Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘News the Media won't report’ Category


uni_no_amnesty_130520_wmain
Our United States Congress is preparing to DESTROY our Country. They are about to pass a MASS Amnesty Immigration bill that would AUTOMATICALLY give citizenship to approximately 20 million Illegal Immigrants that are already here within our borders.

These 20 Million are NOT just the hard working Hispanics that the Main Stream Media and our  current leaders lead you to believe.

No Sir…. They include:

Radical Islamics who will demand Sharia Law and can NOT “COEXIST” with our US Constitution.

Terrorists
http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnN77KCx9Kw

Drug Cartels that will continue to push their poison to our kids and grandkids.

NSFW – Not Suitable For Work Video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14b_1362901494

Others that have no intention of becoming A United States Citizen but only came here because of our humanitarian treatment of our citizens. AKA Welfare, Medicaid, Schools, etc.

Trojan Horse Bill info
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/13/a-trojan-horse-gop-reps-break-down-immigration-bill-fight/

Gumball Presentation via Numbers USA

 

Remember 1986 has LOTS of info.

http://remember1986.com/
There is a “Fax Congress FREE”  link at this page:

https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax?id=14616

 

 

 

For NC here are the contacts for your legislators:

Senator Richard Burr (R- NC) 202-224-3154 202-228-2981 http://www.burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActio …

Senator Kay Hagan (D- NC) 202-224-6342 202-228-2563 http://www.hagan.senate.gov/contact/

Representative G. K. Butterfield, Jr. (D – 01) 202-225-3101 202-225-3354 https://butterfield.house.gov/email-congressman-butte …

Representative Renee L. Ellmers (R – 02) 202-225-4531 202-225-5662 https://ellmersforms.house.gov/contact-form

Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R – 03) 202-225-3415 202-225-3286 https://jones.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Representative David Price (D – 04) 202-225-1784 202-225-2014 https://forms.house.gov/price/webforms/contact_form.shtml

Representative Virginia Foxx (R – 05) 202-225-2071 202-225-2995 https://virginiafoxx.house.gov/forms/writeyourrep/

Representative Howard Coble (R – 06) 202-225-3065 202-225-8611 http://coble.house.gov/contact/zipcheck.htm

Representative Mike McIntyre (D – 07) 202-225-2731 202-225-5773 http://mcintyreforms.house.gov/contact/

Representative Richard Hudson (R – 08) 202-225-3715 202-225-4036 https://hudson.house.gov/email-me

Representative Robert Pittenger (R – 09) 202-225-1976 202-225-3389 http://pittenger.house.gov/contact

Representative Patrick McHenry (R – 10) 202-225-2576 202-225-0316 http://mchenry.house.gov/contact/zipauth.htm

Representative Mark Meadows (R – 11) 202-225-6401 202-226-6422 https://meadows.house.gov/email-me

Representative Mel Watt (D – 12) 202-225-1510 202-225-1512  http://watt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2580&Itemid=67

Representative George Holding (R – 13) 202-225-3032 202-225-0181 https://holding.house.gov/contact/email-me
Out of state friends,  go to this site:http://www.contactingthecongress.org/, to  find your OWN legislators to contact.

 

      

DO IT NOW!!  If we let this pass, all our other battles are futile, because our Republic will be lost forever.


 

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Fourteenth Day of June, Flag Day and the Birthday of our US Army, in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


Benghazi-Treason-1

Text is copied from a facebook post….. Links to several news stories is posted below.

At 2 a.m, on June 17, 1972, five men dressed in business suits and wearing surgical gloves were in the process of bugging the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate office complex. Caught in the act, they were later identified as Nixon’s “Plumbers,” part of a nationwide operation to ensure Nixon’s reelection that included wiretapping, burglary, private investigators, and mafia-like shakedowns.

Nixon put a halt to the Watergate investigation, giving marching orders to the Plumbers to keep quiet and told his cronies in the CIA and Department of Justice to stall the FBI investigation.

Fast forward to March 2013, we found out that two NASA facilities—LangleyResearchCenter in Hampton, Virginia, and AmesResearchCenter near San Francisco, California-were gorged with Chinese national engineers, who had access to top secret defense technology, who then took this information back to their handlers in communist China.

Congressman Frank R. Wolf, through information gathered from whistleblowers, not only found that secret defense information was stolen, but that the Obama administration, including DOJ, may have shut down the investigation.

