Saturday, October 18, 2014

DEVVY KIDD LAUNCHES Constitutional fight over election of senators DEVVY FILES LAWSUIT IN TEXAS !

“One thing I dearly hope this lawsuit will do is educate our fellow Americans on why that amendment must be stricken from the books.”
I was talking to a highly educated man on Friday; he's in a very specialized field. A really good, decent American who does care. He and his wife work hard, go to church.
Since he's interested in getting the truth I gave him a copy of my lawsuit. When I saw him later in the day he said he didn't really understand it.
Always ready, I whipped out a copy of my column and gave it to him since it goes into the 'back story' of creating two bodies in one Congress. Heck, I didn't even pay any attention to it until 1993. So, as Bob quoted me in the WND write-up, hopefully this will make more Americans understand the issue.
Not a peep from Drudge, Megyn Kelly on FOX, Alex Jones or any of the other 'alternative' media except Jeff Rense.
I guess a lawsuit to keep U.S. Senate candidates off the ballot next month over a non ratified amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't of much interest. After all, bickering between the "hot" senate race candidates is good for ratings.
But, perhaps being a streaming headline on WorldNetDaily right now might spark some interest.




By: Devvy
October 12, 2014

Does the truth matter anymore in this country? Once I began my journey now going into my 24th year, all I found was nothing but lies, lies and more lies. Elected officials as well as unelected adminsitrative honchos like Lois Lerner of the IRS mess do nothing but lie to we the people. Both parties, county, state, federal, it doesn't seem to matter. The agenda is all important regardless of party.

"Our" government for longer than I've been alive and regardless of which party holds "power" in the Outlaw Congress or which puppet occupies the White House, has lied to us about everything from The Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' dragging us into the undeclared Viet Nam "era" to the true nature of who the federal income tax applies to, TWA Flight 800, OKC, 9/11 and every scandal in between like Benghazi and Fast and Furious. .

One man seeking the truth about two constitutional amendments, Bill Benson, discovered that both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were not properly ratified and therefore are laws that don't exist. For Bill's efforts, his life was made hell. Bill was railroaded into prison while Americans sat in front of their football games, lined up at some electronics store for a new gadget or stampeded to Macy's for a sale.

The Sixteenth Amendment is commonly known as the "income" tax amendment. On January 19, 2001, Larry Becraft, a constitutional attorney with more than 35 years experience in federal courts, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Bill Benson in the State of Oklahoma. Larry and I had the Wallace Institute at the time. The purpose of that lawsuit was to finally expose the non-ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. What happened was all to familiar in courts for decades; the truth didn't matter. This is an interview with Larry about that lawsuit.

The Oklahoma lawsuit was not the first attempt to expose a big fat lie, but it was the last. In the end, the truth didn't matter. We didn't have the money to fight an appeal and what would have been the purpose when the only message sent by the State of Oklahoma was they didn't care about the law or the truth. That was not the first time the non-ratification has been challenged. In a case back in 1985 where Larry was counsel, this was the court's opinion:

"Finally, the Court notes that the sixteenth amendment has been in existence for over half a century and has been applied by the Supreme Court in hundreds of cases. As stated in Maryland Petition Committee v. Johnson, 265 F.Supp. 823, 826 (D.Md.1967)), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 835, 89 S.Ct. 109, 21 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968), "While age and usage are not absolute barriers to judicial inquiry, the courts have recognized them as persuasive indicia of validity."''

"In upholding the fifteenth amendment against constitutional challenge the United States Supreme Court noted that it "has been recognized and acted on for half a century." Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136, 42 S.Ct. 217, 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922). In United States v. Association of Citizens Councils, 187 F.Supp. 846, 848 (W.D.La.1960), the constitutionality of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments was upheld. "In the light of hundreds of cases in which the United States Supreme Court has applied the amendments." Similarly, in United States v. Gugel, 119 F.Supp. 897, 900 (E.D.Ky.1954), in rejecting a constitutional attack on the fourteenth amendment, the Court found legal significance in the fact that the fourteenth amendment had been recognized and acted upon by the Supreme Court for more than three-quarters of a century.

