Communism
and socialism are umbrella terms referring to two left-wing
schools of
economic thought; both oppose capitalism, but socialism predates the
"Communist Manifesto," an 1848 pamphlet by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by a few decades.
Socialists do not believe in property ownership by an individual. All property is owned by the collective. A populist economic and political system based on the
public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the
means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools and
factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human
needs. Socialists trust the government to supply the products they need for daily living, their job, housing, education, and medical care.
NOTE: Why did Venezuela fail so horribly? The government, the people trusted to take care of them, decided not to purchase goods and services and kept the profits.
Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.
In general, Liberals believe a doctor should earn/make the same amount of income as someone who cleans bath rooms for a living. Even though the doctor spent 8 to 10 years studying for their position, while the bath room cleaner may or may not have seen the inside of any college, let alone take any class.
In other words, liberals want MORE government control of the people. Liberals, Socialists and Communists believe a central government should take care of the people.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, each individual is a sovereign person who does not need government permission to exercise their rights, freedoms, privileges, and liberty, and a strong national defense.
Conservatives believe the role of government should be to protect the freedom of the people necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Conservatives understand that humans are not equal, each and every person has skills and abilities, that others may not.
However, with Capitalism comes great responsibility. Each individual is responsible for ensuring that when they exercise their rights, freedoms, or liberties they do not infringe or violate the rights, freedoms, or liberty of others. Sometimes it is up to the individual to protect them self, their property, their family, and those who can not protect them self. That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was.
Anyone who doesn’t understand socialism can get an idea from this.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth .She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican party.”
Search This Blog
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Demonrat Child Trafficking Act
Encourage these Senators to reject the "Dems’ Keep Families Together Act is better called the Child Trafficking Encouragement Act,"
Cotton said: “Show up at border with a minor & call him your child, then you get released into the US! Children will be abducted & sold to drug cartels & slave-traders as a free ticket into US."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
President Trump has asked Congress to enact his plan, which would allow border-crossing children to be detained with their guardians and parents for extended periods of time. This plan would speed up the asylum and immigration hearing process, and allow the family unit to be deported together back to their native country. WHY is this at the cost of the American tax payer? THEY managed to get here without our money, they can figure out how they will get back home!
Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Harris, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr. King, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Udall, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE: This Act may be cited as the "Keep Families Together Act".
The rest of the 'bill' is just as ridiculous! Read the full text here
Cotton said: “Show up at border with a minor & call him your child, then you get released into the US! Children will be abducted & sold to drug cartels & slave-traders as a free ticket into US."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
President Trump has asked Congress to enact his plan, which would allow border-crossing children to be detained with their guardians and parents for extended periods of time. This plan would speed up the asylum and immigration hearing process, and allow the family unit to be deported together back to their native country. WHY is this at the cost of the American tax payer? THEY managed to get here without our money, they can figure out how they will get back home!
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 7, 2018
June 7, 2018
Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Harris, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr. King, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Udall, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To limit the separation of families at or near ports of entry. (This doesn't address those illegally crossing the border at places OTHER than ports of entry!)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE: This Act may be cited as the "Keep Families Together Act".
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES. (a) In General.— An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:
(1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.The united States has NO jurisdiction SOUTH of the border, let alone 100 miles! IF they are parents or 'legal' guardians of the children they are claiming, WHERE is their documentation? Blows the whole 'undocumented' aliens theory all to bits, doesn't it!?! Considering the criminal illegal invaders are NOT subject to united States law this can NOT be enforced on the criminal illegal invaders!
(2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.Again, criminal illegal invaders are NOT subject to US laws! This clearly states that children can NOT be removed from parents simply because the parent(s) are incarcerated. WHY are the children NOT being sent to prison WITH the parents? BTW: that is a rhetorical question - the answer is obvious!
(3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding thatOfficial and 'undelegated' capacity? WHAT?!! If it is the area port director's official capacity it can NOT be 'undelegated'! HOW is ANYONE going to make a determination of whether the child is in danger of neglect, abuse, or at risk of becoming a victim of child trafficking? It is not likely anyone will admit they abducted a child for the purpose of entering the US illegally, and their plan to sell that child to child traffickers!
(A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking; (B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or (C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.
The rest of the 'bill' is just as ridiculous! Read the full text here
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Are you on the list?