According to a whistleblower speaking to Aviation Week, the Chinese nationals obtained high-level, cutting edge technology, including:

… Missile defense technology…High-performance rocket engines, fuel and oxidizer tanks from an “ASAT” (anti-satellite weapon), guidance and terrain-mapping systems from the Tomahawk cruise missile and a radar altimeter from the F-35…

Upon allegations that defense secrets at the Ames facility were breached, an FBI investigation was launched and completed, the information then being turned over to Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary Fry. Fry began to prepare indictments and convened a secret grand jury. However, literally minutes before Fry was to begin the proceedings, and without explanation, he was replaced by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elise Becker, and the investigation suddenly stalled.

According to Congressman Wolf, Department of Justice and White House officials intervened in the investigation to shut it down.

Congressman Wolf and other members of Congress put together a confidential report, Destruction of NASA from the Inside: A Summary Report of Criminal and Political Activity, delivered to the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, which states that NASA has been hemorrhaging top secret technology not only China, but Saudi Arabia as well.

Eric Holder has of course denied that they quashed the investigation, but Congressman Wolf’s probe puts the DOJ right in the middle of what could be the biggest loss of U.S. technology since the Rosenbergs funneled information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union.

Nixon shut down the Watergate investigation to ensure his reelection. The Obama administration is alleged to have shut down the NASA investigation to ensure that the funneling of top secret defense technology to communist China continues.

Impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors” would be only the beginning…

News Stories and related info.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/wolf-alleges-security-violations-at-nasas-langley-research-center-issues-seven-step-remediation-plan

http://news.discovery.com/human/was-chinese-scientist-a-spy-at-nasa-130318.htm

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/03/chinese-nasa-scientist-charged-lying-feds

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2013/02/10/nasa-ames-catches-heat-over-alleged-tech-leaks-to-china/

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Second Day of June in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


ConstutionImage

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

Bill Benson’s findings, published in “The Law That Never Was,” make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Philander Knox

Philander Knox

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words “on income” from the text, so they weren’t even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state’s approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the “presumptive conclusion” argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment’s trend. You’ve probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you’d be right – they didn’t; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it’s authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota – which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn’t have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).

More info:

 

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Fifteenth Day of May in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


Today we salute YOU Mr. Bone Marrow Donor.

Real American Heroes!

Cameron Lyle Univ. of New Hampshire Track & Field. Click to enlarge.

Cameron Lyle – Univ. of New Hampshire Track & Field. Click to enlarge.

Source

Since the tragic events in Boston, the only news we have heard lately is bad news. A story coming out of New Hampshire will hopefully change that.

Cameron Lyle, a senior track and field athlete from the University of New Hampshire, will miss the rest of his career after deciding to donate bone marrow to an anonymous donor later this month.

Back in his sophomore year of college, Lyle along with other UNH athletes participated in a drive on campus to join the national bone marrow registry. After having his mouth swabbed, Lyle did not think anything of the event and went about his collegiate career on the track team, throwing the discus, shot put and hammer.

It wasn’t until Lyle received a phone call from National Marrow Donor Program a few months ago that things started to change. They informed him during that initial phone call that he was a possible match for someone. A few weeks later, the organization called back and told Cameron that he was a 100 percent match. Lyle decided that he would donate his bone marrow which ended his career at New Hampshire.

“They told me it was a one in five million chance of me being a match for a non-family member,” Lyle told the Eagle Tribune. “They gave me the timeline and everything’s been moving quickly after that.”

After Lyle has the surgery, he will not be able to lift 20 pounds over his head for a few weeks. With that limitation, Cameron will be not able to throw the discus, hammer and shot put. He was scheduled to compete in two more meets this season including the America East championship. But Lyle knew the decision he would make.

“I knew right away I was definitely going to donate. I was pretty terrified at first but it is starting to settle in.”

Lyle’s bone marrow will be going to a 28-year-old male who is suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Lyle and the anonymous recipient must remain unknown to one another due to law.

“He has six months to live and I have the possibility to buy him a couple of more years,” said Lyle about the recipient of his bone marrow. 

The toughest person Lyle had to tell about his decision was his track and field coach at New Hampshire Jim Boulanger.