"The sixteenth amendment and the tax laws passed pursuant to it have been followed by the courts for over half a century. They represent the recognized law of the land. Because the sixteenth amendment was duly certified by the Secretary of State, because defendants have not alleged that the minor variations in capitalization, punctuation and wording of the various state resolutions are materially different in purpose or effect from the language of the congressional joint resolution proposing adoption of the sixteenth amendment, and because the sixteenth amendment has been recognized and acted upon since 1913, the Court rejects defendants' argument that the sixteenth amendment is not a part of the United States Constitution."

So, because the big lie had been in place for a long time, fraud doesn't matter and clearly without any doubt, fraud was committed during the ratification process of both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. Those two amendments were absolutely vital to the dirty traitors working feverishly to destroy this constitutional Republic. In 1913, three key things happened:

1. The Sixteenth Amendment was declared ratified giving Congress no new power of taxation, but we all know how that turned into stealing the fruits of our labor with a gun to our head to fund our own destruction.

2. The Seventeenth Amendment, direct election of U.S. Senators by the people, was critical in destroying the balance of power in the U.S. Congress, wrestling away the sovereign power of the States and any representation in Washington, DC.

3. Then came the ultimate pot of gold at the end of the rainbow on December 23, 1913, passage of the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve Banking Act. "When the President signs this act [Federal Reserve Act of 1913], the invisible government by the money power -- proven to exist by the Monetary Trust Investigation -- will be legalized. The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." Charles Lindberg, Sr., served in the U.S. House of Representatives from March 1907 - March 1917.

First, it was necessary to pass a "law" forcing we the people to give up the fruits of our labor - the federal "income" tax. The sweat off our back would then feed the unconstitutional central bank aka the "Federal" Reserve. (The nexus I explained in a recent column.)

It was also imperative to crush the states and make them impotent by giving the vote for U.S. Senators to the people which was NEVER the intention of those who birthed this Republic and breathed life into the U.S. Constitution:

James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution wrote: "The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures." John Jay, co-author of The Federalist Papers is quoted: "Jay then informed Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states – for the Federalists always a significant distinction."

Back when the propaganda machine was in full swing, the justification for the Seventeenth Amendment was corruption within state legislatures. Perhaps so, but only someone with their head stuck in rectal darkness cannot see how corrupt the U.S. Senate has been almost from the beginning when that amendment was declared law. The sovereign states of the Union have been crushed since the Seventeenth Amendment was put into effect. U.S. Senators have been owned by corporate and special interest money for decades while the average American believes their senator is representing them:

"U.S. Senators have been signing onto thousands of pieces of legislation for unconstitutional cabinets and agencies running amok inside the states of the Union. Large numbers of those regulations involving jurisdiction carry prison time if a conviction occurs. When will it stop?"

The Senate was not created to represent Joe and Mary Smith. The U.S. Senate was created to give equal representation, 2 senators per state regardless of population, in the U.S. Congress. Those of us who have studied history that is never seen in classrooms or even college classrooms in this country know there was far more to it than a little local corruption. The ignorance of the American people about important issues is not only sad, it's dangerous. From my January 16, 2012 column:

"I once read a comment below a news item regarding former senate candidate, Joe Miller, [R-AK] after he came out supporting a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. The useful fool who submitted the comment said old Joe wouldn't have to run for office and worry about getting beat. Miller's opponent and alleged eventual winner, Lisa Murkowski, RINO, opened the pie hole in her face: "...was the first to criticize Miller's comments, issuing a news release entitled “Joe Miller reaching new extremes every day.”

“We have seen Joe Miller take some extraordinary positions in this campaign, but I never imagined he would support disenfranchising himself and every other Alaskan,” Murkowski said in a statement. “Joe is no longer content with simply taking away federal support for Alaskan families, now he wants to take away their right to select our United States senators.”

"Yeah, those who gave their lives and blood to create this republic reached "new extremes" when they voted to create two separate bodies for the U.S. Congress, one for the people and one for the states.

