Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

BIG BANKS TARGET THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

 

Daniel Greenfield’s article: Big Banks Target the Bill of Rights

Link to Sultan Knish

Posted: 21 Apr 2018 09:58 PM PDT
The American people lent $45 billion to Bank of America during the bailout. That bailout came with a hefty $100 billion guarantee against losses on toxic assets.

That money came from American taxpayers. It came from gun owners and non-gun owners.

But Bank of America has warned that it will refuse to lend money to manufacturers of “assault-style guns”. It had previously announced it was edging away from the coal business to fight global warming.

Citigroup got $476 billion in cash and guarantees: the most of any bank. Now Citibank is repaying the generosity of the American people by requiring its clients to impose their own gun control policies on their stores. Impose gun control on your customers or Citibank will discriminate against you.

Next up is Wells Fargo. The stagecoach brand has said that it’s up to the government to impose gun control, but that it is discussing gun safety with its clients. That’s not enough for outraged activists. The American Federation of Teachers, an organization that runs on extorting money from teachers and taxpayers, warned Wells Fargo that it had to choose between firearms manufacturers and the AFT.

Bank of America announced its move to Bloomberg. The eponymous media outlet is associated with the billionaire sugar daddy of the anti-second amendment lobby. That wasn’t a coincidence. Neither was Citigroup making its announcement through Ed Skyler, Bloomberg’s former Deputy Mayor.

Share

GUN CONTROL – TAKING A SECOND LOOK

Monday, March 26th, 2018

 

The historical facts (see below)  regarding  what can  happen when  the people can no longer defend themselves against tyrannical governments should be impressed on the students who are marching in protest for more gun control.   Nancy  
 THE WASHINGTON TIMES
TAKING A SECOND LOOK
BY NATE BROGIN   March 4, 2018

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  

Guns have a long history of debate in both the U.S. and elsewhere and remain a flash point in the minds of many maybe because they are the image of a basic weapon of war and personal defense. Guns have been the employed tool of some, yet the lack of guns exacerbates exposure to violence.

In 2014 Australia, all “registered” guns were outlawed and turned in. In 2015, Ed Chenel, a police chief in that country, confirmed that criminal armed robbery increased by a whopping 40 percent. Homicides in the State of Victoria alone are up 300 percent. You know why.

Acting on mostly the emotions of blame, history memorialized:

In 1938, Germany established gun control. By 1945, 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

In 1929, the USSR established gun control. By 1953, about 20 million dissidents were terminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were neutralized.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political voices of a different opinion, were eliminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. By 1979, 300,000 Christians, became unaccounted for.

Accept this fact of reality — armed people will never willingly load themselves into railroad boxcars.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

Share

PLEASE SUPPORT THE INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

Monday, March 12th, 2018

 

Please support the Internet Bill of Rights.

 

I don’t know if you are aware, but dozens of voices are being censored from the internet, only for asking the questions that MSM should be asking. Their channels are being terminated, their intellectual property/videos are being confiscated, their email lists and subscribers are being trolled, and they are being accused of hate crimes. You might ask how companies can get away with this. The answer is that private companies are not held accountable for upholding First Amendment and private property rights when you sign away all of those freedoms by signing up for accounts on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., which are all privately owned. 

 

Please please please sign the petition to support IBOR, and ask everyone you know to do the same. We are at a critical point in history where we will either stand up for our personal liberties, or lose them all together. God bless America.

 

Sign Petition on Bill of Rights Link: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

Share

HEARTS WITHOUT GOD

Saturday, March 3rd, 2018

 

I agree completely with the comments that Cathy Wright has made regarding this audio video.  Give it 15  minutes of your time  and you will be amazed at the new  information you will hear in Pastor Garrison’s   message.  Please share with your email lists and post the link on facebook.        Thanks to Cathy for sharing with us.  Nancy

Below is a link to a sermon audio about the recent events in Parkland, FL, presented by Pastor Charles Garrison, Calvary Memorial Church in Southern Pines, NC.

 

I am aware that most are so busy that invitations to listen to a man for 42 minutes will likely result in a convenient reason to skip it.  Listen for 15 minutes and you will discover reasons for continuing to the end. Make time to do this without distraction.

