Obama was Illegally selected as President without Following the Constitution. Read and Share. Its time for revolution

The “objections” and “call for objections” required by our Constitution and 3 U.S.C. § 15 have not been made. Therefore Obama has never been determined in accordance with the “electoral and Congressional processes” to be a “qualified” President elect and is not the President of the United States.

These two men, the “members” of Congress, “judges and justices” in our courts, and other enemies are conspiring and levying war against the People of the United States.

“Chief Justice” John Roberts did not have any authority to administer oaths to Obama nor did Obama have the right to take the oaths. Why? Because the “objections” and the “call for objections” that are procedurally required in our Constitution and in 3 U.S.C. § 15 have never been  made.

The required “objections” and “call for objections” are not technicalities, but procedural safeguards provided to protect the United States from foreign enemies — more specifically from enemy infiltration. But these highest and foremost safeguards for our Republic have been entirely disregarded by all the “members” of Congress, all the “judges” and “justices” in our courts, and all the other so-called “public officers.” Apparently, they are not only acting in a seditious conspiracy against the Government of the United States, but aiding and comforting foreign enemies of the United States, and overtly assembling an unconstitutional army—levying war against the United States.

NOTE: We the People of the United States in fact do not have representation in Congress, do not have a president, and do not have honorable judges and justices in our courts. Instead, they have in fact been acting in a conspiracy of silence—all of them violating their oath of office—conspiring against We the People of the United States in back room deals to remain silent about their usurpation of the Office of President while committing other treasonous crimes.

NOTE: Obama was not elected, but hand picked by enemies of the United States, including oath-breakers who are masquerading in our Government and courts.

3 U.S.C. 15 states in part as follows:                                                                   “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.”

The word “shall” in 3 U.S.C. 15 (above) means that it is mandatory that the President of the Senate “call for objections.” This law does not permit the President of the Senate to decide not to do so: There is no discretionary decision to be made — the President of the Senate must do as the law requires, i.e., as the People of the United States require. The words “if any” do not imply that the President of the Senate should or would know in advance of the count that “objections” are going to be registered. The word “shall” with “if any” mean that he must call out loudly, “Are there any objections?”

Not only is he trespassing — he’s a spy that has infiltrated and degraded all of our national defenses—levying war against the United States.

NOTE: Obama and his co-conspirators have apparently obtained an unlawful residency at the White House, but have never acquired the “Office of President,” because he did not have the right to take the “Oath” for the “Office”. Obama can never acquire the status of “President” and in fact all of the “laws,” “executive orders” and “appointments” he has signed are void ab initio.

When John McCain was sued in federal court for his ineligibility (he was born in the Coco Soto “family hospital” outside the jurisdiction of the United States), Obama and Hillary Clinton co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 to persuade United States District Judge William Alsup to dismiss the lawsuit and motion for a preliminary injunction alleging that McCain was not a “natural born Citizen” and must therefore be struck from the ballot in the 2008 election. Obama, Clinton and other senators presented Senate Resolution 511 to the Senate Judiciary Committee and it was then unanimously agreed to on April 30, 2008. (See Senate Resolution 511) The full text of Resolution 511 is also seen below.

A person MUST BE born in the United States to “American citizens” (plural) to be a “natural born Citizen” under the provision of Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution.

NOTE: The text of Senate Resolution 511 specifically includes the “Whereas” stating that John McC’ain “was born to American citizens” (plural).

This is an illegitimate “presidency” and “vice presidency.”

Judge Alsup did not make a decision during most of the 2008 campaign and then he dismissed the case, including its motion for preliminary injunction, just prior to the election. In the first paragraph of his order to dismiss Alsup stated that “John McCain’s parents were both United States citizens” (plural). Alsup then in the conclusion of his order to dismiss the motion for a preliminary injunction, wrote, “It is highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.” See Judge Alsup’s order.

NOTE: Having dismissed the case, Judge Alsup in fact did not make a decision as to whether or not McCain was a “natural born Citizen,” but only wrote that it is “highly probable” that he is one and based his statement only on the fact that McCain was born to “United States citizens” (plural), not on the fact that McCain was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Both Senate Resolution 511 and Judge Alsup’s order to dismiss specifically acknowledge that John McCain “was born to American citizens” (plural). Every member of Congress, including Obama, judge and justice in the United States knows that a person must be “born to American citizens” (plural) to be a “natural born Citizen”. Senate Resolution 511 states as follows:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens [plural] of the United States … Now, therefore, be it Resolved that John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen‘ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Judge Alsup and all the senators who sponsored and agreed to Senate Resolution 511 know that the two requirements in the term “natural born Citizen” are:

1) A person must have been born in the United States, and

2) His/her parents must have been United States citizens (plural).

NOTE: Judge Alsup’s acknowledgment that “John McCain’s parents were both United States citizens” (plural) and his subsequent statement that “It is highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” is the FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT of a United States federal court that a person, to be eligible to assume the Office of President, must have been born to “United States citizens” (plural).

It is in the meaning of “natural born Citizen” that a person, in order to be eligible to be the President of the United States, must be 100% under the jurisdiction of the United States, i.e., not only born on United States soil, but also born to two “citizens of the United States” (plural), i.e., not owing allegiance to anyone else.

NOTE: The word “allegiance” (according to its etymology) is fealty owed to one and only one sovereign exclusively. A child born to a foreign father owes allegiance elsewhere. Obama in fact has no allegiance to the United States.

These two men and their numerous other co-conspirators are conspiring against the United States Constitution.

Judge William Alsup also, as grounds for his decision in 2008 to dismiss the case alleging that John McCain’s is not a natural born Citizen and the motion for a preliminary injunction to strike McCain from the ballot in the 2008 election, stated in his order to dismiss that the time and actions to challenge a person who is not a “natural born Citizen” is to bring the arguments regarding his or her lack of qualifications “to the voting public before the election” and in “objections” to be registered after the electoral votes are counted, as specified in the electoral procedure provided in 3 U.S.C 15. Judge Alsup stated, “the statute provides a mechanism for objections to be registered and resolved,” and he also quoted from the statute and the Twentieth Amendment of our Constitution:

“[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made … shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision: and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

ibid. The Twentieth Amendment further provides:

“… if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified, and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Judge Alsup continues in his order as follows:

“It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300–02 (1998).”

Judge Alsup makes a specific point of stating above that the “The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates.” In other words, he very clearly (specifically) stated that the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives know all of the eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution and are required by the People of the United States to apply them. Judge Alsup stated that “judicial review — if any — should occur only “after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.”

