The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans


e-pluribus-unum-vs-multiculturalist-left

When the 9th Circuit Appeals Court upheld a Lower Court stay on President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning citizens, refugees, and immigrants from seven nations that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, it demonstrated how Leftist Activist Judges ignore the Constitution in favor of Leftist utopianism. The American Left might as rip up the Constitution and burn the scraps of paper.

 

Paul Sutliff demonstrates how the 9th circuit is torching the U.S. Constitution with misinformation to justify Multiculturalist utopian goals.

 

JRH 2/11/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans

u-s-9th-circuit-deceives-american 

By Paul Sutliff 

February 9, 2017

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

The New York Post wrote an article on February 9th that clearly shows the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, carefully choosing words for the purpose of creating misinformation for the media to share with their readers and viewers regarding their actions against President Trump’s Executive Order. According to that article the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that an alien of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the three-member panel wrote.”

 

The terminology “perpetrated a terrorist attack” explicitly excludes all actions prevented or attempted that did not result in a terror attack. Why is this important? There are at least 38 terrorists who were killed or arrested as they worked to be supportive of the Islamic State AND who were also classified as immigrants/refugees at one time. In addition, there are at least 6 persons who were killed or arrested for attempting an act of terror who were second generation Americans refugees. I filed this information in a federally filed affidavit in September 2016 as an Expert Witness. You will notice people from countries other than the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban.

All the information in the graphs below originated in the Threat Knowledge Group last accessed in September 2016, whose site was disabled recently with President Trump’s appointment of Sebastian Gorka, with the exception of the information in the last column which I found. Actual sources for the information cited in the last column is provided in my Affidavit.

 

APPENDIX C 1

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees

 

APPENDIX C 2

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-2 

 

APPENDIX C 3

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-3 

 

APPENDIX C 4

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-4

 

APPENDIX C 5

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-5

 

____________________

Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jiihad! https://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-68237-562-4

 

Lady Liberty Cried


tears-of-lady-liberty

Justin Smith makes a very cogent defense of President Trump’s ban on immigration from seven nations that are Islamic terrorist havens.

 

JRH 2/7/16

Please Support NCCR

************

Lady Liberty Cried

The Moral and Intellectual Clarity to Win

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/6/2017 12:37 PM

 

Lady Liberty had a single tear trickle down Her cheek on January 27th as Her breasts heaved with happiness and relief that a U.S. President, Donald Trump, was finally implementing a sound, logical and sane common-sense approach to who receives visas and permission to enter the United States. However, Lady Liberty cried profusely, upon learning that President Trump’s ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations was only temporary.

 

On January 27th, Pres. Trump placed a 120 day block on all refugees and a 90 day ban on travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. Three of these countries are U.S.-designated sponsors of terror and the rest are war zones; this is about the safety and security of the American people, and it is far from discrimination against Muslims.

 

Congressional members of both parties have promised a biometric entry-exit tracking system on visas for over two decades, and the 9/11 National Commission on Terror Attacks on the United States recommended it thirteen years ago, noting that forty percent of all illegal aliens simply overstayed their visa just like many of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. Section 7 of President Trump’s executive order calls for this biometric system that has long been delayed by lobbyists from foreign governments, universities, immigration legal firms and the ACLU.

 

And now, with the flames of violence fanned by the Leftist media, America is witnessing violent social convulsions from Berkeley, CA to New York City. Violent communists and anarchists, supported and largely financed by the American Communist Party and the billionaire trouble-maker George Soros, are attacking any conservative counter-protester with pepper-spray and poles, and they are setting fire to their cities.

 

The Washington Post quoted protesters outside the White House saying, “Islamophobia is unpatriotic” and chanting “Let them go … Let them in”.

 

Videos out of the University of California at Berkely show protesters screaming, “No borders, no nations, f— deportations! … No walls, no borders, f— executive orders!”

 

The Left fears that Trump’s executive order is the first step towards a return to pre-1965 immigration policies that favored Western Christians. The Progressive Communists of the Democratic Party have advocated their anti-Western, anti-Christian ideology for over four decades, and they have promoted open borders, globalization and endless immigration from the Third World, in order to destroy America’s Founding Principles through a dangerous form of multiculturalism that encourages ethnic separation and authoritarian government in a hellish “utopia”. [Blog Editor: I’m not always a fan of Natural News as a source nevertheless, this article paints a picture Americans are witnessing right before their eyes.]

 

If this executive order was truly a “Muslim” ban, as asserted by the Leftist “mainstream” media, why didn’t it include forty other Muslim majority countries, including Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, where Christians are regularly intimidated and persecuted?

 

Even if this had been the full Muslim ban once proposed by Trump, so what?

 

An indisputable fact, America is a nation of immigrants, but entering America is a privilege, not a right, and since 1882, Congress was seen as having broad authority over this issue, as our nation’s lawmaker. The U.S. President, too, has broad discretion, under the law, for national security purposes to bar a class of person detrimental to the U.S. from entering the country. Any country, including America, cannot maintain its national security, traditions, cultural identity – its heritage – unless it approves or denies entrants based on the country of origin.

 

Isn’t it revealing that every country listed by President Trump bans Israeli citizens?

 

Reuters reported on January 31st that the Council on American – Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood organization, was preparing a legal challenge. CAIR contends “the order targets Muslims because of their faith, contravening the U.S. Constitutional right to freedom of religion”.

 

Contrary to the assertions of Islam’s apologists, the so-called “religion of peace” is a manifest and existential evil ideology, and the Muslim Brotherhood is just as committed to the destruction of America and the West as its Al Qaeda and Islamic State associates. Islam and its followers are at the center of this debate regarding America’s national security, because they are at the center of so much terror and death around the world, a “religion” [ideology] that professes to be good and “peaceful” with millions of its faithful followers actively supporting or waging violent jihad, killing apostates, hanging homosexuals and stoning women.

 

Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi  shed fake tears over President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban”, and yet Pres. Obama banned Iraqis in 2011 after two Iraqi terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, KY selling arms to terrorists back home in Iraq. Did they cry then? Did they cry for the victims of 9/11? Boston? San Bernadino and a litany of other U.S. cities? And have they shed a tear or castigated Japan for its nearly complete ban on Muslims? Americans might like to hear those answers.

 

Several independent studies (Rasmussen, Harvard, PEW) show that a full quarter of the 230,140,996 million “moderate” Muslims of Indonesia (total population 258,316,051 million) support the goals of the terrorist groups of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. Overall, approximately one-third of all Muslims approve of Hamas and one-quarter hold Hezbollah in high esteem. And, just as troubling, 15 percent of Muslims in Turkey, a NATO ally, support suicide bombings.

 

Thousands of educated Muslims worldwide probably acknowledge that the violent terrorism of the Islamofascists, who are fighting in North Africa and the Middle East, is driven by a political ideology embedded in Islam, the Koran and the Hadith (the teachings of Mohammed). [Oxford & IrqaSense.com – pro-Islam] And while a few hundred of these enlightened Muslims might actually seek the reform of Islam, millions more of devout Muslims still follow the Koran quite literally, quickly dismissing any attempt to reform Islam as heresy; many of these are the same Muslims who refuse to fully integrate into any host nation they reside, as blatantly witnessed in the United Kingdom and France, and even in some parts of the United States.