The ’72 Types of Americans Considered Potential Terrorists’ – Are You on the Watchlist?
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.
There are over 200,000 Federal laws that apply to the citizens of America. Nobody knows how many laws for each local, county, and state there are. Do YOU think you are not committing at least one felony a day? Think again!
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.
There are over 200,000 Federal laws that apply to the citizens of America. Nobody knows how many laws for each local, county, and state there are. Do YOU think you are not committing at least one felony a day? Think again!
Interesting facts
- PEOPLE ARE SUPREME
- People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgia at 93.
- UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
- All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
- Statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677(1983)
- .
- RIGHT TO TRIAL
- By the law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat, U.S. 518, 4 ED 629.
- DUE PROCESS
- Law in it's regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process. Leeper vs. Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225.
- "The phrase as used in the Constitution does not mean a statute passed for the purpose of working the wrong. That construction would render the restriction absolutely nugatory. The people would be made to say to the houses: 'You shall be vested with the legislative power of the state, but no one shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a citizen, unless you shall not do the wrong unless you choose to do so." per Bronson,J., in Taylor v Porter, 4 Hill (N.Y.) 140, 40AM, DEC 274.
- If laws that violates the Constitution are passed
- Then someone is convicted of violating that law is that still considered 'due process'?
- TAKING OF PROPERTY
- The meaning of the above words, is that no man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney V. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M (VA) 381, 336.
- SURRENDER OF RIGHTS INTOLERABLE
- We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another. Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968).
- DUE COURSE, DUE PROCESS OF LAW
- Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with "due process of law" or "law of the land" and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542.
- DUE PROCESS
- In Brown v. Levese Com'rs, 50 MIS 479, it is said that these constitutional provisions do not mean the general body of the law as it was at the time the Constitution took effect; but they refer to certain fundamental rights which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of property, etc., then the deprivation has not been by due process of law, and it has been held that the state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law through a constitutional convention anymore than it can through an act of legislature.
- FIFTH AMENDMENT
- Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States provides: "No person shall---be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases "due course of law", and the "law of the land" are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament; Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616.
- FIFTH AMENDMENT - GOOD FAITH
- This 'willful" qualifications fully protects one whose refusal is made in good faith and upon grounds which entitle him to the judgment of the court before obedience is compelled. Federal Power Commissions v. Metropolitan Edison Co. 304 U.S. 375. and ...."To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self incriminatory is beyond the power of Congress." U.S. v. Lombardo, 228 F 980.
- STATES MUST OBEY CONSTITUTION
- The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964.
- EXERCISING A RIGHT CANNOT BE CRIME
- The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489.
- EXERCISE OF RIGHTS
- There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights. Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973).
- KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT
- You can, and must keep your mouth shut for protection under the 5th Amendment. Belnap vs. U.S. et al., Dist Court, (Utah), No. c. 149-71.
- FIFTH AMENDMENT SHIELDS ALL
- The Constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent, as well as the innocent and foresighted. Marchetti vs. United States, 390 U.S. 39 at page 51.
- FIFTH IS NOT JUST VERBAL
- The privilege is not limited to testimony, as ordinarily understood, but extends to every means by which one may be compelled to produce information which may incriminate. Boyd vs. United States, Supra" Brown vs. Walerk, 161, U.S. 591; Distinguishing Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43; Wilson vs. U.S. 221, U.S. 612; United Station vs. Sischo.262 U.S. 165; McCarthy vs Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34; United States vs. Lombardo, 228 Fed. 980; United States vs. Dalton, 286 Fed 756; United States vs. Mulligan, 268 Fed 893; United States vs. Cohen Grocery Co., 225 U.S. 81; United States vs. Sherry, 294 Fed, 684
- FIFTH MUST BE CLAIMED
- The privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination as to the validity of the claim. Heligman vs. United States 407 F. 2D 448.
- SELF INCRIMINATION ILLEGAL
- The adoption of the XIV amendment completed the circle of protection against violations of the provision of Magna Carta, which guaranteed to the citizen his, life, liberty, and property against interference except by the "law of the land", which phrase was coupled in the petition of right with due process of law. The latter phrase was then used for the first time, but the two are currently treated as meaning the same. This security is provided as against the United States by the XIV and Vth amendments and against the states by the XIV amendment. Davidson vs. Orleans 96, U.S. 97, 24 L ED 161.