NOTE: Although Judge Alsup’s decision to dismiss the case and motion for a preliminary injunction were in a case regarding McCain, he carefully outlined the processes that are required by law to take place in determining whether a candidate can be a “qualified” President elect, and the fact is that neither of the processes stated in Judge Alsup’s order to dismiss took place. The voting public was not informed during the campaigns in 2008 and 2012 of the fact that Obama was ineligible to assume the Office of President. Dick Cheney, the President of the Senate, never made the “call for objections” required by 3 U.S.C. 15 and the members of Congress, although they all knew that Obama was ineligible to assume the Office of President, did not make the required “objections”. These procedural processes carefully established in the law as safeguards against enemy infiltration and specifically cited within Judge Alsup’s order, were in fact willfully violated by all of the “candidates and members of Congress.”

We no longer have three branches of government to check and balance powers: They have all united under Obama and are in fact levying war against the United States.

The People of the United States do not need a court/judge to see that Obama did not take the required (provided) qualification test, (i.e., that his ineligibility was not exposed during the campaign, that the required “call for objections” was not made and that all the “members of Congress,” although they knew well that he was ineligible did not make “objections”), and that the clear and only conclusion is that Obama did not and does not qualify as the President elect.

NOTE: No doubt McCain and all of the senators who sponsored and passed Senate Resolution 511, including Obama and Clinton, read Judge Alsup’s order. What is really very interesting is that Judge Alsup stated in his order that “arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election,” but Clinton, McCain and numerous others who, under their oaths of office had the responsibility to do so, did not bring up Obama’s lack of qualifications. McCain in fact conspired with Obama and others not to bring up the subject of the lack of qualifications, because McCain is also not a natural born Citizen. Neither did Romney bring up Obama’s ineligibility. And Clinton was ordered by the Democrat Party to keep her mouth shut.  They all conspired against “the voting public” and people of the United States before and after the election in 2008. And not only for the 2008 election, but also before and after the 2012 election.

NOW FOR TWO BIG QUESTIONS

1. Was Dick Cheney, the President of the Senate and presiding officer after the count of the electoral votes required by law to make the “call for objections”? 

The answer is YES, ABSOLUTELY !!!

3 U.S.C. 15 states in part as follows:

“Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.”

The word “shall” in 3 U.S.C. 15 (above) means that it is mandatory that the President of the Senate “call for objections.” This law does not permit the President of the Senate to decide not to do so. There is no discretionary decision to be made: The President of the Senate must do as the law requires, i.e., as the People of the United States require in their law. The words “if any” do not imply that the President of the Senate should or would know in advance of the count that “objections” are going to be registered. The word “shall” with “if any” simply mean that he must call out loudly, “Are there any objections?”

NOTE: As I have stated above, Dick Cheney, did not “call for objections,” and there is nothing in the law above requiring members of Congress to notify him prior to the count of the electoral votes that they have an “objection” to register. The “call for objections” is not conditioned on whether the President of the Senate  knows if there are going to be “objections”. If it was conditioned on the President of the Senate’s knowledge that there would be “objections,” then the the word “will” would be in the place of the word “shall”: The word “will” with “if” is conditional. The word “shall” with “if” is not.

This requirement for the President of the Senate to “call for objections” stems from our Constitution, which in the last sentence of the 12th Amendment says, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” This last sentence of the 12th Amendment makes it clear that both the President elect and Vice President elect must qualify to assume the Office of President.

2. Were the members of Congress required by the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments and 3 U.S.C. 15 to present “objections” regarding Obama’s lack of qualifications to Dick Cheney after the count of the electoral votes?

The answer is YES, ABSOLUTELY !!!

Obama, Biden and all the other members of Congress in 2008 and 2012 willfully violated procedural safeguards stemming from the United States Constitution, specified in 3 U.S.C. 15 and additionally outlined by a federal court. And these procedural safeguards are specifically to protect the United States from foreign enemies infiltrating our highest office and national defenses. The members of Congress MUST BE held accountable to the United States Constitution (the will  of the people), otherwise they are not representatives of the people. All the members of Congress knew or should have know (from Obama’s books) that Obama’s father was never an American citizen, and that Obama was, therefore, ineligible to assume the Office of President.  We are talking about lawyers in Congress (experts who were trusted by the people). Many of them had read Senate Resolution 511 and they passed it knowing the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen”. For the few ignorant members of Congress there is no excuse. It is in fact their job to know the meaning of “natural born Citizen”.

United States Constitution

The senators who sponsored and agreed to Senate Resolution 511 falsely imply in the resolution that the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 clause 5 cannot be understood, and that the First Congress therefore defined “natural born Citizen” in 1790. Their claims are utterly false.

Article II, Section I clause 5 United States Constitution

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”

First, the term “natural born Citizen” appears in Article II, Section I clause 5 alongside the term “citizens”: These two terms are obviously not the same. The term “citizens” cannot be interchanged with the term “natural born Citizen” and because “citizens” is within the exception that was made at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, it is very easy to understand what the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” is.

Second, Congress does not have authority to redefine “natural born Citizen,” and in fact the First Congress did not redefine it. It is in fact not possible to redefine a Natural God Given Right. The First Congress did not state in 1790 that children of citizens [plural] of the United States born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States were “natural born Citizens.” What the First Congress stated is that “children of citizens (plural) born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as, [i.e., accounted as or deemed as], natural-born citizens,” not that they are “natural born Citizens.”

The Naturalization Act of 1790 states that “children of citizens [plural] of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”

NOTE: The members of Congress are not permitted to change the meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it stands in our Constitution. They know the meaning of the term and that they are not permitted to define or redefine the term, and yet there were many attempts by members of Congress in the years leading up to the 2008 election to change the meaning (redefine) “natural born Citizen”. And their attempts reveal that they know that a “natural born Citizen” is a person born within the United States of citizen parents (plural).

NOTE: There are also articles now published on the internet which claim that Judge William Alsup decided that McCain was a “natural born Citizen.” One such article is on About.com U.S. Politics written by Tom Murse. It is not the truth. Judge Alsup in fact did not decide that McCain was a “natural born Citizen.” This can be seen in his order to dismiss the case.