 

From the Hadith: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror …” — Sahih al Bukhari 4:52:220

 

President Trump’s travel ban is more about the preservation of everyday ordinary American lives and liberty, and it has nothing to do with Islamophobia, racism, fascism or xenophobia. Anyone with a modicum of common-sense can understand that Muslim immigrants require greater scrutiny, especially in light of several past visa screenings that failed to identify foreign nationals who later committed Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks in America.

 

Isn’t now the time for the majority of Americans to demand an immediate and permanent ban on all Muslim immigration?

 

“We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people,” President Trump said, shortly after announcing the travel ban.

 

President Donald Trump has the moral and intellectual clarity to win this religious war, because he can name the enemy, and he has the courage of his convictions. He is already reminding Americans of their country’s proud heritage and exceptionalism, while he refuses to allow the intolerant Islamofascists to turn our tolerance and charity  —  our strength — into weakness.

 

America’s leaders cannot be so overly sensitive in defending other cultures that they stop defending ours. A sane immigration and refugee policy won’t make the Muslims hate America any more than they already do; they hate us simply because we exist. And in the end, if we follow President Trump’s lead, America will be kept safe and Americans will rediscover their Western identity and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the Greatest Nation on Earth.

 

And Lady Liberty will smile again.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++

lady-liberty-patriotism

Blog Editor: Quite separately from Justin’s submission, I found a video that might be of interest to readers that share my opinion that the American Left has an agenda to reshape America away from our Founding principles and traditional American values.

 

VIDEO: America Under Siege: Civil War 2017

 

Post by Capital Research Center

Published on Jan 19, 2017

 

They’ve fought to stop the inauguration
They’re fighting to destroy our nation

While 700,000 protesters are converging on Washington D.C. for Inauguration Day—in addition to anti-Trump rallies planned in dozens of cities across the country—the political groups behind the protests remain shrouded in mystery. As Fox News Channel first reported, Civil War 2017 uncovers an extensive network of neo-Marxist operatives coordinating highly disruptive and potentially violent protests from coast to coast.

Working with Dangerous Documentaries, director Judd Saul and conservative commentator Trevor Loudon have compiled a team of researchers and undercover operatives to probe the roots of the anti-Trump movement, highlighting the ultimate goals and ulterior motives. Mr. Loudon, a regular contributor to Glenn Beck’s online programming, is the foremost expert on the left-wing organizers of mass protests.

DangerousDocumentaries.com
CapitalResearch.org

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

BLM Persecution of Western Land Owners


no-blm

John R. Houk

© January 26, 2017

 

On January 24th I posted Justin Smith’s memoriam of LaVoy Finicum’s assassination accomplished under the nefarious regime of the Obama Administration. Shortly after Finicum’s death the Malheur Occupation Ranchers began to be arrested. On 10/28/16 the OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) reports that seven of the many arrested were found not guilty by a jury of twelve:

 

A 12-person jury found occupation leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy not guilty Thursday of the government’s primary charge: conspiracy to impede federal officers by force, threat or intimidation. Their five co-defendants — Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler — have all been found not guilty as well.

 

Jurors were unable to reach a verdict on Ryan Bundy’s theft of government property charge. READ ENTIRETY

 

Even after the leadership of the Malheur Occupation were found not guilty, the government prosecutors insist on going after seven more occupiers and to try to get something to stick added some misdemeanors to the felony charges:

 

Defense attorneys denounced the government’s decision to move forward with a second trial.

 

“In my view, it defies logic that they could profess respect for the jury’s verdict in the first trial, and yet still be pursuing charges, and indeed more charges, against the lesser players in the second trial,” said Jesse Merrithew, the attorney for defendant Jake Ryan.

 

The upcoming trial against Ryan, Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer, Dylan Anderson, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson, and Darryl Thorn could also see the government charging several Class B misdemeanors, including trespassing, tampering with vehicles and equipment and destruction of property. READ ENTIRETY (Prosecutors To Pursue 2nd Oregon Standoff Trial; By CONRAD WILSON; Northwest Public Radio; 12/12/16)

 

 

Duane Ehmer, left; top row from left to right: Sandra Anderson, Jason Patrick, Sean Anderson; bottom row from left to right: Jake Ryan, Darryl Thorn and Dylan Anderson

duane-ehmersandra-anderson-jason-patrick-sean-anderson-jake-ryan-darryl-thorn-dylan-anderson

 

Now my lack of keeping up has been apparent. I discovered the Federal government (probably inspired by the Bureau of Land Management – BLM) is still going after the Bundy’s and their supporters over the standoff at the Bundy Ranch when the BLM tried to confiscate the Bundy cattle. AND the Bundy prosecutors are to nail the family under the radar of Malheur not guilty verdicts and adding some legal tricks to prevent public exposure of the truth. Below is the story.

 

JRH 1/26/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Prosecutors Seek to Protect BLM from Scrutiny in Bundy Ranch Trial

 

By TIM BROWN

JANUARY 25, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

It appears the government wants to hide the illegal actions it has taken, along with those of the Bureau of Land Management in the Bundy Ranch trial that is soon to begin.

 

On Tuesday, Prosecutors in Las Vegas filed a Motion In Limine  in the case of The United States vs Cliven Bundy et al.  They are hopeful that Nevada District Court Judge Gloria Navarro will allow the US central government to “cover-up” any wrong doing by Bureau Of Land Management agents during the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege.

 

 

An attorney for one of the defendants told Guerilla Media Network, “It’s a shocking blatant attempt by the Government to cover-up the brutal conduct of BLM agents that caused a near catastrophe in Bunkerville, Nevada during the impoundment of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.”

 

Guerilla Media Network reports:

 

The motion is a draconian attempt at best to “protect” government agents from being exposed to further scrutiny during the upcoming Nevada trials in which they will be under-oath to tell the truth.

The defense in this case is centered around civil rights violations of the Bundy family and protestors who came to Bunkerville, Nevada to protest an overreaching government agency who had beaten and incarcerated Cliven Bundy’s son Dave Bundy and other protestors, used a stun gun on his son Ammon Bundy, viciously attacked Mr. Bundy’s sister Margaret, and terrorized peaceful protest with threat of snipers and military force.

 

Further the government which successfully used the idea that some of the defendants in the Oregon trial of the United States vs Ammon Bundy et al .. were also involved in the Bundy Ranch “armed” protest as a reason to deny them a pretrial release, now ask the Judge to not allow any reference to that case including the fact they were acquitted.

 

Here’s a copy of the relevant portion of the motion.

 

bundy-prosecutor-motion

Bundy Prosecutor Motion

 

bundy-prosecutor-motion-2

Bundy Prosecutor Motion 2

 

“It is what it is and we will fight it,” said Chris Rasmussen, attorney for reporter and radio show host Pete Santilli.  “The government wishes to eliminate anything we could use that goes to the defendants’ state of mind .. and we cannot allow that to happen. These people were frightened and there was a reason they reacted the way they did.”