- FIFTH IS RESTRAINT ON GOVT.
- "It is not a little remarkable that while this provision has been in the Constitution of the United States, (Fifth Amendment)....as a restraint upon authority of the federal government....see Lent vs. Tillson 140, U.S. 316,10 SUP. Ct. 324, 33 L. ED 722.
- PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
- The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, protected by the IV Amendment, are those arising out of the nature and essential character of the federal government, and granted or secured by the Constitution; and due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. Duncan vs. Missouri, 152, U.S. 382,14 SUP. CT. 570, 38 L. ED. 485.
- TAKING OF PROPERTY
- It implies conformity with the natural inherent principles of justice and forbids the taking of one's property without compensation, and requires that no one shall be condemned in person or property without opportunity to be heard. Holden vs. Hardy, 169, U.S. 366, 18 SUP. CT. 383, 42 L ED. 780.
- NOTICE & OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
- The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend; Simon v. Craft, 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP. CT. 836, 45 L. ED 1165; "In determining whether such rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form; ID.; Louisville & N.R. CO. v. Schnidt,177 U.S. 230, 20 SUP. CT. 620 44 L ED 747.
- INSPECTORS MUST HAVE WARRANT
- See v. City of Seattle 387 U.S. 541 (1967) Citizen was arrested for not allowing a fire inspector inside without a warrant. Ruling was in favor of Mr. See. The inspector has to have a search warrant, describing the particular type, thing and date.
- OBJECTION TO STATEMENTS ON RETURN
- If the form of the return provided, called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return,but could not on that account, refuse to make any return at all. U.S. vs Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 at 263.
- ADMISSIONS THAT TEND TO INCRIMINATE
- Whether such admissions by themselves would support a conviction under a criminal statue is immaterial and that the privilege also extends to admission that may only tend to incriminate. Empak vs. U.S. 349 U.S. 190.
- COURT CANNOT DECIDE INCRIMINATION
- He must be the sole judge of what his answer would be. The court cannot participate with him in this judgment because they cannot decide on the effect of his answer without knowing what it would be; and a disclosure of that fact to the judges, would strip him of the privilege which the law allows, and which he claims. Issaacs v. U.S. 256 F 2D 654 (1958).
- PRIVACY
- Right of privacy-----Boyd vs. U.S. 116, U.S. 616, 630, 29 LED 746, CT 524, 1886.
- MIRANDA - PRIVACY
- Privilege against self-incrimination is in part individual's substantive right to private conclave where he may lead a private life. Constitutional foundation underlying privilege against self-incrimination is the respect of the government, state or federal, must accord to dignity and integrity of its citizens. Fifth Amendment provision that individual cannot be compelled to be witness against himself cannot be abridged. Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 380 US 436 (1966) See all keys, also see par 26, this brief.
- MIRANDA
- The Miranda Decision: Ernesto A. Miranda v. State of Arizona, United States Supreme Court, decided June 13, 1966.
- Key 12: Government seeking to punish individual must produce evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his mouth.
- Key 15: Privilege against self-incrimination is fulfilled only when person is guaranteed right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in unfettered exercise of his own will.
- Key 18: Defendant's constitutional rights have been violated if his conviction is based, in whole or in part, on involuntary confession, regardless of its truth or falsity, even if there is ample evidence aside from confession to support conviction.
- Key 23: Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and services to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed, from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
- Key 28: Prosecution may not use at trial fact that defendant stood mute or claimed his privilege in face of accusations.
- Key 43: Once warnings have been given, if individual indicates in any manner,at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, interrogation must cease.
- Key 45: Any statement taken after person invokes Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be other than product of compulsion.
- Key 56: Any evidence that accused was threatened, tricked or cajoled into waiver will show that he did not voluntarily waive privilege to remain silent.
- Key 73: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.
- TRIAL BY JURY
- A trial by jury is granted by the 7th Amendment and Georgia vs. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1, 1974.
- Right to trial by jury; Dairy Queen vs Wood 369 U.S. 469, 2S CT,. 894, 8 L ED 2 44 1962. Also 369 U.S. at 470, 82 S CT AT 896.