"Think Murkowski wants to give up her power as a U.S. Senator? When pig's fly. That foolish hen votes for legislation that affects my life and I can't vote her out of office. Another dangerous female, Olympia Snowe, RINO from Maine, voted for the unconstitutional Obamacare declaring her constituents wanted it! Well, I'm not her constituent and I sure as hell don't want it. The vile, Charles Schumer, [D-NY] would like to see the Second Amendment wiped off the books and every time he votes for a bill, I have no way to send his "progressive" backside packing."

In 1993, I found out about Bill Benson's research on the two amendments and how vote fraud was stealing our elections. One would think with the surge the past few years by the states to reclaim their sovereignty, they would take on the Seventeenth Amendment. After all, there is this:

The Constitution of the United States - Article V: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

I thought a challenge to the non-ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment would happen here in Texas because of keen interest by a state rep, but he, for whatever reason, no longer seems interested. How much time and money I wasted traveling to Austin and mailing him my research.

Over the past two decades, this big fat lie has always been on my radar and some other brave souls in a few states like Montana who worked to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. However, you can't repeal a law that doesn't exist. Bill Benson not only collected more than 17,000 court certified documents proving the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, he also collected documents showing severe defects in the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. In March 2009, I went to the National Archives in Washington, DC. Two of my friends met me there and we began the tedious job of copying every single document on that amendment. An expensive undertaking on my part, but one I felt was absolutely necessary.

In my research, I had also come across a letter to a man in Montana from then Secretary of State, March Fong Eu, who very specifically in her letter states that the State of California did not vote on either the Sixteenth or Seventeenth Amendments. While I diligently tried to track him down even after all this time, I was unsuccessful so that letter could not be included with my lawsuit.

In 2005, I wrote a working paper for then NH state rep, Henry McElroy on the Seventeenth Amendment. Unfortunately, Henry did not get reelected. In 2012, I wrote not only a working paper for our legislature here in Texas, I also wrote the damn bill and still nothing happened.

As time has gone by, it became apparent to me that other than an unacceptable bill introduced in the New Hampshire legislature a few years ago, while state legislators whine and moan about federal encroachment, not one of them seem inclined to go for the solution: regaining representation in the U.S. Congress.

The problems with filing a lawsuit are many - especially if you're not a lawyer, which I am not. One is in an effort to cut down on frivolous lawsuits, of which there have been a zillion too many over the decades, state legislatures decided to penalize ($$) plaintiffs even if you have a valid case to bring forward. Yes, I am at risk of being slapped with costs which I pray does not happen.

Another problem is what we refer to as PPP - poorly prepared patriots - running around filing lawsuits that end up putting bad case law on the books, something I did not want to do. Another problem is the hallucination dreamed up by federal and state judges called 'standing' which Dr. Edwin Vieira addressed in a column way back in 2008 about the criminal impostor in the WH not being constitutionally eligible and all the court cases that were filed:

"So much for Martin's lawsuit. It would be laughable if its result did not hammer another twisted judicial nail into America's coffin. Martin's suit, moreover, is not the last of its type that will be dismissed on purported “standing” grounds, because the judge-contrived rules of “standing” applicable to this situation are sufficiently illogical, non-scientific, and even anti-intellectual—that is, contrived from question-begging and ultimately undefinable, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable legalistic mumbo jumbo—that they can rationalize whatever result judges desire to reach, howsoever illogical, perverse, and even dangerous to the national interest it may be. And, particularly in this situation, judges will desperately desire to escape having to take upon themselves the responsibility for the political consequences—let alone the odium whipped up by Obama’s touts in the big media—that will flow from the courts’ declaring Obama ineligible for the Office of President.

"Which responsibility and vilification wily judges can craftily evade by denying that voters, electors, candidates, and various other would-be litigants have “standing” to challenge his eligibility. For then the judges can claim both that, on the one hand, they have no authority to declare Obama ineligible because no litigant has “standing” to demand such relief, and that, on the other hand, by dismissing the cases solely on “standing” grounds they have not declared him eligible, either. Perhaps when each judge publishes these rulings, the statue of Justice holding the sword and scales should be replaced in his courtroom with one of Pontius Pilate washing his hands.