 

“Do we or do we not still live in America?” said former Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Tuesday in response to the motion.  “One way or the other the truth will be told and I would like to see them stop me from voluntarily giving my testimony when this trial begins.”

 

Fiore has already told about some of the evidence that is known to exist concerning the criminal BLM, including audio and video from body cameras, and even spoken out on their crimes on the Nevada Assembly floor.

 

VIDEO: Michele Fiore: Government Alters Dashboard/Body Cam Video In Nevada Bundy Case

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Oct 3, 2016

 

*** Please help support our mission in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal acoount: peter@petersantilli.com.

Defendants in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al .. are accusing the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the FBI of altering dashboard and body-cam video in an attempt to cover-up their aggressiveness during the 2014 protest that led to the arrest of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and 18 others.

Defendants are also accusing the FBI “infiltration team” who posed as a documentary film crew called Long Bow, of editing video at crucial moments to make defendants who gave interviews look guilty of crimes they did not commit.

On at least 5 different occasions the defendants in the case say that video used to gain their indictments and create the Governments narrative that has kept them all in jail pending trial, was clearly altered at crucial moments to hide what they believe would expose the BLM as the aggressors and not the “victims” as Prosecutor Steven Mhyre contends.

We have found at least 5 different clear cases of evidence tampering and have only viewed 1/4 of the discovery that was recently released to us by the Prosecutors office say defendants, who have begun the process of creating a power point demonstration that will be viewed by defense attorney’s on October 7, 2016.

 

This doesn’t begin to include the fact that the BLM engaged in the same actions that landed Dwight and Steven Hammond in prison.

 

VIDEO: BLM Destroying Ranches by Fire

 

Posted by Ammon Bundy

Published on Dec 5, 2015

 

This BLM fire reportedly killed more than 80 head of cattle. Put ranchers trying to save their cattle in extreme danger, injured other cattle, burnt homes and structures, burnt fences and power poles and threatened the town of Frenchglen.

 

Additionally, no one at Bundy Ranch did anything like what the BLM did, which you can see here.

 

VIDEO: Bundy standoff! Bundy Ranch Protesters Tasered by Federal Agents and Attacked by K9’s

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Apr 9, 2014

 

Contains Graphic images.

Protestors at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada take on the Feds and stand their ground.

Video courtesy of the Pete Santilli Show and Guerilla Media Network http://guerillamedianetwork.com/

Please donate today to keep more videos like this coming tomorrow!! http://wp.me/P30jla-1JM

 

Carol Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s wife, reacted in a similar manner, “So what kind of defense are we allowed to have if we can’t tell the truth?  Because if the Government has it’s way it looks like we will not be allowed to have any defense at all.”

 

The central government has been at the center of coverups.  Among them have been Waco and Ruby Ridge.  They have sought and are seeking to do the same in the Bundy case just as they are attempting to do in the case involving the murder of LaVoy Finicum and as they have done concerning Daniel P. Love, the man in charge of the aggressive nature against the Bundys.

 

I met with Santilli on Saturday at the Southern Nevada Detention Center and he informed me that he believes with the evidence they have, that everyone should be acquitted of the charges against them.

 

He went on to state to GMN:

 

Sure, they would love it if we all just went into this trial docile and defeated, not willing to fight them, but that just isn’t going to happen. The Bureau of Land Management went to Bundy Ranch with a clear disdain and lack of respect for the Bundy Family. Dan Loves Objective fell just short of scorched earth policy; We can prove it, they know it and they are very, very afraid of that.  As I see it, we have them right where we want them, why would they file such a ludicrous Motion otherwise?  This Motion has the “BLM is guilty” written all over it and I for one think that’s great news.  If the Government gets it’s way and eliminates the fact that Daniel P Love gave agents the authority to beat up on Bundy Family members and was not acting in a rational way during the impoundment, if the Jury is not allowed to hear what elected officials told Love in response to his brutal actions, and if there was never any reason whatsoever for protestors to be in fear for their lives, then I believe any Jury worth it’s salt is going to be very suspect as to the validity of this case.  I mean, if nobody did anything wrong, then why the hell are we having a trial?

 

Judge Navarro has demonstrated that she is just as corrupt as the BLM and the politicians surrounding what is going on in Nevada.  Just look at what she has done to Santilli and Cliven Bundy.  Does anyone really believe she is not going to accept this motion?

 

________________

BLM Persecution of Western Land Owners

John R. Houk

© January 26, 2017

______________

Prosecutors Seek to Protect BLM from Scrutiny in Bundy Ranch Trial

 

About the Author Tim Brown

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.comSonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance


bho-purged-military-for-disagreeing

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

 

You should be aware that the Obama Administration has taken a hard line toward military servicemen from private to general for minor infractions, made-up infractions or policy direction opposite to the worst President in U.S. history.

 

Sgt. Gary Stein

 

The Marine sergeant facing discharge because of critical comments about President Obama says the board that recommended his dismissal ignored the law and instead relied on “personal opinion.”

 

 

Stein, 26, a nine-year veteran including deployment to Iraq, had been recommended for dismissal and an other-than-honorable discharge by his commander for comments posted on four Facebook pages.

 

In his postings, Stein called Obama a coward and an enemy, vowed not to salute him and called for his defeat in this year’s election. One of the websites was an Armed Forces Tea Party page on Facebook that was created by Stein. READ ENTIRETY (Marine who criticized Obama says hearing board ignored law; Posted by NewsEditor; USIF.net; 4/11/12)

 

Lt. Michael Behenna

 

On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and Army intelligence believed he organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.

 

During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.

 

Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. READ ENTIRETY (MILITARY PROSECUTORS WITHHOLD EVIDENCE; ARMY RANGER GOES TO PRISON FOR 25 YEARS FOR SHOOTING AL QAEDA OPERATIVE; DefendMichael.com)

 

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

 

McKiernan was succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was in turn assigned to undertake his own 60-day assessment. But when word spread that McChrystal intended to propose a substantial new increase in forces, which Pentagon gossip initially put as high as 80,000 additional troops, waves of dismay spread through the White House. In late September 2009, a copy of McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post. Its bottom line was clear: If the United States did not pour significant additional resources into Afghanistan, and fast, the likely result would be “mission failure.”

 

… Furious at the leak—which they blamed on the Pentagon—and reluctant to accept McChrystal’s grim conclusions, senior White House aides engaged in strategic counter-leaks. In their version, McChrystal and the Pentagon were trying to box in the president by pushing to deploy tens of thousands more troops and refusing to consider other approaches.

 

 

… And less than a year later, McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone profile quoted his top military aides mocking several senior civilian officials, including Eikenberry and Vice President Joe Biden. READ ENTIRETY (Obama vs. the Generals; By ROSA BROOKS; POLITICO; 11/2013)

 

General David Petraeus

 

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is now thinking of retroactively taking away one or two of Petraeus’s four stars. The potential demotion in rank, opposed by the Army, is intended as further punishment for the misdemeanor to which he pleaded guilty last year. Petraeus accepted two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine for allowing his mistress, Paula Broadwell, to read classified information for research on the biography she was writing about Petraeus.