NOTE: Nowhere in Judge Alsup’s order did he decide that the Congress has the role to define the term “natural born Citizen.” Alsup stated Congress has “the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth,” but he did not decide that Congress has the role of defining “natural born Citizen”. He in fact clarified that “the Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, but to not define “natural born Citizen”), and provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were citizens.” Judge Alsup also did not determine that those who had acquired “citizenship” under the Fourteenth Amendment were “natural born Citizens.” John Bingham (the author of the 14th Amendment) wrote as follows:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”

CONCLUSION:

These are willful violations of procedural law which have no place in our Republic and in fact these violations denied The People of the United States representation — these required “processes” did not took place. First of all, numerous members of Congress, including Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Mick Romney obviously knew full and well the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen, but as Judge Alsup states, did not inform the voting public of Obama’s ineligibility “before the election.” Neither did Dick Cheney “call for objections” after the counting of the electoral votes. And these violations of law in fact immediately disqualified Obama as the “President elect” and render his claimed “presidency” void ab initio. He is not “the President.” In fact Obama cannot be lawfully impeached: Only a president can be impeached.

As Judge Alsup has stated in his order to dismiss, a “call for objections” must be made and the objections “registered”. And after the objections are registered the objections must be “resolved” by both the Senate and House of Representatives. ‘This is the law, not because Judge Alsup says so, but because our Constitution and 2 U.S.C. 15 say so. Until the required objections to Obama’s ineligibility are “registered” and “resolved,” the People of the United States are willfully denied lawful representation, denied a president and denied the protection of the laws under three branches of government. In fact today, the courts are making the law, Obama is violating the law and Congress is conspiring with them.


ITS TIME FOR REVOLUTION.

THE WHOLE SYSTEM HAS BEEN CO-OPTED

FACEBOOK BLOCKS JOHN GAULTIER FOR 30 DAYS.. THIS IS THE 19th TIME

FACEBOOK CENSORS FREE SPEECH JOHN GAULTIER IS BACK IN 30 BLOCK.. JUST AFTER A 6 MONTH BAN IN NOVEMBER OF 2014

THIS IS THE POST THAT GOT ME BLOCKED THIS TIME

You know ISIS Desecrates Graves of their enemies..

Now the Africa Blacks in the USA want to desecrate the graves of Confederate Leaders. They want to desecrate the Grave of Confederate General Nathan Bedford in Memphis TN. If it is OK then they will move to the next one and the next one.

There is a common link. A regressive DNA that runs in all primitive people.

You can dress them up but you cannot modify their primal nature!

And don't tell me "most blacks don't feel that way".. thats the same shit we say about Muslims right?

and I do not want to co-exist with primitive minded people.

That is why I call for Revolution followed by secession.

Nothing else will work. The GREAT EXPERIMENT of the "melting pot" is an abject failure. We should have known.. It has never really worked en mass anywhere in the world.

Time to move on...!


facebook blocks John Gaultier again,

IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT OBAMA'S AFFECTION AND AFFILIATION. LOOK NO FURTHER.

OBAMA IS A MUSLIM OR AT THE VERY LEAST IDENTIFIES WITH THEM MORE THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION ON EARTH.

Shortly after 4 US Marines were slain by a Muslim terrorist in Tennessee, Obama sends out a “Happy End of Ramadan” greeting to all Muslims

On the same day that four unarmed Marines were gunned down by an Islamic terrorist, Barack and Michelle Obama issued a celebratory greeting to all Muslims worldwide. The statement from the White House was issued just hours ‘after‘ the attack on two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Muslims in the military, asses in the air, thanking Allah for the glorious attack in Tennessee

The Obama Ramadan statement:

(Photos below are from Obama’s White House Iftar Ramadan dinner for Muslims a few days ago)

breaking911  Michelle and I would like to extend our warmest wishes to Muslims in the United States and around the world celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr. As Muslims mark the end of the month, they are reminded that Ramadan is a time to reflect spiritually, build communally, and aid those in need. While Eid marks the end of Ramadan, it marks a new beginning for each individual – a reason to celebrate and express gratitude on this holiday.

For millions of Muslims, the morning of Eid is marked with the call to prayer echoing through cities and towns across the globe. Millions of people head to local mosques for special Eid prayers followed by festive gatherings, gift exchanges, and feasts among friends, neighbors and families.

The diversity of traditions paint the vibrant images we see from around the world capturing the spirit and excitement of Eid – colorful dresses or white garments decorating the masses of people standing in lines for prayer, lanterns and ornaments lighting up bazaars and neighborhoods, intricate henna designs painted on hands of young girls and women, and an abundance of delectable foods and aromatic cuisines.

As Muslim Americans celebrate Eid across America, the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs. This past year New York City Public Schools announced adding Eid to their official school calendars alongside Christmas, Hanukkah and other holidays – an acknowledgement of the great diversity and inclusiveness that adds to the richness of our nation.

During this year’s White House Iftar, I had the opportunity to meet inspiring young Muslim Americans who are leading efforts for greater understanding and unity across diverse communities. Americans of all faiths and beliefs must stand together to protect our democracy and strengthen our country as a whole.

Michelle and I hope today brings joy to all of your homes, both here in the U.S. and around the world. From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak!

Obama Turning America into a Third world Sanctuary ( From Judicial Watch )

ONLY REVOLUTION CAN RESTORE AMERICA.. IF NOT.. STFU AND ACCEPT THE SHIT THAT IS COMING!

Obama Illegal Alien Criminal Release Exposed By Judicial Watch

Sanctuary cities are only part of the problem behind the deadly illegal alien crisis.  Barack Obama's administration has instituted "sanctuary" as a national policy.

We have just obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealing that nearly 260 illegal alien criminals, including 40 incarcerated for violent crimes, were released from Arizona detention facilities during the last week of February and the first two weeks of March 2013.

This release begets lie after lie.  After first denying that the mass release had taken place, the Obama administration claimed the releases were due to the anticipated sequestration budget cuts. The newly obtained records were uncovered because of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Edward Tuffly, a Tucson, AZ, resident.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit for Mr. Tuffly in January 2015 after Homeland Security ignored his November 10, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking:

Records sufficient to identify all ICE detainees released in late February or early March 2013 from the following detention facilities due to alleged fiscal or budget uncertainty: (a) Central Arizona Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona: (b) Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona; (c) Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona; (d) Florence SPC in Florence, Arizona; and (e) Pinal County Adult Detention Center in Florence, Arizona.

For each detainee identified in response to Request No.1, the I-213 form(s) documenting the detainee's arrest.

For each detainee identified in response to Request No.1, records sufficient to identify: (a) the date the detainee was released; (b) the facility from which the detainee was released; (c) the detainee's criminal history or criminal charges at the time of release; (d) methods of supervision to which the detainee was subjected; and (e) whether the detainee appeared for subsequent removal or other proceedings and/or was removed from the United States.