"Although this poltroonish judicial strategy has succeeded in some areas in the past, it will prove bootless, as well as myopic, in this case."

And, so it has come down to me. I fully intended to file my lawsuit earlier this year, but due to life's challenges was unable to do so until a few weeks ago. Besides daily obligations in life, I had been trying to get this done for quite some time, but there were issues right away. First was 'standing'. As it turns out, there was a Texas Supreme Court case decided a couple of years ago regarding taxpayer 'standing' and using that case, I argue I do have standing.

My lawsuit is against the Texas Secretary of State: Request for a Writ of Prohibition and Injunction to keep any candidates for the U.S. Senate off the November ballot. It is a 'first blush' lawsuit meaning the first of its kind in either state or federal court to my knowledge. Our likely next governor, Attorney General Greg Abbott, will defend Nandita Berry, our SOS and will no doubt attack the 'standing' issue in an effort to get my lawsuit dismissed. That is the big hurdle that shouldn't be for all the reasons Dr. Vieira wrote above.

The next problem I had to address: Since ratification was two states short, Wisconsin and California, how long could the ratification process stay open? Since the Seventeenth was two states short of ratification, would the process still be open 101 years later? Going back to the court's decision when Larry filed the Sixteenth Amendment case in Oklahoma, the court relied on a bunch of cases that said, well, it doesn't matter if it's fraud, the "law" has been on the books for ever, so we'll just leave it.

My research provided me with what I pray will be the silver bullet on that issue because, surprise, surprise, something else popped up which I will get to in a moment that is germane to that problem. I found a U.S. Supreme Court case which supports my position:

United States Supreme Court - DILLON v. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) 256 U.S. 368 DILLON v. GLOSS, Deputy Collector. No. 251. Argued March 22, 1921. Decided May 16, 1921.

"The provisions of the act which the petitioner was charged with violating and under which he was arrested (title 2, 3, 26) were by the terms of the act (title 3, 21) to be in force from and after the date when the Eighteenth Amendment should go into effect, and the latter by its own terms was to go into effect one year after being ratified. Its ratification, of which we take judicial notice, was consummated January 16, 1919. That the Secretary of State did not proclaim its ratification until January 29, 1919, is not material, for the date of its consummation, and not that on which it is proclaimed, controls."

Then, much to my shock right on the heels of finding that case, what else did I discover? Oh, you won't believe this:

On April 11, 2002, the State of Alabama decided out of the clear blue to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment - 89 years after the alleged ratification. Back in 1913, not all states were in session; some were out of session four years at a time. Others took no action on the amendment - Georgia specifically based on an investigation ordered by their governor at the time that the Seventeenth Amendment was not legally adopted by Congress before it was even sent to the states.

On July 1, 2010, 97 years after the alleged ratification of that amendment, the State of Delaware ratified it. On April 1, 2012, 99 years after the alleged ratification, the State of Maryland voted to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment. How interesting that nearly 100 years after the alleged ratification of the Sevententh Amendment and after people like me have been pounding on this issue for close to two decades, three states just up and decided to vote on an old constitutional amendment.

Now you see why Dillon v Gloss is so important to my case as is the taxpayer 'standing' exception here in Texas.

You might ask yourself why I filed this lawsuit. Certainly, it's a very real financial burden for me. The cost of filing a civil lawsuit in Texas is a whopping $292.00. The judge assigned to my case would welcome a trip to the proctologist more than my lawsuit so there's no doubt in my mind he will dismiss it. Then comes the Appellate Court and then the Texas Supreme Court. I'm in it for the long haul. That will require travel several trips to Austin, a six hour drive, hotel and food expenses. Like I said, a real financial sacrifice, but one I feel very strongly about and so should you. My lawsuit is for all of us, we the people.

