WILL THE US MILITARY ... SHOOT THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN ??? SHARE !! THIS IS THE SURVEY CIRCULATED IN THE MILITARY LAST YEAR!!!

Has anyone heard if the Government is circulating a new variation of this 1994 questionnaire to military ??
Read the questions first circulated during the Clinton Leftward NWO MOVE... Would the Sons and Daughters of Americans do this ??

U.S. Armed Forces Survey: This is the questionnaire that was given in 1994 to select groups of U.S. armed forces personnel. Notice the references to the U.N., the firing on American civilians and the correlations of the two aforementioned. Note questions 8‑17 deal with the use of U.S. federal armed forces intervening in the civilian affairs of the U.S. public under the pretense of policemen. According to the U.S. Constitution (posse comitatus law) No federal forces are to be used in the civil control of the populace. Also note question 46 for a stunning question concerning the use of federal forces.
Note questions 18‑45 deals entirely with the United Nations, which is really the heart of this survey. Questions 1‑7 are only lead in questions for the rest of the survey.
Results to the article (paper file) is "Incredible" - The following is all taken in order: Combat Arms Survey: This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to non‑traditional missions. All of your responses are confidential. Write your answers directly on the questionnaire form. In part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.
Part I. Demographics:
1: What service are you in?
2: What is your pay grade? (e.g. E‑7, O‑7)
3: What is your MOS code and description?
4: What is your highest level of education in years?
5: How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?
6: How many months did you serve in Somalia?
7: What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?
Part II. Attitudes: Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?
8: Drug enforcement?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
9: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
10: Security at national events? (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
11: Environmental disaster clean‑up?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
12: Substitute teachers in public schools?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
13: Community assistance programs? (e.g. landscaping, environmental cleanup, road repair, animal control)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
14: Federal and State prison guards?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
15: National emergency police force?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
16: Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the F.B.I., or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.)?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
17: Border patrol? (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
Do you fell that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in other countries for any of the following United Nations missions?
18: Drug enforcement?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
19: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
20: Environmental disaster clean‑up?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
21: Peace keeping?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
22: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
23: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under the command of non‑U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any of the following missions?
24: Drug enforcement?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
25: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
26: Environmental disaster clean‑up?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
27: Peace keeping?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
28: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
29: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
30: Police Action? (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non‑U.S. officers)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
Consider the following statements:
31: The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises, under U.S. command and control?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
32: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S./U.N. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
33: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control during these exercises?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
34: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
35: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under United Nations command and control?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
36: U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non‑commissioned officers (NCO's) at battalion and company levels while performing U.N. missions?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
37: It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team? (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
38: It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company
commander?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
39: I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander‑in‑Chief to the U.N. Secretary General?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
40: I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
41: I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing humanitarian missions for the United Nations?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
42: I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the United Nations?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
43: I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. command?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
44: I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
45: I would swear to the following code: "I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?
(___) (___) (___)
(___) (___)
Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree No Opinion
End of questionnaire
Now ask yourself these questions:
1: Are we to turn over our armed forces to the U.N.?
2: Can we be the U.N.'s world policeman?
3: Or the world's policeman on our own?
4: Should we give oath of allegiance to a foreign power?
5: Should we compromise our U.S. Constitution in the name of world government?
6: Who is first, the United States or the rest of the world, specifically the United Nations?
7: Would you rather answer to a world court (United Nations court) or to the courts of the United States?
8: Do you believe you will have any say in a world government or world court (United Nations)?
9: Are you willing to sacrifice national sovereignty for world laws and courts?
10: Is the United Nations better able to dictate our lives to us than we as a country are?
11: DO YOU BELIEVE IN A NEW WORLD ORDER RUN BY THE UNITED NATIONS?
Think about it, that is what this survey was meant to convey, A New World Order Run By the United Nations!
Here are the results of the survey:
Shoot Americans (New World Order Survey of Last Year) Survey Results One In Four Marines would fire! Results are in from the U.S. military "shoot Americans" survey ‑ and they are disquieting By Mike Blair. About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps Base in Southern California. In addition, more than four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force."