Carter apparently wants to ensure that Petraeus is treated in the same fashion as other miscreant generals and admirals who have lost rank. Yet there is no evidence that Broadwell (who enjoyed a military security clearance of her own) ever shared the classified information with anyone or disclosed it in the biography.

That does not excuse the bad judgment of Petraeus. But it does invite an obvious comparison with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She not only sent classified information over her unsecured e-mail to several individuals but remains untruthful about that fact. READ ENTIRETY (The Obama Administration Needs to Abandon Its Petraeus Obsession; By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON; National Review; 1/28/16 12:00)

 

General James Mattis, USMC

 

… Mattis wanted to strike Iran in retaliation for killing U.S. troops in Iraq in 2011; however, President Obama refused to grant permission.

 

Iranian-supplied rockets killed as many as 15 U.S. troops per month in Iraq in the summer of 2011, and Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis had a plan to retaliate. I personally recall from my years of duty in Casualty Affairs at Dover Air Force Base during this same time period, that, along with the casualties from IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices with “shaped charges” provided by Iran that could penetrate our armored vehicles) the rockets killed many U.S. troops.  We were receiving the bodies of U.S. service members virtually every day, along with thousands of family members who came to Dover for the ceremonies honoring their loved ones.

 

Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a single such attack in early June of 2011, with another three killed days later. Mattis, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, had enough and decided the U.S. must retaliate before the Iranian rockets and IEDs caused further casualties. Coordinating with then Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Mattis proposed an attack inside Iran.

 

 

The White House received the strike proposal and subsequently denied it. President Barack Obama believed such a strike would infuriate the Iranians, possibly escalating the need for U.S. troops in Iraq, something he was trying so desperately to end. Some Administration insiders feared the plan would start a war with Iran, a country with which President Obama wanted to improve relations.

 

Of course, now we know President Obama had another reason to deny the strike request, though it was not publicly known.  At the time, the Obama Administration was secretly negotiating with Iran on its growing nuclear weapons program. READ ENTIRETY (What You Need to Know About General Mattis; By Wesley Smith; ACLJ; 1/12/17)

 

I haven’t found reliable confirmation, but some conspiracy site claim:

 

Was Fired After He Refused To Take Up Arms Against U.S. Citizens by Dave Gibson 02/17/2015. READ ENTIRETY (Obama purging top brass from the military; Posted by JS; Independence Day; 10/26/15)

 

Here is an article from FrontPageMag that lists several Generals and Admirals that paints a suspicious picture of an Obama purge of the military of Officers that may have found reasons to disagree with Obama’s military vision.

 

President Obama hasn’t just been hollowing out the military since taking office, he’s been gutting it, purging it of ideologically hostile personnel, and fundamentally transforming it into something other than a war-fighting force, military experts say.

 

Although few with military ties are willing to say it openly, it seems the administration is leading an orchestrated effort to seriously undermine the readiness of the military. Some reports indicate that Obama has purged 197 senior military officers since moving into the White House and that many of the retired officers have been harassed at their new civilian jobs for criticizing the president’s policies. The effects of these purges will be felt long after Obama leaves office. READ ENTIRETY (PURGING AND TRANSFORMING OUR MILITARY; By Matthew Vadum; FrontPageMag; 11/7/13)

 

Here is a list of the high-level Officers mentioned in the FrontPageMag article:

 

 

  • David McKiernan

 

  • Stanley McChrystal

 

  • David Petraeus

 

  • John Allen

 

  • Carter Ham

 

  • Admiral David Gaurette

 

  • Marine Gen. James Cartwright

 

  • Vice Admiral Tim Giardina

 

  • Major Gen. Michael Carey

 

The American Left will tell you these generals served their time and retired or were caught in unethical or illegal activities and were forced to resign or retire. The unethical/illegal dismissals appear suspicious to me because these guys became generals or admirals because of military smarts. This insinuates sophomoric actions that tarnishes credibility is way out of the ordinary, especially if their stars were earned in combat situations that led to command reliability. One general says this about the apparent Obama military purge:

 

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady told WND that President Obama has forced out so many military leaders who have doubts about his policies that the nation’s armed forces no longer feel prepared to fight or to try to win armed conflicts. (Ibid.)

 

By this point if I were you, I’d be wondering why I am thinking about the Obama purge story which has been around for most of Obama’s two terms of Office.

 

I received an email from the mother of a Lieutenant convicted of murder while on active duty in Afghanistan. The email is quite compelling and knowing how Obama has been ripping the military apart, my first thought was to jump on the sympathetic train.

lt-lorance-setenced-20-yrs-prison

Before I jumped on board, I decided to check some other sources to see the military’s case against the Lieutenant. AND WHOAH! There are two conflicting stories that makes the difference between truth and lies because those who testified against the Lieutenant were there and followed orders. And another issue for me is this. Perhaps the story told by the Lieutenant’s soldiers is accurate about the Lieutenant’s character and actions, BUT the military prosecutors obviously withheld exculpatory evidence that make the Lieutenant less of a murderer and more of a taking the enemy combatants out.

 

So, I am going to cross post the mother’s email and then at least an excerpt of the military’s case. And you can see what I mean.

 

JRH 1/20/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

My Son Deserves his Freedom

By Mr. Anna Lorance

Sent 1/17/2017 7:44 AM

anna-lorance-mom-lt-clint-lorance

I know we have never met. But if you have children of your own, you’ll understand why I’m writing you today.

You see, the young handsome man in this photo is my son, Lt. Clint Lorance of the U.S. Army.

Like any mother, I was so scared that Clint would be hurt – or even killed – after he was deployed to Afghanistan.

Then on July 2, 2012, it almost happened.

Clint was sent to a “hot zone” on a dangerous mission to replace a lieutenant who had been injured when the Taliban attacked his platoon just days earlier.

He was warned to look for multiple riders on red motorcycles – known as “spotters” who alert the Taliban when they see U.S. troops. And every soldier was on edge. They all knew about the earlier ambush – and that just days before a U.S. soldier had been shot in the neck in this very village.

Suddenly a U.S. helicopter radioed in to Clint that a group of motorcycle riders was sitting outside of the village near a road that was used only by the Taliban.

As Clint confirmed a clear description of the enemy, a motorcycle charged toward the platoon so one of the soldiers asked permission to fire a warning shot. Clint said, “yes.”

But the riders did not stop. Instead, they continued riding and broke through the troop’s formation, jumped off the motorcycle, and headed right toward our troops. With only a split-second to make a decision, Clint ordered his marksman to fire. Two of the riders were killed. The other was captured in the village.

Meanwhile, two other Taliban members were killed by Clint’s platoon and a second man captured trying to leave the village.