 

Our nation is facing a crisis. The problem is not guns. It’s hearts without God; homes without parental discipline; schools without prayer; and, courts without justice.

 

Please feel free to pass this on.

Best,

Cathy

 

www.sermonaudio.com/playpopupvideo.asp?SID=228181853299

 

 

Share

HOME BREAK-IN : THANK GOD AND 2ND AMENDMENT

Thursday, February 1st, 2018

 

www.wral.com/childress-on-home-break-in-thank-god-and-2nd-amendment-/17300954/?utm_campaign=webshare&%3Butm_medium=email&%3Butm_source=wral

Childress on home break-in: ‘Thank God and 2nd Amendment’

Posted 3:44 p.m. yesterday

343
40 Reactions
Richard Childress Pic-Post Coke 600

 — NASCAR Hall of Fame member Richard Childress spoke Tuesday for the first time about defending his home during a break-in last month.

Niquan Victorin, 20, Chantz Hines, 18, and Armeka Spinks, 18, were charged with attempted first-degree burglary and first-degree trespass in connection with a break-in at Childress’ Davidson County home on Dec. 18.

Authorities said the three broke a window trying to get into the home, but Childress woke up and shot at them as they fled.

“All I can say is thank God and our 2nd Amendment that I was able to have a firearm in my home to protect my wife and my family,” Childress told NBC affiliate WXII. “It’s so unbelievable. Until it happens, you don’t understand.”

He declined further comment, saying he didn’t want to say too much before the three men went to trial.

Share

CAN A PRESIDENT OBSTRUCT JUSTICE?

Wednesday, December 13th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Can a President Obstruct Justice?

Yes, but not by doing any of the things we know Trump to have done.

Monday, December 11, 2017
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A Casey    Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

Speculation about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has turned toward obstruction of justice—specifically, whether President Trump can be criminally prosecuted for firing James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or for earlier asking Mr. Comey to go easy on onetime national security adviser Mike Flynn. The answer is no. The Constitution forbids Congress to criminalize such conduct by a president, and applying existing statutes in such a manner would violate the separation of powers.

The Constitution creates three coequal branches of government, and no branch may exercise its authority in a manner that would negate or fundamentally undercut the power of another. The power to appoint and remove high-level executive-branch officers, such as the FBI director, is a core aspect of the president’s executive authority. It is the principal means by which a president disciplines the exercise of the executive power the Constitution vests in him.

 

The same is true of Mr. Trump’s request, as purported by Mr. Comey: “I hope you can see your way clear . . . to letting Flynn go.” The FBI director wields core presidential powers when conducting an investigation, and the president is entirely within his rights to inquire about, and to direct, such investigations. The director is free to ignore the president’s inquiries or directions and risk dismissal, or to resign if he believes the president is wrong. Such officials serve at the president’s pleasure and have no right to be free of such dilemmas.

A law criminalizing the president’s removal of an officer for a nefarious motive, or the application of a general law in that way, would be unconstitutional even if the president’s action interferes with a criminal investigation. Such a constraint would subject every exercise of presidential discretion to congressional sanction and judicial review. That would vitiate the executive branch’s coequal status and, when combined with Congress’s impeachment power, establish legislative supremacy—a result the Framers particularly feared.

Mr. Trump’s critics claim that subjecting the president’s actions to scrutiny as potential obstructions of justice is simply a matter of asking judges to do what they do every day in other contexts—determine the purpose or intent behind an action. That is also wrong. The president is not only an individual, but head of the executive branch. Separating his motives between public interests and personal ones—partisan, financial or otherwise—would require the courts to delve into matters that are inherently political. Under Supreme Court precedent stretching back to Marbury v. Madison (1803), the judiciary has no power to do so. And lawmakers enjoy an analogous immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause.

The president’s independence from the other branches does not merely support “energy” in the chief executive, as the Framers intended. It also ensures that he, and he alone, is politically accountable for his subordinates’ conduct. If officials as critical to the executive branch’s core functions as the FBI director could determine whom and how to investigate free from presidential supervision, they would wield the most awesome powers of government with no political accountability. History has demonstrated that even when subject to presidential authority, the FBI director can become a power unto himself—as J. Edgar Hoover was for decades, severely damaging civil liberties.