“I felt like I was walking into the principal’s office had done something wrong,” Lyle thought about telling his coach. Much to Lyle’s happiness, his coach was behind him.

“I told him, you either do 12 throws at the conference championships, or you give another man a few more years,” Boulanger said. “It was easy for me.”

The surgery is set for April 24 and Lyle is ready. His mother, Christine Sciacca, will be going with him to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston for the procedure. Lyle looks forward to possibly meeting the man he is helping.

“I’d love to meet him some day,” Lyle said. “He’s not that much older than myself. I just can’t imagine what he’s going through.”

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Thirtieth Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


This is a no frills post — Just a copy & paste from The Blaze.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/beck-breaks-exclusive-information-on-saudi-national-allegedly-connected-to-boston-bombings/

Background points:

 

    A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing

    As the story gained traction, TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national, originally identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject when confronted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill.

    An ICE official said a separate Saudi national is in custody, but is “in no way” connected to the bombings.

    A congressional source, however, says that the file on Alharbi was created, that he was “linked” in some way to the Boston bombings (though it is unclear how), and that documents showing all this have been sent to Congress.

    Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano

    Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports that Alharbi was allegedly flagged on a terrorist watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted

    New information provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered early Wednesday evening to disassociate him from the initial charges

    Sources say the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts

    Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.

 

Monday morning Glenn Beck laid out what he knows about the Saudi connection to the Boston marathon bombings.  It is a story that the mainstream media has all but completely ignored, though Beck says TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood reached out to numerous other networks in an effort to get the story out.   Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to acknowledge the story even existed when questioned by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) last Friday. But now a number of congressional sources have confirmed that the story is as TheBlaze reported last week, and Beck is presenting more pieces of the big picture.

 

“This week has changed me,” he said at the top of his radio program on Monday.  “The events in Boston changed me….The events in Washington around Boston changed me.”

 

We crossed an “extraordinarily disturbing threshold” last week, Beck said, but we know “exactly who we’re dealing with now.”

 

After a discussion of how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is currently under guard in the hospital, wasn’t read his Miranda rights, Beck proceeded to lay out a number of points on the case. “While the media continues to look at what the causes were of these two guys, there are, at this hour, three people involved,” he said.  “The first one is the one we are going to address.”

 

Beck proceeded to highlight the background of the Saudi national first identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston bombings, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, noting that the the NTC issued an event file calling for his deportation using section 212, 3B which is proven terrorist activity.

 

“We are not sure who actually tagged him as a ’212 3B,’ but we know it is very difficult to charge someone with this — it has to be almost certain,” Beck explained.  “It is the equivalent in civil society of charging someone with premeditated murder and seeking the death penalty — it is not thrown around lightly.”

 

Beck continued, noting that after Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud on Tuesday, the FBI began backtracking on the Saudi national from suspect, to person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.

 

Then, on Wednesday, President Obama had a “chance” encounter with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud and Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.

 

“Wednesday at 5:35 p.m. the file is altered,” Beck said.  “This is unheard of, this is impossible in the timeline due to the severity of the charge….You don’t one day put a 212 3B charge against somebody with deportation, and then the next day take it off.  It would require too much to do it.”

 

“There are only two people that could revoke the deportation order — the director of the NTC could do it after speaking with each department, the FBI, the ATC, etc. — which is impossible to do in such a short period of time, — or, somebody at the very highest levels of the State Department could do it.  We don’t have any evidence to tell you which one did it,” Beck said. Congressman Duncan is in possession of the original event file along with other members of the House Homeland Security Committee, and have sent a formal letter of request (which we have a copy of) to Napolitano for a classified briefing on the Saudi national and the deportation order.

 

Beck proceeded to highlight more key points: The Saudi national was allegedly once flagged on a terror watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted.

 

If, as an ICE official said last week, there is actually a second Saudi in custody, who is it? Beck asked.  “Why were there were no names, no pictures presented?  The fact is, an event was created for one Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi indicating he was to be deported for terrorism activity related to the Boston bombing. If this file was created with another Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi in mind, don’t you think we should know about it?”

 

Beck proceeded with more exclusive information:     The Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findley, Ohio.  He has been in this country six months.  He has an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts.

 

    If this is a case of mistaken identity, then who is the person named in the file, with the same name, with the 3B charge?  And If DHS was working with the person as a source to out the bombers, then why was there a 3B Charge?