The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results of the survey contained in a master degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey California, to determine "unit cohesion" when soldiers are assigned to "non‑traditional missions." Few stories published in the SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir when it was revealed in this newspaper's July 25,1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base. On May 10,1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Ernest G. Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis: "Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational control; A Study of their effect on Unit Cohesion,” at the Marine base, located on the South‑east corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles
Received Degree: Cunningham turned in the thesis for printing on March 20 and was graduated from the post Graduate school on March 23, receiving his Master of Science in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis degree. According to U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officials, Cunningham administrated the survey to 300 Marine veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the earlier invasion of Panama in the base auditorium.
He had the cooperation and permission of the base's public affairs officer, but Cunningham did not have consent of the base commander, Brig. Gen. Russell H. Sutton. In fact, Sutton did not know about the survey until afterwards. The results of the survey have until now been "classified," according to a Marine Corps spokesman. The survey contained 46 questions dealing with the Marines' willingness to perform "non‑traditional" missions. Question 46, dealing with a gun confiscation scenario, jolted both the Marines and Navy, as well as The Department of Defense, numerous members of the House and Senate and virtually every American concerned with the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which grantees the people's right to "keep and bear arms."
Very Disturbing: This is how the question was posed to the Marines: "The U.S. Government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. "Consider the following statement:'I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'." The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the statement. According to results given in Cunningham's thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question. Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines indicated they would be willing to fire upon U.S. citizens."
Of that total, 18.67 percent or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent or 23 Marines, indicated that "strongly agree." A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing on citizens.
Of that total, 42.33 percent, or 127 indicated they "strongly disagree" and 19.33 percent or 58, indicated they "disagree." In is thesis, Cunningham noted: "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on the response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."
In other words, if a commander asked the men of his unit to raise their hands in a simple poll, he could determine the position of such servicemen and those who responded in the affirmative could be tasked for such a mission. This is just one of the reasons the question, not to mention the fact that it was allowed to be asked, is obviously potentially dangerous. In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty‑Nine Palms, the SPOTLIGHT, MODERN GUN and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had ben asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea‑Air‑land) team. In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various law enforcement agents.
Further Surveys? In fact, Cunningham notes: "If the results of this survey elicit concerns in the areas queried, then further studies are warranted. Perhaps a random sample survey should be conducted to determine whether the results of this survey is valid for the entire Marine Corps and/or Army. Also, a survey could provide an indication of the volunteer pool that would seek service in units dedicated to, and specialized in, peacekeeping operations...Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question‑‑an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative‑‑that they would be willing to participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force..." "Furthermore," Cunningham notes "43.0 percent of the soldiers strongly agreed..."Federal Troops have been restricted from participation with local police authorities to quell domestic violence since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That being the case, it was surprising that these soldiers seemed not to know the legal restrictions placed on them by this act." He also noted, however, that "In May 1992, 4,000 U.S. Army and Marine Soldiers were ordered by President George Bush to augment city and county law enforcement and state National Guard during the riot in Los Angeles, California following the Rodney King trial. "Since, 1981," Cunningham states, "the majority of today's All Volunteer Force has been exposed to and participated in an environment of expanding non‑traditional missions when Congress passed the Military
Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981. This act enabled the Military to participate in the drug war. This cooperative alliance of military and civilian police efforts in the name of national security may have eroded the demarcation between civilian law enforcement and our military institution first established by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878."
The results of another question, No. 45, posed by the survey indicates American soldiers are not eager to swear allegiance to the United Nations, although nearly one in four would do so. Question 45 states: "I would swear to the following code:'I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense'." A total of 69.33 percent, or 208 Marines surveyed, indicated they disagreed, with 117, or 39 percent, indicating they strongly disagreed.
On the other hand, 71 Marines, or 23.66 percent, indicated they would be willing to swear such allegiance to the UN, with 19, or 6.33 percent, indicating they were strongly in favor of doing so. "For thousands of years." Cunningham notes in his thesis, "military organizations have required their soldiers to swear to some kind of code or allegiance. A code provides a standard for the soldiers to live up to and, in many cases, to die for. A code can be a powerful tool for establishing and sustaining unit cohesion. But what if the mission a solider is assigned to perform counters or confuses the code he has sworn to uphold? Question 45 was presented to determine if the solders would swear to such a code." No one knows if the American personnel traveling in the helicopter shot down over Iraq [by "friendly fire"] in April 1994 would have sworn allegiance to such a code.
Yet, Vice President Albert Gore stated that these Americans "died in the service of The United Nations." "It is patently clear," a retired high ranking Army Officer told The SPOTLIGHT,"that this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector. This is most dangerous, and, I should think the Congress has an obligation to the people to take a careful look at this, not to mention the people at the Pentagon."From:   http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/armysurvey.html