There are limits to presidential power. The Constitution requires the Senate’s consent for appointment of the highest-level executive-branch officers—a critical check on presidential power. The Supreme Court has upheld statutory limits—although never involving criminal sanction—on the removal of certain kinds of officials. But the decision to fire principal executive-branch officers like the FBI director remains within the president’s discretion. A sitting president can also be subjected to civil lawsuits—but only in a carefully circumscribed fashion, to avoid impeding his ability to discharge the powers of his office.

The ultimate check on presidential power is impeachment. Even though Mr. Trump cannot have violated criminal law in dismissing Mr. Comey, if a majority of representatives believe he acted improperly or corruptly, they are free to impeach him. If two-thirds of senators agree, they can remove him from office. Congress would then be politically accountable for its action. Such is the genius of our Constitution’s checks and balances.

None of this is to suggest the president has absolute immunity from criminal obstruction-of-justice laws. He simply cannot be prosecuted for an otherwise lawful exercise of his constitutional powers. The cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton —the latter impeached, and the former nearly so, for obstruction of justice—have contributed to today’s confusion. These were not criminal charges but articulations of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment.

And in neither case was the accusation based on the president’s exercise of his lawful constitutional powers. If a president authorizes the bribery of a witness to suppress truthful testimony, as Nixon was accused of doing, he can be said to have obstructed justice. Likewise if a president asks a potential witness to commit perjury in a judicial action having nothing to do with the exercise of his office, as Mr. Clinton was accused of doing.

Although neither man could have been prosecuted while in office without his consent, either could have been after leaving office. That’s why President Ford pardoned Nixon—to avoid the spectacle and poisonous political atmosphere of a criminal trial. In Mr. Trump’s case, by contrast, the president exercised the power to fire an executive-branch official whom he may dismiss for any reason, good or bad, or for no reason at all. To construe that as a crime would unravel America’s entire constitutional structure.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

 

 

 

 

 

Share

IMPORTANT – INTERVIEW WITH SARA CARTER RE OBAMA/CLINTON RUSSIAN COLLUSION

Wednesday, October 25th, 2017

 

This is a very important audio interview that Gadi Adelman, a counter terrorism expert,  just sent of his Israeli Talk Radio interview with Sara Carter of Circa News    – www.circa.com/staff/sara-carter – BIO OF SARA CARTER
(She is an absolutely  fascinating and accomplished woman and award winning investigative journalist)   Nancy  P.S. WARNING –   I’m flying home tomorrow and have an unbelievable back log of articles to send out !!! 
INTERVIEW WITH SARA CARTER




“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Lan astaslem (لن استسلم‎)
“I will never surrender/I will never submit”.

Share

MUSLIM CANDIDATES AIM FOR HOUSE, SENATE AND GOVERNOR’S MANSION IN 2018

Wednesday, October 25th, 2017

 

I am still on vacation  on the island of Kauai but trying to catch up on all the emails.  This article really stands out and should be taken very seriously.  Pease share with your email lists.  
Click on the Jet Pac, Inc. (mentioned in article below)  link  to fully understand what this Muslim activist  organization plans to do.     Nancy 
 www.jet-pac.com/pressrelease/ –  JET-PAC, INC  JETPAC INC KNOWS WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN CAMPAIGNS, AND WE’RE TRAINING COMMUNITY LEADERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY! NOW IT’S YOUR TURN, TO LEARN THE SKILLS NECESSARY TO MAKE REAL CHANGE:
PJ MEDIA

Muslim Candidates Aim for House, Senate and a Governor’s Mansion in 2018

Share

ELECTORAL COLLEGE STATISTICS – WHY TRUMP WON

Wednesday, September 27th, 2017

 

 www.allenbwest.com/2016/11/29/numbers-shut-liberals-electoral-college/

 

These are very interesting statistics concerning the electoral college presented by Allen West. The purpose of the college is to insure that each state is fairly represented.

 

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won lRichmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our countryJY

Share

VIDEO – EXPOSING THE DEEP STATE – JUDICIAL WATCH

Saturday, September 16th, 2017

Share
Search All Posts
Categories