If you read the working papers I wrote linked above, the states of the Union will continue to be crushed because they have no representation in Congress. Votes by U.S. Senators affect all of our lives (think Obamacare) and we have no way to vote them out of office. There was a reason the framers of the Constitution made the term of service two years for the U.S. House representing we the people. If at the end of two years they abused the people's purse, they could be voted out of office. I know, such an antiquated idea, but one that hopefully will rise out of the ashes. U.S. Senators appointed by their state legislatures could be recalled and replaced if they did not act in the best interests of their state. The Seventeenth Amendment crushed that right of the states.

Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of lies. We can't be both and survive as anyone can see watching our beloved republic disintegrate.

The Seventeenth Amendment is not law, it's a lie. Most certainly it comes with massive ramifications, i.e., every vote taken by the U.S. Senate since 1913 is null and void - all of which can be addressed rationally instead of hysterics. But, as I pointed out in my lawsuit, this is NOT a political question as courts have shoved down our throats on the Sixteenth Amendment. It's about the law. It's about the legal ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that either becomes law or fails ratification by the states.

This is not a lawsuit just anyone can run out and file in their state. 'Standing' being the single biggest obstacle besides money and misery. However, it is one that could be filed by state legislators - Arizona comes to mind first. Think John McCain and his love of illegal aliens. That's where you can lobby your state representative. Get together in a group, get an appointment with your state legislator and show them my lawsuit. It is well within their power to challenge the non-ratification of that amendment.

This is the filing. The official date of filing was September 22, 2014, in the 53rd Judicial District in the District Court of Travis County, Texas. Most of the exhibits submitted in my lawsuit are on my web site here.

The very large file on the page linked above was put onto a CD and submitted as well as an exhibit that is the entire Journal Records for the State of California for the year 1913. A couple of years ago I had my web master down load it and save those 3,000 + pages just to make sure if a page shows up purporting to be the vote we can prove fraud. I also obtained court certified copies of the date in question for the vote in California from the Secretary of State. Those pages from the SOS are identical to the ones on line on California's official web site and prove no vote was ever taken. All of which was submitted as exhibits in my lawsuit.

I did not go into this willy nilly. All the research took a long time in between living life and responsibilities we all have.The big one in my case was my husband hospitalized from Feb. 24th - May 1st this yer; the last five weeks at a big hospital in Denver. Then another few few weeks in Denver to get fitted for his prosthetic leg and when he got home another surgery. But, I finally got it finished and filed.

My dear friend, Larry Becraft, provided some of the cites for cases and helped me with the format for which I am grateful and which drove him nuts. I guess you could say I'm the kitchen help who gathered all the ingredients and he being the chef put out the final entree. The defendant was served October 10, 2014, with a service on our AG as well, so the clock is ticking. Of course, I will do a column for each step of the process.

One thing I dearly hope this lawsuit will do is educate our fellow Americans on why that amendment must be stricken from the books. Besides not being ratified by the required number of states, like the federal "income" tax, the Seventeenth Amendment has been a tool of destruction by tyrants.

We shall see if truth matters in the "Don't Mess With Texas" state courts or if political expediency and lies will be the order of the day. Even if by some magic the court allows Wisconsin, California did not vote on that amendment making it one state short of ratification and that is the bottom line. Unlike the filing in Oklahoma that heavily relied on all the errors made by the states, my lawsuit focuses on just one issue: not enough states voted to ratify. According to the U.S. Supreme Court the ratification process cannot go on forever so the fact that Alabama, Maryland and Delaware decided just short of 100 years later to ratify it does not make the amendment ratified.