The date range for the requested records was February 22 through March 15, 2013. This was the exact time period during which Homeland Security released more than 2,000 illegal aliens nationwide, later claiming the release was "solely for budgetary reasons," though none of the anticipated sequestration budget cuts had yet taken place.

From among the nearly 260 illegal aliens released from five Arizona correction facilities we can tell you that almost 40 of them are violent criminals who had been arrested for crimes including assault, domestic violence, weapons offenses, and battery. Nearly one in five had been arrested for drunk driving.

The full list is below:

Traffic Offense:  57

 Driving Under Influence Liquor: 55

Disorderly Conduct: 15

Failure to Appear: 14

Illegal Entry: 13

Assault: 9

Drug Trafficking: 9

Shoplifting: 8

Larceny: 8

Making False Report: 6

Drug Possession: 6

Weapons Offense: 6

Forgery: 5

Domestic Violence: 4

Trespassing: 4

Damage Property: 4

Prostitution: 4

Liquor: 3

Marijuana: 3

Damage Property-Private: 3

Probation Violation: 3

Liquor Possession: 2

Identity Theft: 2

Battery: 2

Contributing to Delinquency of Minor: 2

Commercial Sex: 2

Fraud-False Statement: 2

Fraud-Impersonating: 2

Public Order Crimes: 2

Violation of a Court Order: 2

Robbery-Street Gun: 2

Robbery: 2

Narcotics Equip-Possession: 2

Intimidation: 2

Morals-Decency Crimes:  1

Identity Theft: 1

Cruelty Toward Wife: 1

Smuggling: 1

Smuggling Aliens: 1

Fraud: 1

Licensing Offense: 1

Stolen Vehicle: 1

Licensing Violation: 1

Obstruct Criminal Investigation: 1

Firing Weapon: 1

Resisting Officer: 1

Burglary Tools-Possession: 1

Threat to Burn: 1

Receive Stolen Property: 1

Hit and Run: 1

Obstruct Police: 1

Possession of a Weapon: 1

The Obama administration is refusing to divulge the names of the released criminals, which prevents law enforcement from protecting the public or notifying victims. Local authorities in Arizona, such as Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, have tried unsuccessfully to obtain information about this and other criminal alien releases by the Obama administration.

In 2014, a Judicial Watch lawsuit forced the release of 76 pages of DHS documents revealing that, as of April 26, 2014, the Obama administration had released 165,900 convicted criminal aliens throughout the United States, including many convicted of such violent crimes as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The reports we had at that time also showed that ICE had released another 30,000 in the most recent fiscal year, which brought the grand total of known criminals released by the Obama administration to 195,900.  That number - and the attendant threat to the safety of you and every other American - a is clearly on the rise.

Your Judicial Watch is a long-time national leader in advocating for a rule-of-law approach to illegal immigration.  This work includes exposing and challenging dangerous sanctuary policies in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Arizona, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and more. 

For example, in 2011, as a result of Judicial Watch's work, San Francisco was ordered to end its sanctuary policy that protected aliens arrested for certain drug offenses from being reported to ICE.  We are now investigating whether the city violated the law again with its sanctuary policy that led to the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and who allegedly gunned down Kate Steinle at one of the most popular tourist spots in San Francisco.  

We also filed a lawsuit in Chicago challenging Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart's refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with ICE in identifying deportable criminal aliens.  Cook County jails had released well over 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the 18 months prior the lawsuit's filing in 2013.  The suit is now before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The lawsuit, Brian McCann v. Thomas J. Dart, was filed on behalf of lifetime Chicago resident Brian McCann, whose brother William "Denny" McCann, was run over and killed in June 2011 by an unlawfully present criminal alien who had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction.  The alien, Saul Chavez, was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence, but was released by the sheriff from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer.

And I can't tell you how many victims of illegal alien criminals the United States has informally aided or consoled over the years. 

Unlike politicians expressing outrage a day late and a dollar short about sanctuary policies, your JW has been fighting sanctuary policies with success in the courts and in the public square for years (for instance, see this 2007 story from Fox News). 

 The Obama administration is obsessed with supporting nationwide sanctuary and unlawful amnesty for illegal aliens - even illegal aliens who have committed violent crimes.  These new documents show the Obama administration's soft-on-crime approach to illegal alien crime is a clear and present danger to the safety of innocent Americans.  Obama is the sanctuary president, to the detriment of murder victims like Kate Steinle.

**************************************************
ONLY REVOLUTION CAN RESTORE AMERICA.. IF NOT.. STFU AND ACCEPT THE SHIT THAT IS COMING!

FACEBOOK BANS ME FOR 30 DAYS FOR POSTING THIS

You know ISIS Desecrates Graves of their enemies..

Now the African Blacks in the USA want to desecrate the graves of Confederate Leaders. They want to desecrate the Grave of Confederate General Nathan Bedford in Memphis TN. If it is OK then they will move to the next one and the next one.

There is a common link. A regressive DNA that runs in all primitive people.

You can dress them up but you cannot modify their primal nature!

And don't tell me "most blacks don't feel that way".. that's the same shit we say about Muslims right?

and I do not want to co-exist with primitive minded people.

That is why I call for Revolution followed by secession.


FREE FUCKING SPEECH IS DEAD.. IN AMERICA...

  TIME FOR REVOLUTION IN THE STREETS...

RRR

Origin of The Fleur-de-lis. Some stupid people say this is a slave related Symbol. HOGWASH!

The Fleur-de-lis

Stained glass window in the shape of a fleur-de-lys, Bourges cathedral, 15th c. Note the various themes: the Trinity, which the 3 petals were understood to recall, is represented; angels are bearing the shield as they are supporters of the arms of France, the dove descending from heaven recalls the legend of the baptism of Clovis when a dove brought the sacred ointment to Saint Remigius. The origin of the fleur de lis has been debated for centuries. There are a number of inter-related questions with respect to the fleur-de-lis:

• what is the origin of the design which we know by that name?
• how old is it, and when was it first adopted by the kings of France?
• why did they adopt it?
• what is a fleur-de-lys: that is, to what flower or real object does it correspond?
• where does the name itself come from?