 

    Exclusive: Why wasn’t the Congressional Committee on Homeland Security notified?  Why are they being cut out of all information?  This is protocol.

 

    We are working on the family connections, and there is more to come.

 

    Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.  This will be the reason Napalitano won’t answer the Homeland Security Committee’s request for a briefing.  Like Benghazi they have heavy into a disinformation campaign floating a variety of scenarios to confuse the media — but that apparently doesn’t take much — to prevent the story from being pursued… They are also working very hard to discredit those on the scent.

 

It is still unclear why the government is stonewalling the media on information as to why the file initially labeled Alharbi as a threat, only to change that designation later in the week.

 

Is there a legitimate threat that’s being covered up?  Did the government have actual concerns about Alharbi, but was too quick to connect him in this instance and is now trying to stave off embarrassment?  Many questions remain. Bottom line, Beck said: “I need you to call your congressmen right now.  There are congressmen who are aware of this, have seen the documentation — they need your support, they need your help…If we do not stand up, he is on a plane tomorrow or he is already gone.”

 

“We demand answers from the Justice Department and this administration.”

 

Beck proceeded to put the issue in a larger perspective, noting that multiple news outlets reported after 9/11 that prominent Saudis were allowed to leave the country, even as all flights were grounded.

 

“The Bush administration would later block the investigation into Saudi involvement into 9/11, even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and would eventually force the redaction of a 28-page chapter of the 9/11 Commission report regarding foreign, specifically Saudi, support for some of the Al-Qaeda hijackers,” Beck said, noting that the questionable relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States goes back further than the current administration.

 

But, he said, we have now taken that relationship to a whole new level. “On January 14, 2013 President Obama met with Saudi Minister of Interior,” Beck remarked.  “Two days later Janet Napolitano signed agreement with Saudi minister allowing ‘trusted traveler’ status on Saudi student visitors, meaning greatly reduced security checks and scrutiny.”

 

“This is trusted traveler status that we don’t give to some of our most trusted allies, and we gave it to Saudi Arabia last January?” Beck said.  “So they can just walk into our country no questions asked?”

“There is a pattern,” he said.  “There is a relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia the American public doesn’t know about. The case of Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi is only the latest example.”

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Second Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


What the HELL does Homeland Security & the US Border Patrol need with Bagpipes?

The Founders would have been SHOOTING these people already!

MVC-864F MVC-856F MVC-857F MVC-859F MVC-860F MVC-861F MVC-863F

Solicitation Number: PR20074261            Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

Synopsis:

Added: Apr 10, 2013 10:03 am
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.The solicitation number is PR20074261 and is issued as an invitation for bids (IFB), unless otherwise indicated herein.The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular FAC 2005-66. The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 339992 with a small business size standard of 500.00 employees.This requirement is a [ Small Business ] set-aside and only qualified offerors may submit bids.The solicitation pricing on http://www.FedBid.com will start on the date this solicitation is posted and will end on 2013-04-17 11:30:00.0 Eastern Time or as otherwise displayed at http://www.FedBid.com.FOB Destination shall be Washington, DC 20229

The DHS Customs and Border Protection requires the following items, Brand Name or Equal, to the following:

LI 001: Carbon Bagpipe Drone Reed Set, 5, EA;

LI 002: Bagpipe Chanter Reeds-Easy, 12, EA;

LI 003: Bagpipe Chanter Reeds-Medium, 12, EA;

LI 004: Deluxe Bagpipe Bag Covers w/ Non-slip Grap Patch and Zipper, 5, EA;

LI 005: Drone Cords, 5, EA;

LI 006: Highland Bagpipe Tuner and Metronome with cases, 2, EA;

LI 007: Combination Tuner and Metronome, 6, EA;

LI 008: Black Polypenco Bagpipes w/ cases, 10, EA;

LI 009: Polypenco Bagpipe Chanter, 10, EA;

LI 010: Bellows Blown Blackwood Smallpipes in “A” w/ cases, 4, EA;

LI 011: Black waxed bagpipe hemp, 4, EA;

LI 012: Real Beeswax, 4, EA;

LI 013: Long Polypenco Practice Chanters, 10, EA;

LI 014: Bagpipe Tutor Book – VOL 1 C.O.P., 10, EA;

LI 015: Practice Chanter Reed, 10, EA;

LI 016: Rol of Pipe Bag Tie-In cord, 2, EA;

LI 017: Tapered Reamer, 1, EA;

LI 018: PiobMaster 2.3 CD ROM-Bagpipe music writing software, 1, EA;

LI 019: Pipe Band Base Drum Carrier, 2, EA;

LI 020: Folding Bass Drum Stand, 1, EA;

LI 021: Inverness Rain Cape, 14, EA;

Con’t at link…..