Very important links:

It’s a movement that’s been building in recent years: efforts by states to reclaim their constitutional authority by declaring Washington’s health care laws, gun control or other restrictions simply don’t apply within their boundaries.
After all, the Constitution stipulates that, except for a couple of dozen specific issues such as national defense, the powers in the U.S. rest with the states.
Now a new lawsuit contends states can regain their authority by returning to the practice of having state legislatures elect U.S. senators, as the Constitution originally required.
The case is being brought by author, columnist, commentator and activist Devvy Kidd.
A former congressional candidate, she has been a guest on thousands of talk shows and authored “Why A Bankrupt America” and “Blind Loyalty.”
In her complaint, filed in court in Texas, she contends the 17th Amendment was not legally adopted, because several key states cited in support of it never even voted.
She noted the drafters of the Constitution were concerned about maintaining state sovereignty, which is why state legislatures were given the power to select U.S. senators.
It was like that for more than 100 years until the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913, establishing direct election of senators by popular vote.
In a recent commentary, she said the 17 Amendment “was critical in destroying the balance of power in the U.S. Congress, wrestling away the sovereign power of the states and any representation in Washington, D.C.”
John Jay, co-author of The Federalist Papers, Kidd pointed out, is quote saying unlike the Senate, where “the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states – for the Federalists always a significant distinction.”
“The Senate was not created to represent Joe and Mary Smith. The U.S. Senate was created to give equal representation, two senators per state regardless of population, in the U.S. Congress,” she said.
Kidd’s lawsuit demands that the Texas secretary of state keep any candidates for the U.S. Senate off the November ballot.
“It is a ‘first blush’ lawsuit, meaning the first of its kind in either state or federal court to my knowledge,” she said.
She predicts the likely next governor of Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott, will defend Secretary of State Nandita Berry and try to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing Kidd has no standing.
Arguing for the illegitimacy of the 17th Amendment, she said Alabama “ratified” it in 2002, nearly 90 years after the fact. Delaware took the same action in 2010, 97 years late.
She said Maryland ratified the 17th Amendment as recently as 2012.
“Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of lies. We can’t be both and survive as anyone can see watching our beloved republic disintegrate,” she said. “One thing I dearly hope this lawsuit will do is educate our fellow Americans on why that amendment must be stricken from the books.”
The 17th Amendment was introduced in 1911 and sent to “all 48 states” in 1912 for ratification.According the complaint, the complaint recounts.
The next year, the Department of State announced: “The department has received information that 36 states have taken action purporting to ratify the amendment by Congress and no official information has been received from any state to the effect that the legislature of that state has rejected said amendment.”
The description of “action purporting to ratify” raised questions, but the complaint notes they are explained by the fact the department said the states made “errors” when “quoting” the amendment. Some states edited the amendment, some launched investigations and some took no action, the complaint explains.
“The parties involved, specifically William Jennings Bryan, simply decided to overlook how our laws are made – especially those pertaining to a constitutional amendment. Bryan chose to ignore the necessity for concurrence in legislative acts,” the complaint says.
Secretary of State Philander Knox had noted that state legislatures were not authorized to “alter in any way” the proposal, yet he listed all the various changes made by the states as they considered the proposal, Kidd explained.
The complaint notes, for example, Wisconsin changed the first paragraph of the proposal then eliminated a second.
“Bryan listed California as one of the states which ratified the amendment, in fact, it did not. The California State Legislature never voted on it, either the Assembly or Senate,” the complaint explains.
So when President Woodrow Wilson signed it in 1913, “legal ratification was two states short.”
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment ruling the 17th Amendment is not part of the Constitution.


Kickstarting the Revolution: COMMON SENSE ?


Wednesday, October 15, 2014


Health Impact News

Here's the latest:

Texas Medical Board Tries to Eliminate Alternative Health

2014-10-15 10:53:25-04
 The Texas Medical Board and Governor Rick Perry apparently do not want Texans having access to alternative cancer therapies and other natural medicine. Read about their latest abuse of power against Dr. Burzynski of Houston.


6 Reasons I Won’t Give My Kids The Nasal Flu Vaccine

2014-10-15 15:01:42-04
It's flu season again, and the push to get everyone in America vaccinated for the flu vaccine is in full swing. Please be aware that those who want you to receive the flu vaccine admittedly do not want you to know about the risks associated with the vaccine. They actively try to suppress information that would educate people on the dangers and risks of the flu vaccine and decrease their sales. To hear the other side of the vaccine debate from a medical doctor the media would like to censor, please watch the video by Dr. Suzanne Humphries here: Dr. Suzanne Humphries on Vaccine Safety: “They Don’t Want You to Hear the Other Side” Secondly, please look at the settled cases for vaccine injuries and deaths due to the flu vaccine the U.S. government pays out to victims: Flu Vaccine is the most Dangerous Vaccine in the U. S. based on Settled Cases for Injuries. This information is not published in the mainstream media. This year, there is a heavy push on to give kids the nasal flu vaccine. Celeste McGovern, writing for, gives 6 reasons why she will not be giving this vaccine to her children.