This article provides answers and clues. My personal opinion is as follows:

• the design can be found in many places long before heraldic times, as far back as Mesopotamia. It is essentially a stylized flower, and served as a decorative element and became associated over time with royalty, especially in the High Middle Ages.
• As a heraldic charge, it dates from the 12th c. It is first adopted as a semis on a field by the French king Philippe II (1180-1214) with certainty, perhaps already by his father Louis VII (1137-80). At a minimum, the arms "azure, a semis of fleur-de-lis or" are associated with French kings from 1200.
• the fleur-de-lys, as emblem (as opposed to heraldic charge) appears on coins and seals from the 10th c. at least. Typically, it forms the end of a scepter, or decorates the rim of a crown, or is held, over-sized, by the king along with a scepter. So there is, by the 11th-12th c., a strong association with royal sovereignty. In fact, coins of the Emperor Frederic I show him holding such a scepter. Moreover, supposing that it was already called a fleur-de-lys at the time, the lily flower had strong religious connotations, especially with the Virgin Mary, and later (in the 14th c.) with the Trinity.
  Seal of Philip II Augustus, king of France, 1180.
  Legend: Philippus Dei gratia Francorum rex".
  From the French Ministry of Culture's Banques d'images CARIM.
• what it is, or initially was, is hotly debated. I dismiss all non-floral origins as fanciful. It is a stylized flower, but which flower? It looks more like an iris than a lily. Moreover, lillies are never yellow in the wild, whereas some irises are. Could there have been confusion between the two flowers? The word "lis" appears in French in 1150, whereas the word "iris" designates the flower in the 13th c. The term "fleur de lis" in the heraldic sense is attested in 1225. A confusion seems implausible.
• However, a hypothesis ventured in the 17th c. sounds very plausible to me. One species of wild iris, the Iris pseudacorus, yellow flag in English, is yellow and grows in marshes (cf. the azure field, for water). Its name in German is Lieschblume (also gelbe Schwertlilie), but Liesch was also spelled Lies and Leys in the Middle Ages. It is easy to imagine that, in Northern France, the Lieschblume would have been called "fleur-de-lis." This would explain the name and the formal origin of the design, as a stylized yellow flag. There is a fanciful legend about Clovis which links the yellow flag explicitly with the French coat of arms.

A bonus of this theory is that the yellow flag is also called "flambe" or "flamme" in old French, which links it very nicely to the oriflamme.

The French Arms

As will be shown later, they were Azure, a semis of fleur-de-lis or since 1200 or perhaps even 1170-80. They were changed to Azure, 3 fleur-de-lis or in 1376, by order of Charles V the Wise. It is sometimes said that the reason was to spite the English King, who bore quarterly France Ancient and England, and differentiate the arms of France from that claimed by England. I am pretty sure the arms of France were shown with 3 fleur-de-lys prior to that, and possibly prior to the Hundred Years War, for esthetic reasons. But it's an interesting idea.

Pastoureau on the fleur-de-lis

Here is a loose translation from translation Michel Pastoureau: Traité d'Héraldique, Paris, 1979.
"The use for ornamental or symbolic purposes of the stylised flower usually called fleur de lis is common to all eras and all civilisations. It is an essentially graphic theme found on Mesopotamian cylinders, Egyptian bas-reliefs, Mycenean potteries, Sassanid textiles, Gaulish coins, Mameluk coins, Indonesian clothes, Japanese emblems and Dogon totems. The many writers who have discussed the topic agree that it has little to do graphically with the lily, but disagree on whether it derives from the iris, the broom, the lotus or the furze, or whether it represents a trident, an arrowhead, a double axe, or even a dove or a pigeon. It is in our opinion a problem of little importance. The essential point is that it is a very stylised figure, probably a flower, that has been used as an ornament or an emblem by almost all civilisations of the old and new worlds.
The oldest known examples of fleur-de-lis similar to those used in the Medieval Western world and in modern times can be found on assyrian bas-reliefs from the 3d millenium BC. It is found on tiaras, necklaces, scepters, and seems already to play the role of royal attribute. Those found a little later in Crete, India and Egypt probably have a similar meaning. In numismatics, we find the fleur-de-lis on a few Greek coins and on several Roman coins from the Republic (mark of monetary magistrates) or the Empire (attribute of Hope) and especially on Gaulish coins. [The book shows three coins: a Gaulish coin (1st c. AD), a Mameluk coin (1390) and a coin of Louis VI of France (1110-30), all displaying an unmistakable fleur-de-lis (at least the upper-half of one, and a sort of triangle in the lower-half).] Whereas, in Greek and Roman coins, it is a fleuron of variable shape, in the Celtic case it is a true heraldic fleur-de-lis as it reappears in the 13th c.
While retaining its value as royal attribute, the fleur-de-lis acquires in the high Middle Ages a strong Christic meaning, stemming from (among others) the famous verse of the Song of Solomon (2:1): "ego flos campi et lilium convallium" many times repeated and commented from Saint Jerome to Saint Bernard. Therefore it is not rare, until the end of the 12th c., to see Christ represented amidst more or less stylised lilies or fleurons, whose design could also recall the Trinity of the Chrismon (Christ's monogram). Then, slowly, on this Christic content is added a Marial symbolic, linked to the development of the Cult of Mary, and to which the next verse of the Song of Solomon is related (2:2): "sicut lilium inter spinas, sic amica mea inter filias" as well as many parts of the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, where the lily is presented as symbol of purity, virginity and chastity. In iconography, the lily becomes a favorite attribute of the Virgin Mary and will remain so until the 16th c.
The origin of fleur-de-lis adopted as heraldic emblems by the Kings of France is a problem that has elicited much discussion. From the middle of the 14th c, several works (mostly designed to legitimize the Valois claims on the throne, against Edward III of England), explain that the king of France "bears arms of three fleur-de-lis as sign of the blessed Trinity, sent by God through His angel to Clovis, first Christian king... telling him to erase the three crescents he bore on his arms and replace them with the fleur-de-lis." This legend reappears at the end of the 15th c, but this time the alleged arms born by Clovis before his baptism are not azure, three crescents or but azure, three toads or. Significantly, at the end of the Middle Ages, Clovis' paganism is not represented by a Muslim symbol (crescent) but a demonic one (toad). In any case, it is only in the 17th c that this legendary origin of the fleur-de-lys began to be subject to the criticism of scholars. The famous Scevole de Sainte-Marthe seems to be the first to assert that the fleur-de-lys appeared on the shield only under Philippe Auguste (1180-1223) or Louis VIII (1223-26). However, until the end of the 19th c writers continued to profer the most fanciful opinions on the subject. Today, Sainte-Marthe's opinion cannot be denied anymore: it is known that there are no coats of arms before 1130-1140, and the king of France was no the first to adopt a coat. H. Pinoteau's work of the past 30 years have shed definitive light on the subject: although we have no iconographic testimony of the coat azure, semy of fleur-de-lys or by a king of France before Louis VIII (on a stained glass window in Chartres of 1230; Louis VIII did bear the coat before becoming king, on a seal of 1211), several chroniclers contemporary of Philippe Auguste report that he used a banner with these arms, and his seal shows that as early as 1180 he used a fleur-de-lys as emblem. [example of an official of the royal demesne bearing the coat on his 1207 seal, and a cousin of the king augmenting Courtenay with a shield of France Ancient on a 1210 seal. It may even have been adopted by Louis VII (1154-80).]
[The seals of Philip Augustus clearly have a single fleur-de-lys on the reverse as of 1180. Before that, from 1050 at least, the seals of French kings show them sitting, holding a sceptre in their left hand and what looks like a fleur-de-lis in their right hand. The head of the sceptre is a lozenge, but often the fleurons on the crown (3 of them) look like fleur-de-lys.]
It remains to know why the king of France adopted the fleur-de-lys as an emblem when all other sovereigns of Europe chose animals. The reason seems twofold: on the one hand this flower had always retained its role as attribute of sovereignty: it is in this capacity that it appears on several royal Carolingian and Ottonian attributes, on the scepter of Capetian kings since Robert (996-1031), on the reverse of Louis VI coins (early 12th c) and even on coins of Lothaire (954-986). On the other hand, the flower acquired a strong religious meaning, either Christic or Marial; it is probably under the influence of saint Bernard and Suger that Louis VII (who was with Saint Louis the most pious king of France) adopeted this emblem which symbolized both the royal dignity and Christian piety of his person and his lineage.
[discussion of other families with the fleur-de-lys on their coat.]
The design of the fleur-de-lys has always been relatively stable and since the 13th c the heraldic vocabulary used adjectives or phrases to specify the design when it varied from the usual one. The most ancient variation is the fleur-de-lys 'au pied nourri', i.e. without the lower part, everything under the horizontal bar apparently cut off. Old French also calls this fleur-de-lys 'en lonc' or 'a pié coupé'. Sometimes the lower part is represented but in a triangular shape: it is then called 'au pied posé'. These two variants appear in the North of France and the Netherlands. Towards the middle of the 13th c, some seals represent the fleur-de-lys in a more naturalistic fashion: it has stamina between the petals, and the petals end with arabesques, as if one was trying to evoke the last stage of bloom. Such a flower is called épanouie or florencée, that of Florence being the most famous example [Lille also bears the fleur-de-lys épanouie]."

