5,000 jihadi members.

Putin is set to mobilise 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military in September. Following the Paris attacks, Putin hinted he was ready to join forces with the West to tackle Islamic State. He told David Cameron: “The recent tragic events in France show that we should join efforts in preventing terror.”

Tyrant grinding down the people…………………….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skip to comments.Tyrant grinding down the peoplehttp://www.conservativenewsandviews.com ^ | 07/08/16 | Bradlee DeanPosted on 8/6/2016, 11:32:50 AM by kindred

Source: Tyrant grinding down the people

(more…)

Hard to tell when the fourth estate is NOT lying…they’re lips still move!!!!!

*****

Sher Zieve: CLICK-Link-Below!

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve

***

Skip to comments.
Foxnews is nearing unwatchable territory!

Posted on 8/2/2016, 4:31:48 PM by pacificus

The anti-Trump crowd is handing the network’s ratings dominance over to lib-tard networks. Perino (most visible showing her Trump disgust daily), Gutfeld (still pretending to be an obnoxious college frat boy) , Williams (Litterally a Dem shilling constantly for Hillary at the table), “Kennedy” (bleh), Mccain (immature brat, phony traditionalist), kelley (queen of the haters, regina george of the group). Hannity is the only bright spot. O’Reilly and Bair too cozy with the positions of their looney peers, and take too long to make good points to watch their shows. Feel free to add your thoughts.

via Foxnews is nearing unwatchable territory!

US combat units on “high alert” after Incirlik surrounded

TruNews

TRUNEWS_Streamcast_Template_copy59

Fort Campbell, KY and other active duty combat installations throughout the U.S. were placed on high alert status Friday, according to a military source.

All units in the 101st Airborne Division are currently operating under a 12 hour recall order as of Friday night, according to the active duty soldier, and other combat bases are also on the same recall status for potential combat deployment.

Read More

via US combat units on “high alert” after Incirlik surrounded | US Defense Watch

GyG: RSS FEED LINK:

(Subscribe to Feed/or just Read!)

https://gunnyg.wordpress.com/feed/

***

Mr. Trump has our enemies’ attention both foreign and domestic!
One word describes it….SCARED$h!tle$$!

**********

Col Sellin “MUST-READS!”

B4.ITS.NEWS !!!!! Daily Articles, Etc…
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/
***

WND Daily…
http://www.wnd.com/

*****
*****

***** *****

*****
Gunny G Blogs…
*****

GunnyG.wordpress.com

Semper FIDELIS !!!!!
*****
THE BOTTOM LINE!
https://gunnyg.wordpress.com/are-you-confused-the-spiritual-war-is-real-and-is-playing-out-before-us-by-coach-dave-daubenmire/
*****

Trump Will Destroy the Republican Party

(more…)

 

Another Deep Underground Military Base? Google Maps Shows Something Hidden Under the Gulf of California

via Another Deep Underground Military Base? Google Maps Shows Something Hidden Under the Gulf of California | The Daily Sheeple

Skip to comments.
Neocons, Warmongers, and Globalists Abandon GOP for Hillary
The New American ^ | 28 July 2016 | Alex Newman

Posted on 7/28/2016, 8:21:28 AM by VitacoreVision

In the top echelons of political power, there is only one major party in American politics, and that is the globalist war party. In case Americans needed more evidence that party labels are largely meaningless to the bipartisan ruling establishment, influential members of the establishment wing of the GOP — neocons, warmongers, globalists, and so on — are abandoning the Republican Party and in many cases jumping on board the Democrat Hillary Clinton campaign. From Bush-era war hawks who misled Americans into war to pseudo-conservative operatives of the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations, Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) are showing their true colors and allegiances. Blasting Donald Trump, more than a few of the globalist RINOs and neocon warmongers are now proudly on the Hillary Train.

 

In the massive history book Tragedy and Hope, Bill Clinton mentor and establishment insider Caroll Quigley explains succinctly……………m

(more…)