Shrouds on the Ground WITH BALL'S AND SNIPER RIFLE'S Striking Fear Within ISIS ranks !

WHBy Judi McLeod  October 15, 2014
The dithering U.S.-led ‘Coalition of the Reluctantly Willing’ has been left in the back seat by small groups of Syrian guerillas successfully hunting down and eliminating the terrorists of ISIS.
For the worried watching world it’s no longer the frustration of No Boots on the Ground in a non-war operation with no name,  it’s the determination and raw courage of ‘Shrouds on the Ground’.
Shrouds on the Ground are what the masses have long wanted, someone, for once and for all, to terrorize the head-chopping terrorists of dreaded ISIS.
There are no pussyfooting tactics in use by White Shroud who give new meaning to the word ‘vigilante’.
“White Shroud”—which takes its name from death shroud—has left the 60-country Coalition, including five Arab nations—sending airstrikes over Syria and Iraq talking among themselves,  while its dedicated members continue to go for the ISIS jugular.
That’s because White Shroud doesn’t speak the language of do-nothing rhetoric.  Its members don’t tarry to make pretty,  pacifying political speeches while innocents are being beheaded.  They just hit the ground running and get out to get the job done.

They’re taking down ISIS, one terrorist at a time.

Meet their group leader, the mysterious Abu Aboud—not his real name—who was a fully-fledged commander in an anti-Assad insurgent group crushed by the better armed and financed ISIS as it seized almost full control of Deir al-Zor earlier this year.
In his own words, the number one aim of White Shroud is to generate fear in ISIS’s ranks.
Aboud owns up to the fact that the small band he now leads is in no position to deal a major blow to ISIS—but they’ve proved focused success in taking down ISIS one terrorist at a time.
“Terrorist organisation Islamic State is now under attack from guerrillas itself, it was revealed today. (Daily Mail, Oct. 13, 2014). “Small groups of Syrians are hunting down ISIS fighters in one of their main strongholds in eastern Syria in a new guerrilla campaign that has emerged as a response to the Islamists’ growing brutality.”
We don’t know how many ISIS terrorists the U.S.-led Coalition has eliminated, but we can count the more than 100 killed by White Shroud in Deir al-Zor province in recent months.
There are no generals among the ranks of White Shroud, no military brass to argue which way next and certainly no “latte-coming-right-up-Sir” pow-wows like the one held in Maryland yesterday.
“Military chiefs from the United States and 21 other countries convened Tuesday for an unusual session at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland to discuss the campaign. The day-long event, hosted by Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, included an appearance by President Obama — part of an effort by his administration to dispel doubts about Washington’s long-term commitment to the region.
“In his remarks to a room filled with military brass from around the world, Obama cited some preliminary “important successes” against the Islamic State but warned that “this is going to be a long-term campaign” with “periods of progress and setbacks.” (Washington Post, Oct. 14, 2014)
Incredibly, the talking Pooh-Bahs of the Coalition have stood in courageous White Shroud’s way:
“The U.S.-led air strikes are not making White Shroud’s job easier, said Mr Abu Aboud. Where ISIS fighters once used to gather in large numbers, they now move in small groups, often at night, using motor bikes.(Daily Mail)
White Shroud members have no military experience to speak of and no time whatsoever to talk about it.
“They have all taken similarly menacing names. These include the ‘Phantom Brigade’ and ‘The Brigade of the Angel of Death’, said Rami Abdulrahman, who runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which says it gathers information from sources on all sides of the conflict. (Daily Mail)