- Jury trial is a right! Hill vs Philpott, 445 F 2 D 144; Juliard vs. Greenmen, 110 U.S. 421; Kansan vs. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, (1907); Reisman vs. Caplan, 375, U.S. 440, (1964); U.S. vs. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1993); U.S. vs Tarlowski, 305 F. SUPP 112 (1969).
- TAKING OF PROPERTY
- No man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney vs. Beverly 2 HEN. & M(VA) 318, 336.
- CIVIL RIGHTS - DISTRICT COURT
- Civil Rights..."Civil action for deprivation of rights, 28 U.S.C 1343, gives U.S. District court original jurisdiction.
- SECURITY OF LIFE LIMB & PROPERTY
- Security of life, limb, and property. Davidson vs. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L. ED. 616....Lent vs. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316, II SUP CT. 825, 35 L ED 419; Palmer vs. McFarland, 1330, U.S. 660, 10 SUP CT., 324, 33 L. ED. 722.
- FIFTH AMENDMENT ON RETURN
- If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refused to make any return at all. U.S. vs. Sullivan 274 US 259 Page 263.
- LEGAL TO DECREASE TAXES
- The legal right of a tax payer decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means within the law permits, cannot be doubted, Gregory vs. Helvering, 293, US 465.
- DECISIONS AGAINST W4, W4E AND 1040
- The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met, therefore,if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court. U.S. vs Bishop, 412, U.S. 346 (1973) at 2017.
- Like the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment was NEVER properly ratified by two thirds (2/3) of the states, by popular vote.
- TIPS ARE GIFTS - NOT TAXABLE
- Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable. Olk vs. U.S., February 18,1975, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Wendell Olk) Judge Thomas W. Clary.
- TWO YEAR LIMIT ON IRS COLLECTIONS
- Due process of law.....Simon vs. Craft 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP CT. 836,45 L ED 1165; Louisville & N.R> CO., Vs Schmidt 177 U.S. L 30 20 SUP CT 620,44 L ED 747.
- Waiver, through oversight, Internal Revenue Service did not send notice, thus notice of amount due exceeded 2 year limitations. Miller vs. U.S., July 11, 1974, 43 LW 2042 CA 2.
- COOPERATION WITH IRS
- Who would believe the ironic truth that cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his Constitutional rights. U.S. vs. Dickerson 413 F 2D 1111.
- IRS CANNOT GET RECORDS
- The chief error in defendant's position is his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses for the years in question. United States vs. Daly, 481 F 2D 28, (1973).
- FIFTH OVERRIDES STATUTES
- We are clearly of the opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution, after he answers the incriminating question put to him, can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution of the United States...In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future prosecutions for the offense to which the question relates. Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547.
- FIFTH - RARE TAX PAYER KNOWS IT
- Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. United Station vs. Dickerseon, 413 F 2D 1111.
- FIFTH - CORP HAS NO RIGHT - INDIVIDUAL DOES
- ...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. He has no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of this life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights...an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute... Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at page 74.
- FIFTH & IRS
- Mr. Long of Missouri. "Mr. President, I invite the Senate's attention to certain correspondence I have had with Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen with respect to the legal obligations of citizens to keep records, produce records, and answer questions relating to tax liability.
- Criminal cases have been veiled in civil clothing to obtain information illegally. Taxpayers have been bullied and threatened, especially small taxpayers and those without legal assistance.
- What should taxpayers do when faced with such a situation? Do all lawyers even know what the obligations of taxpayers are as to record keeping, record producing, and question answering?
- The answer seems to be "no." For this reason, I wrote to Commissioner Cohen on April 17, 1967, and received his reply on July 7, 1967. As his reply is most instructive and will help Congress, as well as taxpayers, their lawyers and accountants, I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence be printed in the record." The following are excerpts from the Commissioner Cohen's reply, which was prepared by Chief Counsel Lester R. Vretz, and demoniated U. S. Government memorandum CC:CL0003487:
- "Good faith challenges in the form of Constitutional and other federally recognized privileges are of course recognized by the service. For example, the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment may be a basis by an individual taxpayer for refusing to answer specific questions or to furnish his records."........before recommending prosecution under Section 7201 or 7203, the service must usually develop enough information to show a substantial tax liability that was not met in addition to criminal intent. The constitutional rights and other legal rights of all persons will be fully respected and observed.