I guess Border Patrol will be playing the next big party at the White House.

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Eleventh Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


carolyn-maloney

Carolyn B. Maloney has introduced a bill in Congress to make all gun owners show proof of “appropriate liability insurance coverage” before being allowed to purchase ANY firearm. There is no mention of the AMOUNT of Liability Insurance you must carry, but there is text about the FINE if you don’t have coverage —- $10,000.00

 

Source   

Introduced in House (03/20/2013)

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[H.R. 1369 Introduced in House (IH)]

 

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 1369

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, a person who is  not covered by appropriate liability insurance coverage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                     IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2013

 

 Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Ellison, Ms.  Norton, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Moran, Mr. Rush, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Lynch, and  Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to  the Committee on the Judiciary

 

_______________________________________________________________________

                                  A BILL

 

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance  coverage.

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 “Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013”.

 

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON SALE OF FIREARM TO, AND PURCHASE OF FIREARM BY,

              A PERSON NOT COVERED BY APPROPRIATE LIABILITY INSURANCE.

 

    (a) Prohibitions.–Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    “(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

    “(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

    “(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

    “(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

    “(2) In paragraph (1), the term `qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that–

            “(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser  specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while  it is owned by the purchaser; and

            “(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.

    (b) Penalty.–Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

    “(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

    (c) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

   ————

And the list of Co-Sponsors

Co-sponsor                                            Date Co-sponsored

Rep. Ellison, Keith [D-MN-5]*              03/21/2013

Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]*    03/21/2013

Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7]*      03/21/2013

Rep. Moran, James P. [D-VA-8]*    03/21/2013

Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1]*         03/21/2013

Rep. Tsongas, Niki [D-MA-3]*          03/21/2013

Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]*    03/21/2013

Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]*       03/21/2013

Respectfully and lividly submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Second Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


I was listening to an archived Radio Talk Show yesterday. It was originally broadcast on 7/15/2001 and it was an interview with William Cooper. William Cooper wrote a book in 1991 titled “Behold a Pale Horse”.

Shortly after the Radio Show aired in 2001, William Cooper was shot and killed by local and federal agents.

Today, my father went to our local Public Library and asked if they had it. The librarian looked it up, and notice they didn’t have and neither did ANY of the other public libraries. (Note: They can request books from the Library of Congress and any university library). After some further investigation, the librarian stated that the book was “ON HOLD”. When asked what “ON HOLD” meant, the librarian stated he “He didn’t know what it meant.”

The book, “Behold a Pale Horse” is about political conspiracies — JFK Assassination, UFO’s, the 16th Amendment never being ratified by the states, etc.

This blog is to provide you folks some info on the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) and why there is NO LAW that forces you to pay the federal government one red cent.

william_cooper__behold_a_pale_horse

‘The law that never was’

Geoff Metcalf’s interview answers question, ‘Is 16th Amendment legal?’

Published: 02/06/2000 at 1:00 AM

by Geoff Metcalf   Email: gmetcalf@worldnetdaily.com

A criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for approximately 10 years, William J. Benson of South Holland, Illinois has been at the vanguard of debate and controversy surround the 16th Amendment for almost two decades. In 1984 he embarked upon a year-long project to examine the process of the ratification of the 16th Amendment and to determine whether or not it had been lawfully adopted as part of the U.S. Constitution. The culmination of Benson’s work is the book, “The Law That Never Was.”

 

Bill Benson, author of “The Law That Never Was”

 

Question: You have been engaged in this 16th amendment battle for almost 20 years. How did it start?

 

Answer: I was a former investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue. I discovered a great deal of corruption within that department and for that the Director fired me. I told him if he fired me, I would sue him for violation of First Amendment rights. Six and half years later we were in court. We had a jury of six; it was a civil trial. They awarded me $353,000 for violation of First Amendment rights.