Woodward on the fleur-de-lis

"Of all the floral devices used in Heraldry the most famous is the fleur-de-lis now generally identified with the iris. Its floral character has been altogether denied by some writers who have professed to trace its origin to the head of a lance, spear or sceptre, to an architectural finial; to a frog, bee, a sacred monogram, etc. (The student who is interested will find all suggestions stated, and refuited, in the excellent work of M. Rey: Histoire du Drapeau, Paris, 1837, and can hardly failed to be surprised at the prodigious number of treatises which have been published on the subject).
It is at first sight so difficult to explain the reason why, when other great potentates were assuming for their armorial emblems the lion, the eagle, etc, the sovereigns of France should have preferred the apparently humble iris-flower, that we are hardly surprised to find the fact accounted for by the tradition that it was brought from heaven itself by an angel to Clovis, King of France, on the occasion of his baptism, as a special mark of favor on the part of the Blessed Virgin, whose peculiar symbol the lily has always been, The tradition has many variations of place and circumstance. It is, however, somewhat surprising to find that the French bishops at the Council of Trent, when disputing for the precedence of their sovereign, fortified their claim by alleging that the King of France had received the fleur-de-lis direct from heaven: Gallorum regem unctum esse et lilia divinitus accepisse!
The most probable explanation of the origin of the fleur-de-lis as a device of the Kings of France is that put forth by M. Rey, which has received the approval of Mr Planche, "that the fleur de lys, or flower de luce was merely a rebus signifying fleur de Louis." Up to the time of Louis VII the kings of that name (identical with Clovis) called themselves, and signed themselves, Loi"s or Loys. Even after the name had settled into its present form, Loys was still the signature of the kings of France up to the time of Louis XIII (1610-43). Loys, or Louis VII received from his father the surname Florus.
The coins of Louis VI and Louis VII are the earliest on which the fleur-de-lys appears. But it also appears at that time on the coins of Florence (a city which wad the mint of many European sovereigns, and whence the name florin is derived). M. Rey, in view of these facts, inquires: "Can we not say then, that the coincidence of the surname Florus with the name of Loys or lis, of that of Florence with that of fleur de lis, of all these names and surnames, gave rise to the formation of the name of our illustrious emblem?"
M. Rey traces the fleur-de-lys as an artistic ornament to very early times; centuries antecedent to its adoption as an armorial design. (It is curious that on a coin of Hadrian, Gaul is personified by a woman bearing in her hand a lily: the legend is restitutori Galliae.) On a medal of Galba the fleur-de-lis forms the head of a sceptre. Montfaucon gives an example from an ancient diptych in which the crown of the empress Placidia (daughter of the emperor Theodosius the Great), who died in 450, is enseigned with a fleur-de-lys. These, and a multitude of other early instances, are given in the plates by M. Rey, to whose work I refer again the curious reader. In France, as in many other countries, the sceptre borne by the prince was, at a very early date, ornamented by a flora lemblem, varying in detail but bearing a general resemblance to the fleur-de-lys of later times.
The seals of the emperors Henry I (d. 1024) and Conrad II (d. 1039) afford early illustrations of the custom (see Glafey, specimen decadem sigillorum, Leipzig 1749; Roemer-Büchner, Die Siegel der deutschen Kaiser, Frankfurt am Main, 1851). In France the germ of the armorial fleur-de-lys can be traced to the fleurons which adorn the sceptres and crowns of Henri I, Philippe I and Louis VI (11-12th c.). A signet of Louis VII bears a fleur-de-lys florencee, but the charge first takes a definite heraldic shape on the seals of Philippe Augustus (d. 1223); whose great seal represents him crowned with an open crown of fleurons and holding in his right hand a fleur-de-lys (several of his successors are similaryl represented), in his left a sceptre surmounted by a lozenge charged with the like emblem. On his counterseal is engraved in an oval a fleur-de-lis entirely of the heraldic shape. (M. Demay, in his book vited in previous pages, points out, pp. 194-196, the analogy which exists between the fleurons, held in the hand, or surmounting the sceptre as well as adorning the crown, to the effigies of the blessed Virgin depicted on the seal of the Chapter of Notre Dame at Paris in 1146, and on that of the abbey of Faremoutiers in 1197, with those born by St.Louis in 1226). On the occasion of the coronation of his son Philip (in his own lifetime) the king, Louis VII, regulated the details of the ceremony, and among other things prescribed that the prince should wear "ses chausses...en soye couleur bleu azure semée en moult endroit de fleurs de lys d'or, puis aussi sa dalmatique de meme couleur et oeuvre" (Gourdon de Genouilhac, l'Art Héraldique, p.224)."