- FIFTH DOES NOT ELIMINATE NEED TO FILE RETURN
- ....The quick solution to the plaintiff's claimed desire to file a federal income tax return is to either file an honest return or if the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but he could not on that account refuse to make any return at all, we are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld..it would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in a crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the governments blank would bring him into danger of the law. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927) Holmes J.
- GOVT. CANNOT DECLARE INFO PUBLIC
- ....the government's anxiety to obtain information known to a private individual does not without more render that information public; if it did, no room would remain for the application of the constitutional privilege. Nor does it stamp information with a public character that the government has formalized its demands in the attire of a statue; if this alone were sufficient, the constitution's privilege could be [sic] entirely be abrogated by any act of Congress. Page 57, 390 U.S. 39.
- RELYING ON SUPREME COURT IS NOT A CRIME
- Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this court. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-263-264 (1927) Holmes J.
- FIFTH ALSO APPLIES TO CIVIL TRIALS
- The government insists broadly that the Constitutional privilege against self incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the notice of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, whenever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility he who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.
- It protects, likewise, the owner of goods which may be forfeited in a penal proceeding. McCarthy vs Arndsten (CF Counselman vs. Hitchock, 142 U.S. 547, 563, 564, 352 ED 110, 114 e inters, COM., REP, 816, 12 SUP. CT. REP 195)
- FIFTH COVERS LINKING FACTS
- The Supreme Court declared that "the privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime...the claimant is not required to prove the precise danger since by so doing he would be forced to disclose those very facts which under the privilege protects. Hoffman vs. United States (CF 341U.S. 479, 486, 71 CT. 814, 818, 95 L ED 1118.)
- FIFTH OK IN ROUTINE MATTERS
- The Supreme Court argued that the IRS could not use material gained by IRS agents under a routine questioning for what purported to be a routine audit. "The difference between a routine and a criminal investigation was too minor to justify departure from the Miranda Doctrine." Justice White drew a mandatory conclusion, "Indeed, he added," the Black opinion suggested that the Miranda warnings are required through the immensely broad area of investigations which frequently lead to criminal inquiries." The Mathis Decision, (No. 726, May 6, 1968, 3 910 S.) (Winterhaven, Florida).
- "Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
- United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 758 (1966).
- See Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney, C. J.);
- Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43-44 (1868);
- Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869);
- Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941);
- Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 126 (1958);
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631, 634 (1969);
- Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S., at 237 (separate opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.), 285-286 (STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined).
- see Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U. S. 49 (1970),
- Wyman v. Lopez, 404 U. S. 1055 (1972),
Monday, January 15, 2018
Anchor Babies
In Elk vs Wilkins, 112 US 94, the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment did NOT grant Indians citizenship.
The Supreme Court stated: "No one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."
WHY was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 necessary?
The fact that the illegal alien parents of a baby born in America are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof and owe allegiance to a foreign power they can NOT produce an American citizen! To put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing NO allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
That is why illegal aliens are deported and NOT charged with a crime under US laws or violating US immigration laws! 8 US Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien! They are NOT citizens and not subject to united States laws! The 14th Amendment was NEVER properly ratified!
The criminal act of entering a country uninvited, unannounced, and in violation of that country's laws is NEVER rewarded with citizenship!
The Supreme Court stated: "No one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."
WHY was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 necessary?
The fact that the illegal alien parents of a baby born in America are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof and owe allegiance to a foreign power they can NOT produce an American citizen! To put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing NO allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
That is why illegal aliens are deported and NOT charged with a crime under US laws or violating US immigration laws! 8 US Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien! They are NOT citizens and not subject to united States laws! The 14th Amendment was NEVER properly ratified!
The criminal act of entering a country uninvited, unannounced, and in violation of that country's laws is NEVER rewarded with citizenship!
There is NO such thing as an anchor baby!
ELK v. WILKINS
Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
Before the Civil War, citizenship was often limited to Native Americans of one-half or less Indian blood. In the Reconstruction period, progressive Republicans in Congress sought to accelerate the granting of citizenship to friendly tribes, though state support for these measures was often limited. In 1888, most Native American women married to U.S. citizens were conferred with citizenship, and in 1919 Native American veterans of World War I were offered citizenship. In 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act, an all-inclusive act, was passed by Congress.
H.R. 3004: Kate’s Law
These elected representatives voted against the safety of the Citizens of America and for the continued protection of criminal illegals!