Obama is setting himself up to be the LAST ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Last American President: ONLY WE CAN STOP HIS RAMPAGE...WE MUST BE THE VEHICLE OF CHANGE: EXCELLENT ANALYSIS!!

by Dave Hodges -  thecommonsenseshow.com

I had a recent conversation with a man who scoffed at my notion that Obama has set himself up to be a dictator on the scale of a Hugo Chavez and even an Adolph Hitler. “This could never happen in America,” the man proclaimed. “Congress and the Supreme Court would never let him get away with it.”
Through the unconstitutional power of Executive Orders (i.e. dictatorial power to issue decrees), Obama has positioned himself to stand alongside the most heinous dictators in history. Since taking office, President Obama signed 923 Executive Orders in the first 40 months of his term, many times more than any other president to date.

 When one looks at the scope of his Executive Orders, along with what they entail, it is clear that Obama is attempting to become the last American President.

Dictatorial Control Over All Fuel, Transportation
Executive Order 10990
Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.
Executive Order 11003
Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
Executive Order 11005
Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
Executive Order 10997
Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
Dictatorial Control Over All Food and Water
Executive Order 10998
Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
Dictatorial Control Over All Media and Communications
Executive Order 10995
Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
Dictatorial Control Over the Ability to Completely Enslave the American People
Executive Order 11000
Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Executive Order 11001
Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
Executive Order 11002
Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.
Executive Order 11004
Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
Dictatorial Control Over the Ability to Grant Self Totalitarian Control Over Government
Executive Order 11051
Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
Executive Order 11310
Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Executive Order 11049
Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
Grants Self Total Dictatorial Control Over Everything
Executive Order 11921
Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and flow of money in the U.S.A. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Dictatorial Control Over Americans Right to Defend Themselves Against Tyranny
Obama has created 23 Executive Orders which deal with gun control. Yet, the White House has not listed them as of yet, meaning that the President has not signed them. Clearly, this is a lever he is holding over Congress to get what he wants with gun control. If Congress, does not submit to his desires, Obama will, no doubt, enact the 23 Executive Orders, thus leaving American defenseless against the tyranny of the aforementioned Executive Orders.
Conclusion
When 2016 rolls around, it is becoming clear that this President will never leave office as he has the ability, under the aforementioned Executive Orders to decree himself, Ruler for Life. Under these Executive Orders he has granted himself to incarcerate those who would oppose him, starve populations into submission, control all jobs, wages, transportation and control the message to the people. He now has the ability to limit the citizens’ the right to defend themselves against his tyranny. And along with his criminal partners in Congress, under the NDAA, he has the ability to “disappear” and even murder suspected political dissidents in the spirit of Mao, Hitler and Stalin.
Who will oppose this tyrannical power grab? The 50% of the Obamanistas who are sustained through federal subsidies? Will he be opposed by those who are brainwashed by the corporate controlled media?
Almost a half a million well-to-do people have left the country in the past year. What have they figured out that the rest of us have not?

OBAMA IS KILLING THE ECONOMY.. ON PURPOSE AND THE LYING SACK OF SHIT MEDIA IS LYING !!