When Clint and his men arrived back at base, Clint ordered both of the prisoners to be tested for explosives residue. BOTH tested positive for residue on their hands, confirming Clint’s suspicions that the motorcycle riders posed a threat.

Yet instead of imprisoning and interrogating these men, military intelligence at Brigade Headquarters released the men back into the wild.

Then they fired Clint as platoon leader.

And one year later, Clint was sitting in a military courtroom on trial for murder.

Five other members of Clint’s platoon were also charged, including the marksman who had actually shot and killed the terrorists.

But all five were promised immunity if they would agree to testify against Clint.

Every one of the statements from these five soldiers changed from their initial statements. That’s right, not one of their stories was the same as the account they gave on the day of the attack.

But Clint’s account did not change.

And when asked for his only statement during the trial, he looked into the eyes of the jury and said, “I totally take all responsibility for my actions. I gave the order because I was the leader on the ground and perceived a hostile intent.”

My friend, I’m proud that my son gave that order.

Because only weeks after the ambush on Clint’s platoon, a motorcycle with two riders rode into a village where U.S. soldiers were patrolling and detonated explosives strapped to their cycle. That leader did not react as my son did – and American soldiers died.

But none of this mattered to the military court. Even though Clint never fired his weapon, he was found “guilty” and sentenced to 20 years in Fort Leavenworth Prison.

As soon as the verdict was read, Clint turned to us. He told his brother, “Be strong and promise me that you will take care of my Momma and Dad.”

Then he took me by the shoulders and said, “Momma I can’t leave here without knowing that you are okay.”

It took every bit of strength I had to not cry. I did not want Clint to see me in tears as they took him from the courtroom. Instead I told him, “We will get through this. God loves to walk the dark hills with us.”

Now, over three years later, I’m seeing just how much God is walking with us through this terrible time thanks to Major Bill Donahue of the United American Patriots. UAP helps provide legal defenses for soldiers like Clint who have been unjustly accused of crimes for making split-second decisions in the heat of combat.

Maj. Donahue is a Marine who survived three tours of duty in Vietnam – so he knows what it’s like to make decisions behind enemy lines. And he knows you can’t second-guess our young soldiers who have been trained to defend themselves in combat.

UAP is fighting to help Clint mount an appeal, a motion for mistrial AND secure a presidential pardon. But it’s a costly process – and money our son doesn’t have.

Clint was stripped of all pay when he was indicted. He was forced to sell his house. And he lost all 10 years of his Army pension.

All we can do now is rely on UAP and the big hearts of American patriots like you who support them and their mission.

UAP is a non-profit organization. They don’t receive a dime of federal funding. And Maj. Donahue doesn’t even take a salary for his work. He just wants to help soldiers.

If you can help with a tax-deductible gift of any amount, won’t you please send it to UAP today to help them fight for my son?

While politically correct government officials are going to extreme measures to protect the “civil rights” of terrorists who want to destroy our country, soldiers like my son are sitting in prison for protecting our nation from these terrorists!

On behalf of every mother of a U.S. soldier, thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for whatever support you can send today.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Anna Lorance

P.S. During a break in the trial, I walked outside to catch some air. The last soldier who had testified against Clint was standing on the sidewalk with tears running down his face. When he looked up at me he quickly dropped his head in shame. Clearly, he knows he helped the Obama Administration send an innocent soldier to prison. Thank you for helping UAP fight to bring him home!

 

+++

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

By Michelle Tan

January 12, 2015

Army Times

 

Shortly after the soldiers from 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment set out on patrol from Strong Point Payenzai, Afghanistan, a motorcycle carrying three Afghan men came into view.

 

Pfc. James Skelton reported the sighting to 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, his new platoon leader.

 

“He told me to engage,” Skelton said, according to the transcript from Lorance’s court-martial.

 

Skelton fired two shots. He missed. The motorcycle came to a stop, the men climbed off and began walking towards the Afghan National Army soldiers who were at the front of the U.S.-Afghan patrol.

 

“The ANA started telling them to go back, waving to them to return towards the motorcycle, to stay away,” Skelton testified. “They turned around and went back towards the motorcycle.”

 

Within seconds, two of them were dead. The third man ran away.

 

A gun truck that was accompanying the soldiers on foot had opened fire with its M240B machine gun.

 

“He was told to engage by Lieutenant Lorance when they had a visual,” Skelton testified.

 

“Did he ask the vehicle what the men were doing?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“No,” Skelton said.

 

“He just told them to engage?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“Yes,” Skelton said.

 

One year after that fateful July 2, 2012, patrol, in a case that has been controversial from the start, Lorance was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

 

Lorance, now 30, is serving a 19-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, but his case is far from over. Across the nation, thousands are rallying in hopes the baby-faced soldier can regain his freedom. They see him as a patriot, unfairly punished for actions taken to protect his fellow soldiers.

 

His own soldiers, however, paint a much different picture: They claim their platoon leader was ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats.

 

 

But as the fight for the young officer’s freedom has gained traction online and on social media, Lorance’s own soldiers are pushing back, they say, to make sure their side of the story is told.

 

Two sides of Clint Lorance

 

“All these petitioners need to be shown what kind of man [Lorance] really is,” said a soldier who served as a team leader in Lorance’s platoon, who asked to speak on background because he is still on active duty. “This isn’t a soldier that went to war and gone done wrong. This is a soldier that had a taste for blood and wanted to have that fulfilled. And he did, but in the wrong way.”

 

Todd Fitzgerald, a former specialist and infantryman in Lorance’s platoon, said he felt betrayed by the lieutenant.

 

“I don’t believe that he really understood what he was getting into,” he said.

 

Fitzgerald testified during Lorance’s court-martial.

 

“Us testifying against him, it wasn’t a matter of not liking him, it wasn’t a matter of any type of grudge or coercion,” he said. “It was simply we knew that his actions, based on our experience, having operated in that area for months, were going to breed further insurgency. If you kill local citizens, they’re no longer willing to help you.”

 

Testimony from these solders is in stark contrast to how Lorance’s mother, Anna, describes her son.

 

 

Fight for a new trial

 

Maher said he is disappointed in Clarke’s decision regarding clemency. He also said his client has grounds for a new trial.

 

“The defense has now identified information linking five of seven Afghan military-aged males on the field that day with terror,” Maher said. “Because the government has always had that information and did not disclose it to the command or the trial defense counsel, examining 1st Lt. Lorance’s decision-making takes a back seat. We never get to that question.”

 

Basically, the government is obligated to disclose evidence that could negate guilt, reduce the degree of guilt or reduce the punishment for the accused, Maher said, citing the Rule for Courts-Martial.

 

“The first day at the Army JAG school, we’re taught you turn over everything,” said Maher, who also is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

 

The government made a “serious legal error” by not turning over exonerating and/or mitigating evidence contained in government computer databases, Maher said.

 

“Before the government can take away any soldier’s liberty, freedom, career, income, retirement, educational benefits, and full ability to get a job, the government must follow the rules,” he said. “Here, it did not.”

 

If that information had been turned over, the defense might have taken a different approach, or the case may not even have made it to trial, said Maher, who points out Lorance never fired his weapon that day.