- Sewell, Terri
AL 7th - Grijalva, Raúl
AZ 3rd - Gallego, Ruben
AZ 7th - Huffman, Jared
CA 2nd - Garamendi, John
CA 3rd - Thompson, Mike
CA 5th - Matsui, Doris
CA 6th - Bera, Ami
CA 7th - McNerney, Jerry
CA 9th - DeSaulnier, Mark
CA 11th - Pelosi, Nancy
CA 12th - Lee, Barbara
CA 13th - Costa, Jim
CA 16th - Khanna, Ro
CA 17th - Eshoo, Anna
CA 18th - Lofgren, Zoe
CA 19th - Panetta, Jimmy
CA 20th - Carbajal, Salud
CA 24th - Brownley, Julia
CA 26th - Chu, Judy
CA 27th - Schiff, Adam
CA 28th - Cárdenas, Tony
CA 29th - Sherman, Brad
CA 30th - Aguilar, Pete
CA 31st - Lieu, Ted
CA 33rd - Torres, Norma
CA 35th - Ruiz, Raul
CA 36th - Bass, Karen
CA 37th - Sánchez, Linda
CA 38th - Roybal-Allard, Lucille
CA 40th - Takano, Mark
CA 41st - Waters, Maxine
CA 43rd - Barragán, Nanette
CA 44th - Correa, Luis
CA 46th - Lowenthal, Alan
CA 47th - Vargas, Juan
CA 51st - Peters, Scott
CA 52nd - Davis, Susan
CA 53rd - DeGette, Diana
CO 1st - Polis, Jared
CO 2nd - Perlmutter, Ed
CO 7th - DeLauro, Rosa
CT 3rd - Himes, James
CT 4th - Blunt Rochester, Lisa
DE - Lawson, Al
FL 5th - Soto, Darren
FL 9th - Castor, Kathy
FL 14th - Hastings, Alcee
FL 20th - Frankel, Lois
FL 21st - Deutch, Theodore
FL 22nd - Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
FL 23rd - Wilson, Frederica
FL 24th - Bishop, Sanford
GA 2nd - Johnson, Hank
GA 4th - Lewis, John
GA 5th - Scott, David
GA 13th - Hanabusa, Colleen
HI 1st - Gabbard, Tulsi
HI 2nd - Rush, Bobby
IL 1st - Kelly, Robin
IL 2nd - Gutiérrez, Luis
IL 4th - Quigley, Mike
IL 5th - Davis, Danny
IL 7th - Krishnamoorthi, Raja
IL 8th - Schakowsky, Jan
IL 9th - Schneider, Bradley
IL 10th - Foster, Bill
IL 11th - Bustos, Cheri
IL 17th - Visclosky, Peter
IN 1st - Carson, André
IN 7th - Loebsack, David
IA 2nd - Yarmuth, John
KY 3rd - Richmond, Cedric
LA 2nd - Pingree, Chellie
ME 1st - Sarbanes, John
MD 3rd - Brown, Anthony
MD 4th - Hoyer, Steny
MD 5th - Delaney, John
MD 6th - Raskin, Jamie
MD 8th - Neal, Richard
MA 1st - McGovern, Jim
MA 2nd - Tsongas, Niki
MA 3rd - Kennedy, Joseph
MA 4th - Clark, Katherine
MA 5th - Moulton, Seth
MA 6th - Capuano, Michael
MA 7th - Amash, Justin
MI 3rd - Kildee, Daniel
MI 5th - Levin, Sander
MI 9th - Dingell, Debbie
MI 12th - Conyers, John
MI 13th - Lawrence, Brenda
MI 14th - Walz, Timothy
MN 1st - McCollum, Betty
MN 4th - Ellison, Keith
MN 5th - Nolan, Richard
MN 8th - Thompson, Bennie
MS 2nd - Clay, Lacy
MO 1st - Cleaver, Emanuel
MO 5th - Titus, Dina
NV 1st - Rosen, Jacky
NV 3rd - Kihuen, Ruben
NV 4th - Shea-Porter, Carol
NH 1st - Norcross, Donald
NJ 1st - Pallone, Frank
NJ 6th - Sires, Albio
NJ 8th - Pascrell, Bill
NJ 9th - Payne, Donald
NJ 10th - Watson Coleman, Bonnie
NJ 12th - Lujan Grisham, Michelle
NM 1st - Luján, Ben
NM 3rd - Suozzi, Thomas
NY 3rd - Rice, Kathleen
NY 4th - Meeks, Gregory
NY 5th - Meng, Grace
NY 6th - Velázquez, Nydia
NY 7th - Jeffries, Hakeem
NY 8th - Clarke, Yvette
NY 9th - Nadler, Jerrold
NY 10th - Maloney, Carolyn
NY 12th - Espaillat, Adriano
NY 13th - Crowley, Joe
NY 14th - Serrano, José
NY 15th - Engel, Eliot
NY 16th - Lowey, Nita
NY 17th - Maloney, Sean
NY 18th - Tonko, Paul
NY 20th - Slaughter, Louise
NY 25th - Butterfield, G.K.