No recovery: U.S. personal income fell 3.5%

Early this morning, I heard/saw it again — some chattering reporter on an alphabet TV network saying the words “the improved economy.”
For crying out loud.
Stop lying!
The economy is NOT improving!
FOTM has posted about America’s retail apocalypse — of major national retailers like J.C. Penney, Sears, and Best Buy cutting staff and closing stores, and Wal-Mart having the worst February sales in 7 years. Even Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley is cutting 1,600 employees, as revenue from trading and deal-making remains in the doldrums.
Now comes more dismal economic news from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. In January 2013:

• U.S. personal income decreased 3.5% ($505.5 billion), the biggest drop in personal income in 20 years.
• That, in turn, led to a 4% decrease ($491.4 billion) in disposable personal income.
• The decline in disposable personal income meant Americans had less money to buy goods, which accounts for why consumption increased by only 0.2% from December 2012.
• The decline in disposable personal income also led to a decrease of personal saving rate to 2.4% — the lowest since November 2007.

Click image to enlarge
.

In the words of Bloomberg economist Rich Yamarone: “Consumers can’t spend what they don’t have, and they don’t have much.”
Nor is America’s anemic economic performance confined to just the month of January 2013.
As measured by personal income, 2012 was worse than 2011. Whereas personal income increased 5.1% in 2011, personal income increased only 3.5% in 2012. The year 2013 promises to be even worse, with personal income decreasing by 3.5% in the first month of the year.

Republicans Sign Legal Brief Supporting Gay Marriage.. WE ARE BEING EATEN FROM THE INSIDE!! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

BREAKING!!!......Republicans Sign Legal Brief Supporting Gay Marriage.............

• Posted by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on February 26, 2013 at 12:50pm in Patriot Action Alerts

At least 75 top Republicans have signed a legal brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court this week, arguing that gay marriage is a constitutional right, according to The New York Times, which got a copy of the document.
The court is preparing to take on the subject of gay marriage late next month, when it will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, and the Defense of Marriage Act. It is expected to render a decision in early summer.
The signers of the document are mostly out-of-office Republicans or former top officials, including former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), former Massachusetts Govs. William Weld and Jane Swift, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.
Read More:

This is potentially a big deal. It gives cover to a swing justice or two who may be sitting on the fence about marriage equality.
It is telling how many of these politicians are no longer in office and how many of them opposed gay marriage when they were in a positions of power and had to worry about elections.
It speaks volumes to the fear Republicans have of the extremists who wield so much influence in their party and how easily they cave to it.
Just think of your spouse, if you currently now have one. Like many people, I know what my spouse is about and I celebrate it everyday. She tells me what she would never tell her family. We are a team.

I'm thankful that regardless of trusts and wills, the law defaults to my oversight of her wishes and needs should anything happen to her. I will honor "her" wishes, no matter what. I'm sure many of you know this feeling.





Currently gay couples, in most states, do not have this basic right. National recognition of the validity of gay marriage will codify this right, in a way that wills, trusts, or contracts cannot compare.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Instead of worrying about the deficit or the unemployment lets worry about Gay marriage instead cause that is more important than millions out of work.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Republicans doing their best to save their political lives at the risk of losing the 30 million Christians which will of course eliminate the Republican Party from contention. Either way the Republicans can blame themselves for destroying the Republican Party.
Who cares except some tiny minority that already have every right listed under the bill of rights where does it end ?  This move is to legalize sodomy which even animals don't practice aren't humans suppose to be superior to animals.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
If you click through to the source article on NYT, you see a better description of the importance of this document. As noted above, it is an brief laying out an argument in support, but based on more conservative viewpoints. The intent is to help persuade more conservative leaning justices.

This is no small matter. The Supreme Court, by its nature, does often look at prevailing social opinion about topics such as this. We are in the middle of a shift in thinking similar to the 1950s and 1960s. Support for marriage equality is growing rapidly, and it is quite strong among voters under 30. The Supreme Court is going to consider this, even if some of the justices won't admit to it. That the support is coming from multiple political perspectives is going to reinforce that.