 

“Clint did not initiate this, nor did he engage anybody directly,” he said.

 

Though he didn’t fire the weapon, he was convicted of making the call. He was also convicted of threatening a local Afghan; firing an M14 rifle into a village and trying to have one of his soldiers lie about receiving incoming fire; and obstructing justice by making a false radio report after the two men on the motorcycle were killed.

 

 

“Over about a three-day period, Lieutenant Lorance … committed crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty,” said Capt. Kirk Otto, who prosecuted the case for the government, according to a transcript of the court-martial.

 

First, on June 30, 2012, Lorance threatened to kill an Afghan man and his family, Otto said in his opening statement.

 

The man, a farmer, and his child, who was about 4 years old, were at the gate to talk to the Americans about the concertina wire that was blocking access to his farm field, Otto said.

 

“He said, ‘You move the c-wire, I’ll have somebody kill you,'” Spc. James Twist, who was at the scene, testified during the court-martial.

 

Lorance then tried to have the Afghan turn in IEDs to the Americans, Twist testified.

 

“He was like, ‘You bring us IEDs or we’ll have the ANA kill your family,'” Twist said. “And Lieutenant Lorance was like, ‘Well, if we ever come onto your land and we step on an IED or we find an IED, I’ll have the ANA come and kill your family.’ And he pointed to the kid and said, ‘Do you want to see your child grow up?'”

 

The next day, Lorance directed one of the platoon’s squad designated marksmen to fire his M14 rifle from one of the Strong Point’s guard towers into the neighboring village of Sarenzai, Otto said.

 

“He directs harassing fire — illegal harassing fire — at villagers,” Otto said.

 

Lorance directed his soldier to shoot near groups of people, as well as at walls and vehicles, he said. The soldier, Spc. Matthew Rush, refused to shoot when Lorance directed him to fire near a group of children, Otto said.

 

“These villagers were not doing anything,” Otto said. “There was no demonstrated hostile intent. No one heard incoming shots.”

 

The soldier who served as a team leader in the platoon, who spoke to Army Times on background, said he has pictures of Lorance on the rooftop.

 

“He was out of control,” the soldier said. “We told him, ‘Sir, I don’t think it’s a good idea.’ He was like, ‘Oh, it’s a great idea. We’re going to scare these guys so they actually attend our shura, and we won’t lose anymore guys.”

 

Lorance later tried to have Sgt. Daniel Williams, who was in the tactical operations center, falsely report that the Strong Point received incoming potshots, Otto said.

 

“He told me to report up that they had taken potshots from the village,” Williams testified. “I told him that I wouldn’t … because it’s a false report. At least I thought so, sir.”

 

Williams also testified that Lorance said “he didn’t really care about upsetting them too much because he f**king hated them.”

 

‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?’

 

The next day, as the soldiers prepared to head out on a patrol, a small group of three or four Afghan men met them at the gate.

 

The men were upset. They wanted to know why the Americans shot into their village the day before.

 

Lorance told them that if they had a problem, they could attend the shura, or meeting, he planned to have later in the week, according to testimony. The Afghans refused to budge.

 

“He told them to get out of there,” Skelton said in his testimony. “He started very aggressively yelling at them, and he started counting, and he pulled back the charging handle on his weapon and chambered a round.”

 

As the soldiers’ interpreter “panicked,” one of the other soldiers testified, the Afghans turned away and left.

 

The Americans and a squad of Afghan National Army soldiers began walking out on their patrol.

 

Just moments into the patrol, Skelton opened fire on the motorcycle and then Pvt. David Shilo, operating the M240B machine gunon the truck, killed the two Afghans.

 

Fitzgerald, who left the Army in August, said he was standing near Lorance when the men on the motorcycle were hit.

 

“I remember him asking, ‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?'” Fitzgerald said, adding that Lorance then took the radio and ordered the soldiers in the gun truck to open fire.

 

The men on the motorcycle stopped when Skelton first opened fire, Fitzgerald said.

 

“At that point, they were definitely not any type of threat,” he said. “They weren’t coming at us.”

 

The patrol then pushed on into the village, where the bodies were quickly surrounded by crying and upset villagers.

 

First, Lorance prevented Skelton, who’s trained to conduct battle damage assessments, including READ ENTIRETY

 

+++

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

December 8, 2016

Military Votes Count

 

 

The Case Against Clint Lorance –

 

His own men testified against him. They said the guys on the motorcycles were not a threat. At first, they refused to fire, but Clint ordered them to open fire. They also claimed that Lt. Lorance threatened a local farmer that he and his son would be killed if the Taliban planted an I.E.D. (improvised explosive device) on their farm land.

 

If your own troops testify against you, that has to be given heavy weight; however, that four of the six troops were granted immunity places shade on their testimony.

 

The Case In Favor of Clint Lorance –

 

Clint Lorance was sent into a heavy Taliban-invested area to replace another leuitent that had been wounded. At the trial the government may not have disclosed that the men who were killed were Taliban IED terrorists. Following the trial, this evidence came out (and here). Clint also had information that his troops did not from overhead surveillance which indicated Taliban were closing in on his position.

 

 

The Takeaway –

 

If the government withheld exculpatory evidence, then the military prosecutors should be charged. I don’t know that they did that, but if they did.

 

There are two versions of this story. In one version Clint is a blood thirsty 1st Lt. who is out of control, who is killing the very people our troops were sent there to protect. In the other version, the people he killed were the enemy, and the government knew they were the enemy. In this second version, 1st Lt. Clint Lorance had good reason to believe they were the enemy.

 

There is READ ENTIRETY

 

Supporters of Lt. Clint Lorance that send email alerts:

 

Lt. Col. Allen West

 

TruthRevolt.org

 

United American Patriots (UAP)

 

UAP Petition (to Obama – hopefully changing to President Trump)

 

UAP Donation for Lt. Clint Lorance

_______________

Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

_____________

My Son Deserves his Freedom

SUPPORT CLINT LORANCE

 

United American Patriots is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Mailing Address: 121-F Shields Park Drive, Kernersville, NC 27284

© Copyright 2016, UnitedPatriots.org

___________

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

 

© 2017 Sightline Media Group Site

 

About Army Times

_________________

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

 

Copyright © 2017 Military Votes Count.

 

About Military Votes Count

 

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST


constitution-convention

Intro to ‘THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

Edited by John R. Houk

By J.B. Williams

Posted December 30, 2016

 

I am a great believer in the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. And by foundation, I mean the rough Original Intent (more detail of Originalism) of America’s Founding Fathers that were invested in framing our Republic’s Founding Document.

 

That being said, I am hardly a Constitutional expert. Academically I proceeded only to a Bachelor of Arts in History from a small college in the central part of Washington State (the more Conservative side of the Leftist State and in a day and time when Profs were fairly equal in Liberal and Conservative viewpoints).