NC 1st - Price, David
NC 4th - Adams, Alma
NC 12th - Beatty, Joyce
OH 3rd - Kaptur, Marcy
OH 9th - Fudge, Marcia
OH 11th - Ryan, Tim
OH 13th - Bonamici, Suzanne
OR 1st - Blumenauer, Earl
OR 3rd - Schrader, Kurt
OR 5th - Brady, Robert
PA 1st - Evans, Dwight
PA 2nd - Boyle, Brendan
PA 13th - Doyle, Mike
PA 14th - Cicilline, David
RI 1st - Clyburn, Jim
SC 6th - Cohen, Steve
TN 9th - Green, Al
TX 9th - Gonzalez, Vicente
TX 15th - O’Rourke, Beto
TX 16th - Jackson Lee, Sheila
TX 18th - Castro, Joaquin
TX 20th - Green, Gene
TX 29th - Johnson, Eddie
TX 30th - Veasey, Marc
TX 33rd - Vela, Filemon
TX 34th - Doggett, Lloyd
TX 35th - Welch, Peter
VT - Scott, Bobby
VA 3rd - Beyer, Donald
VA 8th - Connolly, Gerald
VA 11th - DelBene, Suzan
WA 1st - Larsen, Rick
WA 2nd - Kilmer, Derek
WA 6th - Jayapal, Pramila
WA 7th - Smith, Adam
WA 9th - Heck, Denny
WA 10th - Pocan, Mark
WI 2nd - Moore, Gwen
WI 4th - Gosar, Paul
AZ 4th - Nunes, Devin
CA 22nd - Napolitano, Grace
CA 32nd - Scalise, Steve
LA 1st - Cummings, Elijah
MD 7th - Long, Billy
MO 7th - Stivers, Steve
OH 15th - Chaffetz, Jason
UT 3rd - McEachin, Donald
VA 4th
Thursday, January 11, 2018
More Demonrat Controversy
http://everydayconservative.com/2018/01/10/new-york-dem-indicted-blew-sandy-fema-cash-luxury-cruises-lingerie-lock/
For New York Democrat, Pamela Harris, the entitlements of her job as an assemblywoman extended far beyond what the rest of us, the “little people” who vote for their representatives, can even hope for at our jobs.
The assemblywoman has been indicted and faces 30 years if convicted for a slew of crimes associated with a long-running scam to siphon off funds meant for victims of Hurricane Sandy – and her benefits go far beyond medical and dental insurance!
Harris, 57, defrauded the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of $25,000 using the money to pay for cruise vacations, shopping – and Victoria Secret lingerie.
The Democrat has been charged by the Department of Justice with wire fraud, making false statements, bankruptcy fraud, witness tampering and obstructing justice for defrauding after the hurricane swept through New York and New Jersey wiping out infrastructure and damaging, sometimes destroying, homes and businesses, forcing residents to rebuild or relocate.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/10/nyc-mayor-sue-big-oil-causing-hurricane-sandy-something/
Mayor Bill de Blasio will sue the country’s five biggest oil companies alleging climate change and global warming led to Hurricane Sandy and its catastrophic fallout and the companies should pay for the city’s resiliency upgrades.
The de Blasio administration will announce Wednesday that the city will sue for reparations and force the companies to pay for the city’s resiliency efforts, which have taken years to complete, when the storm, in 2012, devastated the city, killing 53 people across the state costing more than $19 billion.