 

I began working with my attorney, Andy Spiegal. We had a willful failure to file case in Indiana. Red Beckman had some documentation that showed there was some serious problem with the 16th Amendment. He got the documentation from a man named Dean Hurst, from Cheyenne, Wyoming. I purchased that documentation and made every attempt to have Andy get it before the court, and the Judge said no.

 

The judge gave us three real good reasons why he did that: The documentation is not notarized, it is not certified, and you do not have a witness to testify to.

 

That evening I said, “Okay, the judge has given us our marching orders. The only thing we have to do is go to all 48 states and get the documentation” to see if the documents have any validity. The attorney said, “Bill, you’re crazy, you can’t do that.” I said, “Sure you can.”

Q: How long did it take to do that?

 

A: It took a full year. There is not one state — not one — that has ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the most amazing documents I found was in the national archives in Washington D.C. — a 16-page memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, then the attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, on February 15, 1913. What he says is that in the certified copies of the amendment passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the 16th Amendment, it appears that only four of those resolutions — Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico — have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly what was proposed by Congress. The other 33 resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling or wording. …

 

Q: So what’s the big deal? Why are errors of capitalization, spelling or wording so significant?

 

A: On page 15 of the 16-page memorandum, the attorney says, “further under the Constitution, a Legislature is prohibited from altering ‘in any way’ the resolution proposed by Congress.” The right of the Legislature is merely to approve or disapprove the amendment. The last page is also interesting because it says the department has not received the copy of the resolution passed by the state of Minnesota, but the secretary of the governor of the state has officially notified the department that legislators of that state have ratified the proposed 16th amendment.

 

Q: Here’s the obvious question that comes up all the time. Say it was a bureaucratic oversight, a procedural glitch or something. Why are we still saddled with this thing? The reality check is, if you don’t comply you end up in a whole world of hurt, as you know from personal experience.

 

A: Oh, there isn’t any question about it. And that is why I continue to defy the federal government. That is why, when we were in Washington (at the National Press Club) I said, “I have waited 15 years to get behind these microphones, and I challenge the United States, I challenge the Justice Department, to come and get me. Take me, and leave these people alone.” Let’s get the 16th Amendment argument on the table once and for all before a jury and let them decide.

 

Q: Why don’t they just drag you into court and resolve the controversy once and for all?

 

A: I wish they would. This has been going on now for 18 years. They cannot win with the 16th Amendment argument.

 

Q: Bill, at this event you guys had in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club in July, it seemed like a collection of former Geoff Metcalf guests, including Joe Banister.

 

Joe Banister is a former IRS agent — a badge-carrying, gun-carrying agent who after listening to my radio program with interviews of other people and hearing discussions about this issue conducted a research analysis of his own to find out if he was enforcing a law that was a law or not. He submitted his findings to his superiors and asked them to either confirm or deny this stuff, or at least look into it. They basically said, “We’ll be happy to accept your resignation, but we are not going to respond.”

 

A: They forced him to resign. I think the entire nation owes Joe a great deal because of the courage it took for a special agent from the Internal Revenue Service to do what Joe Banister did. On C-SPAN Joe Banister told the entire listening audience that the IRS was a fraud, and that the 16th Amendment had not been ratified.

 

Q: It is fascinating that the first time you guys had a get together, it was broadcast on C-SPAN. I think they had the largest requests they ever had for any taped shows, and they ain’t cheap. Yet, when you came back, they wouldn’t even put you on the air.

 

A: That’s true. I think the problem that arose was with the promoter of the program. He made a mistake. He went ahead and released a press announcement to the national press in Washington and to the President and right on down and told them what we were going to talk about.

 

The first session on July 2nd they had to bring in four people, two cameras, the lights and the whole thing, and we were on for three hours and 28 minutes. C-SPAN aired that program on four separate occasions.  But they didn’t show up on the second one and it was in my personal opinion because the cat was let out of the bag, so to speak, because of the error of the promoter.

 

Q: Bill, regarding this whole 16th Amendment issue, some folks say, “Well, it’s an interesting academic argument, and they may be right on the ‘technical’ aspects of it, but the reality check is the golden rule — and the guy with the gold makes the rules.”

 

Were you ever approached by anyone “in government” regarding the documentation you had collected?