 

BUT, I can read the Constitution and The Federalist Papers (the selling point of the Constitution). THIS MEANS lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama – a self-described Constitutional expert – has gone to great lengths to promote the concept of a Living Constitution which essentially tosses out the Original Intent to be replaced with a make-it-up as you go along rule of law to fit whatever Elitist concept of man-law is valid for the day.

 

J.B. Williams has some thoughts on Original Intent that most will agree with and some – including myself – thoughts Originalists might have to think twice about.

 

JRH 12/30/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 

By J.B. Williams

December 29, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

 

After many years of abusive and tyrannical federal intrusions into state, local and private personal affairs, protected freedoms and liberties, well beyond the constitutional authority granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, it has become necessary to return to our founding principles and values, to restate and enforce the Rule of Constitutional Law in preservation of our once free republic.

 

It has also become socially popular to proclaim the name of constitutionalist, an indication of both knowledge of and reverence for our Charters of Freedom. Yet too many constitutionalists are not even vaguely familiar with the Charters of Freedom, often calling for alterations to our form of self-governance in the name of constitutional conscience, but at odds with constitutional text, wisdom and intent.

 

The Obama Administration has indeed been historic in many ways, first and foremost, the failed but extreme effort to “fundamentally transform” our sovereign Constitutional Republic into a secular socialist member of a criminal global commune. No previous President has ever done so much to destroy the republic or their own political party, Obama having lost the Democratic Party more than 1000 political seats in less than eight years.

 

The 2016 revolt of the people that resulted in the historic election of political outsider Donald J. Trump also resulted in Republicans gaining control of both chambers of Congress, 2/3 of the state governorships and all but 13 of the 50 state legislatures. In short, the Obama era has been disastrous for both the country and his party.

 

Still, even Barack Hussein Obama claims constitutional expertise and reverence, as he works day in and day out to destroy everything the Founders created some 240 years ago. Like many modern lawyers trained in Common Law [noun: common law is the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes;] instead of Constitutional Law based in Natural Law, experts with a left-leaning agenda may be experts, but use that expertise to undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law rather than uphold and preserve it. Three great examples of this is demonstrated by the open assault on States’ Rights, the call for congressional term limits and the end of the Electoral College.

 

Because the vast majority of Americans stopped being forever vigilant in self-governance long ago, many now seek what they believe to be shortcut solutions to solve the natural consequences of a society no longer informed or engaged in self-governance. These notions are at odds with both constitutional text and intent.

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

People have referred to the U.S.A. as a “democracy” for far too long. The Founders took great pains to avoid establishing a pure “popular vote” only form of democracy, referred to by our Founders as nothing more than “mob rule.”

 

To assure that the U.S.A. would never be a pure democracy ruled by popular referendum alone, the Electoral College was created to prevent an entire nation from falling under the rule of “the mob” huddled in a handful of high population centers which always lean left politically due to the inherent challenges of inner city life.

 

The 2016 election provides a perfect example of exactly what the Founders had in mind when they established the Electoral College. Of our 50 states in the union, Trump won 30, or 60%. Of our 3142 counties across the country, Trump won 2523 (80.3%) to Clinton 490 (15.6%). Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would have (allegedly) won the 2016 election by popular vote (pure democracy), despite 80.3% of the counties and 60% of the states voting against her.

 

I say “allegedly” because the actual popular vote numbers are horribly tainted by vote fraud and illegal alien votes in places like California. We actually don’t know (and never will know) the real outcome of the legitimate popular vote, which is again, why the Electoral College exists.

 

To eliminate the Electoral College would be to destroy the Founders constitutional guarantee to every state of the union under Section 4 of Article IV, a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy.

 

So, why do many modern self-proclaimed constitutionalists demand an end to the Electoral College?

 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

Many constitutionalists seek a quick fix for a general lack of public oversight of congress by arguing in favor of congressional term limits. Once again, this concept is wholly at odds with constitutional text and intent.

 

To be certain, past alterations in constitutional intent for congress, such as the 17th Amendment which ended states representation in the U.S. Senate by using popular vote instead of state legislatures to elect senators, along with the power of incumbency, has made the concept of term limits look attractive to many.

 

But as is the case with all alterations to the original design and intent, those alterations come at a high price. Some even seek term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court, at risk of great peril. Members of that court or any other can be removed from the court in an instant for anything deemed to be “bad behavior,” which should certainly include failing to uphold and enforce the Supreme Law of this land.

 

The House of Representatives (by congressional district) was originally intended to be the most powerful branch of the federal government, as it was designed to be the branch closest to the people with only two-year terms. Members are term limited to two years of service, unless the people re-elect.

 

The U.S. Senate was originally designed to represent States’ interests only, which is why senators were to be elected by State Legislatures (not popular vote) and each state assigned the same number of senators regardless of population, two per state. The passage of the 17th Amendment eliminated the U.S. Senate as a body representing State interests and essentially eliminate states’ rights in the process. Senators are term limited to six years of service unless reelected.

 

The problem is the people are not forever vigilant. Incumbency has become so powerful not just because of the money available to incumbent’s vs challengers, but because the people tend to reelect repeatedly unless a senator is such a bad actor that they simply must replace them.

 

The downside to additional term limits is that it is not the incumbents being tossed out, but rather the voters. The will of the people is overruled by the clock. No matter how good a member of congress might perform, they are forced to leave when the clock runs out. There are no guarantees that the seat will be filled with someone better suited to the position, just because the clock ran out. In fact, more often than not, we would end up with someone worse, as most decent and honorable people do not seek public office at all.

 

Had the Founders seen a need and benefit to additional term limits, they would have placed them in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They didn’t… So, why do many constitutionalists seek to alter the Founders design when it comes to term limits?

 

STATES’ RIGHTS

 

The primary rights of every state of the union is to be secure in their independent sovereignty and they are guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.

 

So, when the federal government becomes abusive or destructive of state sovereignty and rights, it is the power of each state to check the federal government and force it back into constitutional boundaries, alter or abolish it altogether.

 

For the past eight years of the Obama regime, many states have sought to check the federal government abuses by numerous means, from State Level 10th Amendment bills like The Balance of Powers Act to individual issue nullification efforts, or even chatter about State Conventions and secession, all of it thwarted by left-leaning politicians and courts seeking to expand federal authority beyond constitutional boundaries via broad interpretations of federal supremacy.

 

Now that Trump will be taking the reins of the federal government on January 21, 2017, even many democrat politicians are suddenly supportive of 10th Amendment protections against federal abuses of power – something they entirely opposed while their dictator-in-chief was in power.

 

But once again, many constitutionalists overlook the power of the 10th Amendment and the states to force the federal government back into constitutional compliance in their efforts to find a quick cure-all for federal tyranny. They know that the federal government was created by and exists at the pleasure of the member states, but fail to look to those states to solve federal abuses and expansions of power.

 

The truth of the matter is that no matter which political party or person is in power at the federal level at any given time, none of them will operate within constitutional boundaries unless forced to do so by the states and the people.

 

The Constitution vs. The Constitutionalists

 

Not everyone who claims the title of constitutionalist is one. Many have never even red the document much less the underpinning for everything in it, Natural Law. Thus, many find themselves working for “unconstitutional” solutions to problems easily remedied within the original constitutional text and intent.