The Clovis Legend

I will mention an amusing legend, according to which Clovis, on his way to fight the king of Aquitania Alaric, and defeat him at Vouille near Poitiers (in 507), was searching in vain for a ford to cross a river, when a doe, frightened by the soldiers, jumped across the river along a ford that it only knew. The whole army then followed. On the banks, wild yellow irises grew in abundance: Clovis came off his horse, picked one and put it on his helmet as a symbol of his future victory. Thereafter did the kings of France use the fleur de lis as their emblem. The story is of course fanciful, but a nice one (somewhat reminiscent of the manner in which Attila found his way to Europe, actually).

Of Flowers

from Henry Correvon: Fleur des eaux et des marais; Neuchâtel (Suisse), 1961: Editions Delachaux & Niestle.
"Let us discuss now the iris, of which there are very interesting aquatic species. The marsh plant par excellence, at least in our regions, is the Water iris (iris des eaux), Iris Pseudoacorus, whose bright yellow large flowers bloom from June to September all across Europe, Western Asia and North Africa.... [He goes on to tell the story of Clovis fording the river which I narrated previously and concludes:] the flag of the Kings of France then represented three of these iris flowers. In England this flower is known as 'flagflower'. "


Separated at birth: a fleur-de-lys and an iris, both spotted in Florence, Italy.

Lis and Iris in French

The first use of the word "iris" in French is in a 13th c. manuscript, Le Livre des Medecines Simples, where it says: "iris porte roge flor et ireos blanches." The word existed before, to name a prism, or rock through which the light diffracts into a rainbow (here the etymology is clear: Iris, messenger of the Gods). How it came to designate the plant I don't know (ref: Godefroy: Dictionnaire de l'Ancienne Langue Francaise, vol. 10, Kraus reprints, 1969).
The first instance of the word "lis", plural of an unattested "lil" from Latin lilium, is around 1150 for the flower. The word is often found as metonymy for the lily flower, and used in numerous metaphors for whiteness, purity, etc. For example, in Erec et Enéide by Chrestien de Troyes (ca. 1170): "plus ot que n'est la flor de lis, Cler et blanc le front et le vis" (forehead and face pale and white more than the lily flower) (example taken from: Tobler-Lommatzsch: Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch). The word fleur de lis is also used as metaphor for the Virgin Mary (1223). First clear-cut use of the word "fleur de lis" in its heraldic acception is in 1225 in Durmart le Gallois, although Victor Gay (Glossaire Archéologique du Moyen-Âge, vol. 1, Paris, 1887) claims that the word is used in an ordnance of Louis VII (1137-1180), without giving any reference.
What is really strange is that the lily was such a constant metaphor for whiteness, and would become a golden charge. As mentioned before, lilies are usually white, not yellow.

Lillies and Irises in English

What about the English language? What follows are edited OED entries. It appears that:

• in English, the iris was often called fleur-de-lis or flower-de-luce, since the 16th century.
• Fleur-de-lis, to designate the heraldic charge, appears as early as 1400.
• the yellow iris, or common British species (Iris pseudacorus) is also called Yellow Flag.

What to make of it? The late date for the use of fleur-de-lis in English to designate the flower makes me suspect that, here, the charge came first and the name was applied to the flower because of the formal resemblance.

     iris , sb. Pl. irides , irises. [a. Gr. iris, stem
irid-.  The senses (except 3 and 6) correspond to those of the Gr. word;
so also Fr. iris.  The pl. irides is chiefly used in sense 4.]
 1. Gr. Myth.  The goddess who acted as the messenger of the gods, and was held
to display as her sign, or appear as, the rainbow; hence, allusively, a messenger.
 2. a. A rainbow; a many-coloured refraction of light from drops of water.
 b. transf.  A rainbow-like or iridescent appearance; a circle or halo of
prismatic colours; a combination or alternation of brilliant colours.
 c. fig.
 3. a. A hexagonal prismatic crystal (mentioned by Pliny Nat. Hist.)
 4. a. Anat. b. (transf.) Entom.  c. Photogr. = iris-diaphragm; 
 5. Bot.  A genus of plants, the type of the natural order Iridaceae, natives of
Europe, N. Africa, and the temperate regions of Asia and America; most of the
species have tuberous (less commonly bulbous or fibrous) roots, sword-shaped
equitant leaves, and showy flowers; formerly often called Fleur-de-lis or
Flower-de-luce.  Also, a plant of this genus.blue iris, Iris germanica, the
German Flag, a common cultivated species; fetid iris, the Gladden, Iris
foetidissima; Florentine iris = white iris; stinking iris = fetid iris;
white iris, Iris florentina, from which orrisroot is obtained; yellow iris, the
Yellow Flag, Iris Pseudacorus, the common British species.
 1562 Turner Herbal. ii. 23 a, Iris is knowen both of the Grecianes and Latines
by that name; it is called..in Englishe flour de lyce. 1578 Lyte Dodoens ii.
xxxv. 192 There be many kindes of Iris, or floure Deluce. 1578 Lyte Dodoens 193
The Irides or flower Deluces do most commonly flower about May. 