One reason that the justices will consider these things is that part of the legal wrangling focuses on the level of scrutiny that is used for determining constitutionality. Often, laws must make distinctions based on certain groups, such as legal age to drive a car. Some distinctions are more suspect than others, and thus the test of constitutionality varies. This variation in the test is referred to as the level of scrutiny.
When a law makes distinctions based on a protected class, such as race, then typically the government must show that the law serves a compelling (very important or crucial) purpose. This is called strict scrutiny. Certain other classifications, such as gender, are subject to what is called intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the law serve an important purpose (but not necessarily a crucial one). Other classifications require only that the law make some rational sense, even if it isn't proven to be accurate.

This last level, put simply, amounts to "there are some distinctions that make sense, and laws need to be allowed to make these distinctions". For example, age based laws are very common. Historically, orientation has typically fallen in this last level. In other words, until recently, courts have viewed orientation as an unprotected class. Part of what is at issue is whether that level of scrutiny should be raised.

Showing that orientation is not merely choice and also society as a whole views this as a matter of equality could go a long way to helping someone like Roberts, or possibly even an Alito, to shift their views.

HELP ...PLEASE...PLEASE ...PLEASE CALL...THEN SHARE THIS... ORLY TAITZ NEEDS PATRIOTS TO HELP....

URGENT!!! - From Dr. Orly Taitz; 

>>>>>>>>>YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!!!!!!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have an appointment with one of these GOP Congressmen on the JUDICIARY COMMITTE on March 5th at 11:30. I NEED APPOINTMENTS with the OTHER 22 GOP CONGRESSMEN ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE on the same day (March 5th) or a day before or after. PLEASE, KEEP CALLING THEIR OFFICES.

➔ ➔ ➔ PLEASE CALL THE OTHER 22 GOP CONGRESSMEN ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE on list below til there is a SECURE APPOINTMENT!!!!!! or EMAIL YOUR STATE CONGRESSMAN LISTED!!

>>Specifically, we are contacting you regarding Dr. Orly Taitz’s case in question which is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State that was to be before the Supreme Court on February 15, 2013 and the decision was to be made February 19, 2013 but did not make it.
Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief.

There is evidence of employees of the Supreme Court of the United States hiding from justices of the Supreme Court pleadings and documents submitted by plaintiffs and attorneys, removing cases from the electronic docket, evidence of bogus conferences of justices being reported to the public, when no such conferences took place and the justices being clueless about the very existence of the cases, evidence of criminal complicity of the employees of the Supreme Court and treason in the most serious cases dealing with national security.

Remind them that we have 40,000 signatures on our petition and all the supporting evidence of the >>most egregious National security breach in the history of this nation.

Please tell them to make an appointment with Dr. Orly Taitz on/before/after March 5th (except 11:30 March 5th). Have them contact Dr. Orly Taitz at:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA),
- EMAIL: Kathryn.Rexrode@mail.house.gov
- JUDICIARY MAINLINE (202) 225-5431 (leave a message there and they will ALSO TRANSFER YOU to the comment line, and leave a message there!)

Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Office Hours and town meetings: district office at (262) 784-1111.
- Email Form: http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/contact/email.htm

* Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks (R-AZ),
- DC phone/fax at right/bottom of email form: https://franks.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

*Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL),
- DC phone/fax at right of email form: https://forms.house.gov/write/bachus/email-me.shtm...
* Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
- ph/fax #s: http://desantis.house.gov/contact/offices; Email form: http://desantis.house.gov/contact
* Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA),
- DC phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://issa.house.gov/contact/contact-me
* Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA),
- phone/fax bottom/left of email form: https://dougcollins.house.gov/email-me
* Rep. Steve King (R-IA),
- DC phone/fax bottom/left of email form: https://forms.house.gov/king/webforms/issue_subscr...
* Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID),
- ph/fax #s: http://labrador.house.gov/contact-me/;
- Email form: https://labradorforms.house.gov/email-me
* Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC),
- Ph: 202-225-3065/Fax: 202-225-8611/email: http://coble.house.gov/contact/zipcheck.htm
* Rep. George Holding (R-NC),
- phone/fax at mid-bottom of email form: https://holding.house.gov/contact/email-me
* Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nevada),
- ph/fax #s: http://amodei.house.gov/contact/; Email form: https://amodeiforms.house.gov/contact-us
* Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH),
- DC phone/fax at bottom of email form: https://chabotforms.house.gov/email-me
* Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://jordan.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Steve Marino (R-PA),
- phone/fax at mid-bottom of email form: https://marino.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
* Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA)
- phone/fax at mid-bottom of email form: http://rothfus.house.gov/contact
* Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC),
- http://gowdy.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.h... email form: http://gowdy.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TEXAS),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://farentholdforms.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://gohmert.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: https://forms.house.gov/poe/webforms/zipauthen_con...
* Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: https://chaffetz.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
* Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Virginia),
- DC phone/fax: http://forbes.house.gov/contact/ - email: http://forbes.house.gov/contact/zipauth.htm

Gun Control has racist roots. Obama and the Oligarchs want to disarm the restive population

Leftist Liberals are planning to disarm the masses !!There is no Equality without the Equalizer.

It's about Equality.
You won't see President Obama or his gun-grabbing cohorts admitting it, but the simple fact is that disarmament in America has historically been racially motivated.
Yes, you read that right. Gun Control has racist roots.
According to the George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal Vol. 2 (1991): 67 titled Gun Control & Racism:

    The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other "unwanted elements," including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.
    The first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their servile status. After the Civil War, the South continued to pass restrictive firearms laws in order to deprive the newly freed blacks from exercising their rights of citizenship.
    Another old American prejudice supported such gun control efforts, then as it does now: the idea that poor people, and especially the black poor, are not to be trusted with firearms.

It is unconscionable that in 2013, so-called progressives are quietly permitting laws to stand that disproportionately diminish the rights of minorities. The late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was blocked by segregationists when he tried to get his concealed carry permit, because they knew equal strength to defend oneself leads to societal equality. Sadly, gun control advocates today are de facto fighting for that same inequality.
And as you can see in our short video, African-Americans and other minorities are still the primary victims of gun control legislation in America.

Anti-gun Mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rahm Emanual preside over the two of the largest cities in America. Both Chicago & New York's populations have a majority of minorities AND both cities have the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
DO MICHAEL BLOOMBERG AND RAHM EMANUEL WANT TO DISARM AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS?

Bloomberg and Emanuel are closet racist with a socialist agenda to empower the Oligarchs who cannot control an armed populace. 

The gun control they are pushing has real life racial consequences.
“It doesn't matter where you live, whether in the city, suburbs or a rural area,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “all law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves and their families.”
The Equal Gun Rights video spot, website and campaign (produced in collaboration with Larry Ward of Political Media – The Gun Appreciation Day Founder) highlight the disproportionate impact of gun control laws on African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities, and show how it leaves large groups unable to defend themselves, their families, or their businesses.
The video shows citizens from different parts of the country commenting on their local gun laws, providing a vivid contrast between people who live in regions with laws that enable citizens to exercise their rights, and those who reside in areas with restrictive gun laws which typically have larger minority populations, including Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City.

Self defense is more than a Civil Right…it is a Human Right.

The simple fact is that gun control has historically disarmed far more African Americans than any other demographic group.

Valerie Jarrett's Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency...

Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett's Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency...

February 24, 2013

 

1979 article by Vernon Jarrett about Khalid al-Mansour

The Vernon Jarrett syndicated column of Nov. 6, 1979, that appeared in the St. Petersburg Evening Independent. It originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 2. This image was pieced together from screen shots of the St. Petersburg Independent page available for viewing in the Google Newspaper Archive. Jarrett was the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, President Obama's closest adviser.

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the  Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons. Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

​
Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard​​

---

Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)

This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
He was, of course, right.

As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.