The mayor will also call on several of the city’s pension funds to divest from oil companies, two sources with knowledge of the announcement confirmed to POLITICO, a 'source' that is known to be less than accurate!
There are two types of biofuel: biodiesel and ethanol.
Ethanol is made from grains (corn, barley, wheat, etc) or sugar cane, but can also be made from the inedible parts of most plants. It is frequently used as a biofuel, but usually blended with petrol. Cars designed to run on petrol can only tolerate a 10% addition of ethanol to petrol; flexible fuel cars can use an up to 80% ethanol mix. In Brazil, where vast amounts of sugar cane are grown for biofuel, some cars can run on 100% ethanol.
Why? The hemp plant can be completely processed. Every part can be used to replace every product created with fossil fuels, and even make plant-based plastics, durable paper and military grade fabric.
Hemp can yield 3 to 8 dry tons of fiber per acre - Four times more than an average forest can yield. Hemp cultivation requires no chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizer.
How? It does so by way of Phytoremediation… a natural decontamination from plants. Hemp is really good at this, especially when it comes to radiation. Hemp is more efficient and effective, than other plants, at removing, breaking down, and neutralizing harmful contaminants.
Growing hemp filters and decontaminates the soil, it also helps to replenish the nitrogen and nutrients found in soil that plants need to grow and thrive.
For New York Democrat, Pamela Harris, the entitlements of her job as an assemblywoman extended far beyond what the rest of us, the “little people” who vote for their representatives, can even hope for at our jobs.
The assemblywoman has been indicted and faces 30 years if convicted for a slew of crimes associated with a long-running scam to siphon off funds meant for victims of Hurricane Sandy – and her benefits go far beyond medical and dental insurance!
Harris, 57, defrauded the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of $25,000 using the money to pay for cruise vacations, shopping – and Victoria Secret lingerie.
The Democrat has been charged by the Department of Justice with wire fraud, making false statements, bankruptcy fraud, witness tampering and obstructing justice for defrauding after the hurricane swept through New York and New Jersey wiping out infrastructure and damaging, sometimes destroying, homes and businesses, forcing residents to rebuild or relocate.
WHY did Fema buy $1 Billion dollars worth of disposable coffin liners (human remains containers that will hold the ashes of 4 adults), 14 million body bags, 140 million long-life meals or MREs?http://www.truthandaction.org/fema-orders-1-billion-dollars-worth-disposable-coffin-liners/
WHY did the government buy 30,000 guillotines (capable of killing 30 Million people in 10 hours)?https://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-did-the-u-s-government-recently-purchase-30000-guillotines/
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/10/nyc-mayor-sue-big-oil-causing-hurricane-sandy-something/
Still think he didn't pocket money illegally? |
The de Blasio administration will announce Wednesday that the city will sue for reparations and force the companies to pay for the city’s resiliency efforts, which have taken years to complete, when the storm, in 2012, devastated the city, killing 53 people across the state costing more than $19 billion.
The mayor will also call on several of the city’s pension funds to divest from oil companies, two sources with knowledge of the announcement confirmed to POLITICO, a 'source' that is known to be less than accurate!
WHY does America continue to destroy the environment with drilling, fracking, and mining?
There are two types of biofuel: biodiesel and ethanol.
Ethanol is made from grains (corn, barley, wheat, etc) or sugar cane, but can also be made from the inedible parts of most plants. It is frequently used as a biofuel, but usually blended with petrol. Cars designed to run on petrol can only tolerate a 10% addition of ethanol to petrol; flexible fuel cars can use an up to 80% ethanol mix. In Brazil, where vast amounts of sugar cane are grown for biofuel, some cars can run on 100% ethanol.
Biodiesel is a renewable, biodegradable fuel manufactured domestically from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant grease. It is a cleaner-burning replacement for petroleum diesel fuel. Biodiesel meets both the biomass-based diesel and overall advanced biofuel requirement of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Hemp oil can and should replace both Ethanol and biodiesel.
Scientific Name: Cannabis sativa
Common Name: Hemp
Family: Cannabaceae
Hemp can yield 3 to 8 dry tons of fiber per acre - Four times more than an average forest can yield. Hemp cultivation requires no chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizer.
Growing hemp filters and decontaminates the soil, it also helps to replenish the nitrogen and nutrients found in soil that plants need to grow and thrive.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)