     fleur-de-lis , flower-de-luce . Forms: &ia.. 4-6 flour(e-de-lys(e, -lice,
-lyce, (pl. -lycis), 7 -lis, 5-7 -luce, pl. -luces, 6 floredelise, Sc. 5
flour(e-the-lis, -lys.  &ib.. 6-9 flower-, (6 flowre-)de-luce, (pl. -luces),
6-7 -lice, (pl. -lices), 6 -lyce, 8 -lys, 7-9 -lis.  &ig.. 8-9 fleur-de-lys, 9
-lis, pl. 7 fleur-de-lysses, -lyzes, 9 fleurs-de-lis, -lys, -luce. [The
prevailing form is a. mod.Fr. fleur de lis , formerly lys; but this form is
scarcely found in Eng. before the 19th c.; see above.  The form flower-de-luce
survives as a poetical archaism and in U.S.  The Fr. is literally `lily-flower'
from lis, formerly lys, in OFr. liz for lils lily, the s of the nom. sing.
being retained in the oblique cases; the English spelling de-lice, de-lyce, was
in its origin merely graphic (cf. price, mice, syce, etc.), but in the 16th c.
was associated with a fanciful etymology flos deliciae, and the form deluce, de
luce apparently also leaned upon a fanciful derivation.  Occasional English
forms were deluce, delyce flowre.]
 1. The flower of a plant of the genus Iris (esp. I. pseudacorus); the plant
itself.  Cf. flag sb.1 1.
 13.. E.E. Allit. P. A. 752 &Th.y colour passez &th.e flour-de-lys. A. 1400
Hymn Virg. vi. in Warton Hist. Eng. Poetry x. (1840) II. 110 Heil fairer then
the flour de lys. C. 1475 Rauf Coil&ygh.ear 670 Flowris with Flourdelycis
formest in feir. 1500-20 Dunbar Thistle & Rose 138 Lat no netill vyle..Hir
fallow to the gudly flour delyce. 1590 Spenser F.Q. ii. vi. 16 The lilly, lady
of the flowring field, The flowre-deluce, her lovely paramoure. 1699 Bentley
Phal. Pref. 104 The Muses are invited to come under the shadow of
Flower-de-luces. 1731-37 Miller Gard. Dict. (ed. 3) s.v. Iris, Iris
purpurea..Common purple Fleur-de-Lys. 1837 Campbell Lines in La Perouse's Voy.
Poet. Wks. 298 When, rapt in fancy..I..plucked the fleur-de-lys by Jesso's
streams. 1866 Longf. Flower-de-luce viii, O flower-de-luce, bloom on, and let
the river linger to kiss thy feet!
 b. fig.
 1500-20 Dunbar Ballat Our Lady 42 Haile, fair fresche flour-de-lyce!
 2. The heraldic lily; a device supposed by some to have originally represented
an iris, by others the top of a sceptre, of a battle-axe or other weapon.  It
is best known from having been borne upon the royal arms of France under the
old monarchy.
 C. 1400 Melayne 94 Wende thy waye..To Charles that beris the flour delyce.
1488 in Ld. Treas. Acc. Scotl. I. 81 Item ane vche of gold like a flourethelis
of diamantis. 1529 Rastell Pastyme (1811) 75, .iii. floure delyse in a feld
asure was sent to Kyng Clouys from hevyn for his armys. 1622 Malynes Anc.
Law-Merch. 189 The French Kings Tent with the three Flowerdeluces. 1709 Addison
Tatler No. 161 &page.9 A bloody Flag, embroidered with Flower-de Luces. 1843
Lytton Last Bar. ii. ii, A lofty head-gear, embroidered with fleur-de-lis. 1851
Layard Pop. Acc. Discov. Nineveh vii. 163 The first god wears the square horned
cap, surmounted by a point, or fleur-de-lys.
 b. The royal arms of France; hence also the French royal family, the French
flag (before 1789), the French nation or government.

     flag , sb.1 Also 4-7 flagg(e, (5 flegge). [Of obscure origin; cf. Dutch
flag, occurring in Bible 1637, Job viii. 11 margin (the Eng. Bible has the same
word in this passage), also mod.Da. flaeg (in Dansk Ordb. 1802, but not found in
MDa., which has flae, flaede in the same sense).]
 1. a. One of various endogenous plants, with a bladed or ensiform leaf, mostly
growing in moist places.  Now regarded as properly denoting a member of the
genus Iris (esp. I. pseudacorus) but sometimes (as in early use) applied to any
reed or rush. [cited 1387 Trevisa Higden (Rolls) IV. 157] 
 b. With words indicating the species, as garden flag (Iris germanica); sweet
smelling flag, spicewort (Acorus Calamus); water flag, yellow flag (Iris
pseudacorus).  Also corn-flag.  1580 Baret Alv. F 639 The water Flagge, or 
the yellowe wild Iris. 

The Yellow Flag Hypothesis

In his dictionary (s.v. fleur-de-lis) Furetière mentions a hypothesis put forth by Godefridus Henschenius, a Flemish Jesuit priest (1601-81): he claims that the fleur-de-lis represents the yellow flag (Iris Pseudacorus) and mentions that the name of that flower in German is "Lieskblume": that's how Furetière writes it.
It took me a while to figure out that he meant Lieschblume. As it turns out, according to the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, the word Liesch (also found as Leesch and Lees) designates a number of plants of the reed family, and also reed-shaped plants, like (among others) the gelbe Schwertlilie. Now Lilie is lily, Schwertlilie is iris, and gelbe Schwertlilie (yellow iris literally) is the Iris Pseudacorus, the native wild iris of Europe. In Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch (Leipzig, 1885, vol. 7), liesch is said to have appeared in many forms in the Middle Ages and in dialects: lisch, lüsch, lies, liesz, liesze, lieyes, leys (the last two in "niederrheinisch", Lower-Rhine dialect I presume). Also, Grimm translate Lieschblume as "flos iridis, flos gladioli".
So Lieschblume is iris flower, and the Liesch is one of the names of the yellow flag, I. pseudacorus. Moerover, Liesch was variously written as Lees, Lies, Liesz, Leys, Lieyes. That's enough to let me believe that, in pre-heraldic times (say 10th-11th c.) a confusion could have arisen in the North of France between Lieschblume, translated as fleur-de-lis and the iris flower.
Other interesting details:

• according to Brockhaus, the lilium of Old Testament is none other than the Iris pseudacorus.
• the Iris pseudacorus, as the lily, was an emblem of Mary, and Brockhaus cites Dürer and Hugo van der Goes.
• another name for the yellow flag in French is "flambe" or (in some dialects) "flamme". The word comes from flamma or flammula. There is a 14th c. citation in Godefroy: "Yreos est flambe qui a la fleur blanche" (H. de Mandeville). Littré says: "Flambe: nom donné à l'iris Germanica et à l'iris des marais (iris pseudacorus), dite aussi flamme dans quelques provinces." (name given to i. Germanica [which is blue] and to the yellow flag, also called Flamme in some provinces.)

This makes it quite interesting, because the French "flag" or banner of the Middle Ages, the oriflamme, aurea flammula, can become... the golden fleur-de-lis.