“One such group killed no fewer than 10 ISIS fighters in a nighttime gun attack on a checkpoint in the town of Al Mayadin in Deir al-Zor province last Thursday, the Observatory reported.
“In a separate attack, a gunman on a motor bike opened fire on another ISIS checkpoint. 
“As the US advances plans to train and equip the moderate opposition to President Bashar al-Assad as part of its strategy to tackle ISIS, these groups shows how there are new enemies on the ground.
“Together with Raqqa province further north, Deir al-Zor forms the bedrock of ISIS’s influence in Syria.
“White Shroud shows no mercy to ISIS: when it manages to abduct one of its members, it is only to ‘liquidate’ him later on, said Mr Abou.
“It operates in and around the town of Al Bukamal at the Iraqi border, an area of crucial importance to ISIS as the link between the territory it controls in Syria and Iraq. The group currently numbers 300 members, said Mr Aboud.
“He added: ‘Eighty per cent of the members of White Shroud did not take part in combat before (ISIS) came. We trained them and they joined White Shroud because of the great oppression they felt after Islamic State took control.’
“ISIS has made plenty of enemies during its conquest of Deir al-Zor, an oil-producing region.
“It expelled most other insurgent groups from Deir al-Zor in July, emboldened by rapid gains in Iraq where it seized the city of Mosul in June, capturing with it Iraqi army equipment that has been deployed in Syria.
“Mirroring its approach elsewhere, ISIS has used crucifixions and decapitations to suppress all opposition in Deir al-Zor.
“It executed 700 members of one rebellious tribe, the Sheitaat, in August, the Observatory reported.
“Members of anti-Assad armed groups loosely referred to as the ‘Free Syrian Army’ had the choice of fleeing, submitting to ISIS rule, or death.
“The Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s official affiliate in Deir al-Zor, withdrew from the province. The Syrian government still controls a portion of Deir al-Zor city and its airport.
‘Secrecy is the most important element of White Shroud’s work,’ said Mr Aboud. The group comprises four-man ‘cells’ that work independently of each other, he added.
“One of White Shroud’s biggest operations was an attack on an ISIS position in Al Bukamal in which around 11 ISIS fighters were killed, according to the Observatory and Mr Aboud.
“White Shroud’s spokesman said the group is using weapons that formerly belonged to anti-Assad rebel groups.
“The spokesman, who gave his name as Abu Ali Albukamali, claimed that despite its modest resources, White Shroud had achieved its goal.
“He said: ‘The aim of this group - spreading fear among Islamic State members - has been realised. Today, you never meet them walking alone. They mostly move in groups, afraid of abduction.’
Meanwhile, citizens of a world that must depend on dithering governments for their safety from terrorism owe White Shroud their gratitude.
White Shroud is doing something the U.S.-led Coalition, for all of its multi-nation might, has not been able to do:  strike fear in the hearts of heartless ISIS.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014



The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”
ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.” 
“Political and social commentary is not a crime,” Holcomb said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.”
The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa.  The city council approved the law in June.
The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.
However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.
After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.
The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.
“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF attorney Erik Stanley.  “This is designed to intimidate pastors.”
Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.
“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.
However, ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.
Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.
The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law.
“This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”
Rev. Dave Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.
“We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”
He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith.
“We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.”
Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said pastors around the nation should rally around the Houston ministers.
“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”
Perkins called the actions by Houston’s mayor “obscene” and said they “should not be tolerated.”
“This is a shot across the bow of the church,” he said.
This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty. 
Sadly, that day arrived sooner than even I expected.
Tony Perkins is absolutely right. Now is the time for pastors and people of faith to take a stand.  We must rise up and reject this despicable strong-arm attack on religious liberty. We cannot allow ministers to be intimidated by government thugs.
The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”
Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.
Pastor Welch compared the culture war skirmish to the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto, fought in present-day Harris County, Texas. It was a decisive battle of the Texas Revolution.
“This is the San Jacinto moment for traditional family,” Welch told me. “This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”
We can no longer remain silent. We must stand together - because one day – the government might come for your pastor.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...