 

Political points of view and related agendas drive the dialogue. People with progressive-leanings interpret constitutional text entirely different than those with libertarian-leanings. Those who think we are a democracy will interpret text entirely different than those who know why we are a republic. The agenda drives the interpretation, instead of the original text and intent driving the agenda.

 

No true constitutionalist believes that the original document can be improved upon with additional alterations. Every real constitutionalist knows that the document has been altered far too much already. The solution is not to alter it further, but rather to unwind some of the past alterations that have served only to undermine the original text and intent.

 

When considering which “constitutionalist” to follow in your political activism, look at who is seeking to further amend the original document vs who is looking to restore and enforce the original text and intent.

 

Despite the human tendency to see ourselves as the smartest person in any room these days, the reality is there is no one alive today who is wiser than the original Founders. There is no one alive today who can improve upon the divinely inspired work of our Founding Fathers.

 

Only someone who understands this is a true constitutionalist!

 

______________

© 2016 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He is co-author of the just released book – TRUMPED – The New American Revolution – with co-author Timothy Harrington, published by COFBooks.com. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, author and writer as well as a small business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization focused upon constitutionally protected Natural Rights under Natural Law. Williams also co-hosts TNALC Radio every Sunday evening at 5:00 PM ET with TNALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and he receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web site 5: www.patriotvoice.net/TNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com

 

Intro to ‘Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction’


wilders-make-netherlands-great-again

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted on December 11, 2016

 

Geert Wilders was convicted of Hate Speech on December 9. This is the Hate Speech Wilders was convicted for according to Reuters:

 

The charges against Wilders stem from a 2014 campaign rally, when he led a group of supporters to chant they wanted “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Moroccans in the Netherlands. A smiling Wilders concluded: “we’re going to take care of that.”

 

WHAT?! In America, this would be considered reprehensible to prosecute ANYONE for publicly taking a stand to limit a counter-culture religious affiliation.

 

Why would Wilders and other Netherlands first Dutch be so concerned to limit further Moroccan immigrants to enter their nation? Check out these numbers from 2014:

 

At the forefront is the extremely high percentage of involvement of many Dutch Moroccans in criminal activities.

 

65% of all Moroccan male youths between 12-23 years of age have been detained by police at least once. One third of this group has been detained five or more times. Moroccan criminals are convicted four times more than Dutch suspects.

 

To illustrate the problem, … a Moroccan street gang that terrorizes the neighborhood and asks pedestrians to pay a toll in order to pass. Its local rap group boasts about its defiance of, and supremacy over, the law — an event all too common in the author’s town of Delft.

 

Dutch Moroccan street thugs also frequently gang up on isolated girls to rob, harass or hurt them — assaults that are mostly not caught on film and only very rarely reported in English language media, but can, for instance, be seen here (2:40) [Blog Editor: The video is in Dutch so English speakers have to pay attention to see the Dutch gal being harassed by Muslim street thugs]. A detail worth emphasizing is that they always attack non-Muslim girls.

 

 

14% (p.67) of all working age Dutch Moroccans live off welfare and have their housing and healthcare heavily subsidized by Dutch taxpayers. Child support checks, payments for special needs children, and survivor benefits are also being paid to adults and children who have a Dutch passport or whose parents have a Dutch passport, even after they have gone back to Morocco and now live there…. READ ENTIRETY (The Moroccans That Infuriate the Dutch; By Timon Dias; Gatestone Institute; 4/23/14 4:00 am)

 

Geert Wilders remarks of working on fewer Moroccans was not racist but based on the Domestic Tranquility. In America the Domestic Tranquility is encoded in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Bold emphasis mine]

 

Interestingly a poll reported in Yahoo News and picked up by MagaFeed.com shows Geert Wilders’ poll numbers have risen substantially since a three judge panel convicted him. Poll numbers are very important in a Parliamentary system of government.

geert-wilders-rises-in-dutch-polls-after-conviction

Dutch MP Geert Wilders will not be stopped! Since his hate speech conviction earlier this week, polls have shown he continues to rise in popularity.

 

Failing Yahoo reports:

 

The party of populist anti-Islam Dutch MP Geert Wilders has risen strongly in the polls since the lawmaker was tried and convicted of discrimination, according to a survey published Sunday.

If legislative elections due next March were held this week, Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) would pick up 36 out of 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, making it the biggest single political group, it found.

Before the trial began on October 31, the PVV was credited with 27 seats.

READ THE REST (Dutch Geert Wilders Rises In Polls After Conviction; MagaFeed.com; 12/11/16)

 

With all this Leftist Multicultural injustice, Geert Wilders has delivered some English version thoughts proclaiming he will never be silent.

 

JRH 12/11/16 (Hat Tip: Todd Candidate Brophy of Facebook Concerned Conservative)

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction

 

By Geert Wilders

December 9, 2016 7:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

Dear friends, I still cannot believe it, but I have just been convicted. Because I asked a question about Moroccans. While the day before yesterday, scores of Moroccan asylum-seekers terrorized buses in Emmen and did not even had to pay a fine, a politician who asks a question about fewer Moroccans is sentenced.

 

The Netherlands have become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me: You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and liberty are stronger than you. And so am I.

 

geert-wilders-i-will-never-be-silent

You can count on it. I will never be silent

 

I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me. And you are wrong, too. Moroccans are not a race, and people who criticize Moroccans are not racists. I am not a racist and neither are my voters. This sentence proves that you judges are completely out of touch.

 

And I have also a message for Prime Minister Rutte and the rest of the multicultural elite: You will not succeed in silencing me and defeating the PVV. Support for the Party for Freedom is stronger than ever, and keeps growing every day. The Dutch want their country back and cherish their freedom. It will not be possible to put the genie of positive change back in the bottle.

 

And to people at home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished.

 

Millions of Dutch are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger.

 

But I will keep fighting for you, and I tell all of you: thank you so much. Thank you so much for all your support. It is really overwhelming; I am immensely grateful to you. Thanks to your massive and heartfelt support, I know that I am not alone. That you back me, and are with me, and unwaveringly stand for freedom of expression.

 

Today, I was convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count on it: I will never be silent.

 

And this conviction only makes me stronger. This is a shameful sentence, which, of course, I will appeal. But I can tell you, I am now more vigorous than ever. And I know: together, we aim for victory.

 

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, we are strong enough to change the Netherlands.

 

To allow our children to grow up in a country they can be proud of.
In a Netherlands where we are allowed to say again what we think.
Where everybody can safely walk the streets again.
Where we are in charge of our own country again.

 

And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.

 

VIDEO: Reaction Geert Wilders to conviction

 

Posted by PVVpers

Published on Dec 9, 2016

 

____________

Intro to ‘Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction’

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted on December 11, 2016

____________

Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction

 

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

 

Follow Geert Wilders on Twitter

 

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not receive prior written consent before cross posting. I will honor any request or demand by the Gatestone Institute to remove that portion of this post.]