 

A: Yes I was. In 1985, prior to volume one being printed, Mrs. Benson had received a call from an attorney by the name of Warren Richardson. Warren said, “I am making this call on behalf of Senator

Orrin Hatch. And of course,” he said, “you know who he is? You tell Bill that it is an absolute emergency that he call Washington D.C. immediately.”

 

Q: Did you call them immediately?

 

A: No, I had no emergency. I was lecturing on the 16th amendment. I did call them in a few days. Warren Richardson said, “I am making this call on behalf of Senator Orrin Hatch.” He said “Bill, you cannot permit that book to get in the hands of the kooks out there. We know what you are doing.”

 

I said, “Warren, by your making this telephone call to me you’re one of the biggest kooks in D.C.”

 

He said, “You don’t understand what I’m trying to do? You have all of the books printed that you want. You name the number of books, and then you put a price on each and every book, and we will pay it. But then we want you never ever again to speak to one person, never again to get on one radio station, one television station or one group of people.”

 

Q: Was that all?

 

A: No. Warren then said, “The last thing we want are all 17,000 certified, notarized documents that you have — and you will be a multi-millionaire.”

 

Q: What was your response?

 

A: I told him thank you, but no thanks. In fact, I told him to “go to hell!” I’m not for sale. America is not for sale. What I am fighting for is freedom, and that is exactly what I told Warren Richardson. I told him to carry that message right back to Orrin Hatch.

 

Q: You made that announcement at the second event in D.C. that C-SPAN chose not to broadcast. Did Orrin Hatch’s office contact you to confirm, deny or threaten or try to sue you?

 

A: No, they have not.

 

Q: Have you made any effort to get in touch with them?

 

A: I haven’t made any effort to get in touch with Orrin Hatch since 1985. I was waiting for the proper forum to release this information. I thought C-SPAN was that forum, because you’re speaking to

millions of people, not groups of 100 or 200, and it would get all over the country. But C-SPAN didn’t show up.

 

Q: Bill, why is this whole 16th Amendment issue so critical?

 

A: In order for the federal government to collect anything from you, they must have a law. The 16th Amendment is what they collect the tax on. And I have proven beyond a doubt with 17,000 certified,

notarized documents that not one state out of the 48 has ratified the law. They have all rejected it.

 

Q: Bill, thank you.

 

Final thoughts from interviewer Geoff Metcalf: Bill Benson claims that not a single state legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution in the manner required by law. According to Benson’s book, “The Law That Never Was”:

 

The federal government claims Kentucky was the second  state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.

 

In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed, so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning.

 

The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.

 

Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not deter Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.

 

Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states. In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment — including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. Then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted.

 

Geoff Metcalf is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily and is a radio talk-show host for KSFO in San Francisco.

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
Source:  http://www.wnd.com/2000/02/4017/

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this First Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


Please read the source link from the DC Clothesline:

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/03/23/is-it-time-to-organize-the-revolution-part-2-an-action-plan/


     

“The bottom line is that I support my fellow patriots in their desire to take back our country. I may not agree with their methods but that does not mean that I am going to leave them swinging in the wind without my support. Even though we can’t always agree on which path we should take, we all want the same thing. We want a country that honors the constitution on which it was founded.”

Signing-of-the-Constitution-500x322

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Fourth Day (Palm Sunday) of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »


wmd_debate

Democrats & Liberals are PROVEN WRONG once again.

Saddam Hussein DID have Chemical & Biological Weapons (aka WMD’s) and those weapons are now in Syria.

WMDFound

“Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely says he has confirmation that Syrian forces have used chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians, and those weapons are likely stockpiles received from Iraq prior to the U.S.-led invasion 10 years ago.”

“After the takedown of Saddam in 2003, there was a big survey done by U.S. forces all throughout Iraq. Basically, as far as I know, all of the bio and chemical weapons had been moved. They found semblance of a growing nuclear development program, but it was not an aggressive program by any means,” Vallely said. “So the fact is that he had them, used them on his own people. He knew he had to get them out of there, and there was a big cover-up and deception in how he moved them over there. We did know about them, but the Bush administration never came forth and explained to the American people that situation.”

“Vallely said the arsenal now in Syria’s possession most likely includes Serrin and VX nerve gas in addition to chlorine, and the likely shelf life of the weapons means they would still be usable.”

Source

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/guess-where-syrias-chemical-weapons-originate/#HqC2tqWS2DHyFqEl.99

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Second Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers