Friday, February 26, 2016

You Go Apple!


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

You Go Apple!

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for  
Published February 26, 2016

Until now I have put off weighing in on this subject until Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, filed his brief in response to the tyranny of the Autocratic Government of the United States.  Make note of Ben Franklin’s Statement above.
There are laws for citizens, and there are laws for law enforcement and security agencies.  They simply have to find another way.  The Federal Government cannot violate the rights of all Americans in the process of obtaining a little security.   Keep in mind, once the foot of the enemy or the government is in the door, they become one in the same, and one can no longer close the door.  

This isn’t about security against ISIS anyway. This is about the “Tyranny of Obama”.  Read how Obama Ordered DHS To Delete Records of Hundreds of Muslim Terrorists.

In addition, what constitutional authority gives the courts the power to make or circumvent the rights of citizens?  None!
Apple earlier today filed its formal legal response laying out why it is refusing to help the FBI hack into the iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists.
Not surprisingly, the arguments Apple makes to the court are essentially the same arguments it’s been making in the press over the last week.
 “This is not a case about one isolated iPhone,” the filing begins. “Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe.”
Indeed, Tim Cook himself has said that “Congress, and not the courts, should be the ones deciding the perilous issue of mobile encryption as it pertains to issues of national security.”
Speaking to this point, Apple argues that the government in this case consciously chose not to enhance its investigatory power via legislation, instead opting to have the courts do all of the dirty work. Not only that, But Apple even takes the government to task for attempting to use ‘terrorism’ as a catchphrase designed to play on the public’s emotions. Again I refer you to Ben Franklin.
Apple also writes that the idea that hacking into the iPhone would be just a one-time thing unique to the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone 5c is preposterous. To this end, Apple writes that the government has already filed “multiple other applications for similar orders.”
With respect to the slippery slope argument that Apple has championed in recent days, the filing argues:
For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone’s user?

Nothing my friend!

As to the legal basis for Apple’s motion, which seeks to vacate the court’s order that it must help the FBI, Apple writes that what the FBI is aiming to achieve here is unprecedented.

No court can’ or’ has ever granted the government power to force companies like Apple to weaken its security systems to facilitate the government’s access to private individuals’ information. The All Writs Act does not support such sweeping use of judicial power, and the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution forbid it.

What’s more, Apple writes that because software is akin to speech, the government shouldn’t be able to compel Apple to write software it objects to.
The demand violates Apple’s First Amendment rights against compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. Apple wrote code for its operating system that reflects Apple’s strong view about consumer security and privacy. By forcing Apple to write software that would undermine those values, the government seeks to compel Apple’s speech and to force Apple to express the government’s viewpoint on security and privacy instead of its own.
The government’s demand also violates Apple’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from arbitrary deprivation of its liberties in that it would conscript Apple to develop software that undermines the security mechanisms of its own products.
Apple also articulates that complying with the government’s request would be unduly burdensome insofar as it would require them to effectively write a completely new operating system.
The compromised operating system that the government demands would require significant resources and effort to develop. Although it is difficult to estimate, because it has never been done before, the design, creation, validation, and deployment of the software likely would necessitate six to ten Apple engineers and employees dedicating a very substantial portion of their time for a minimum of two weeks, and likely as many as four weeks. Members of the team would include engineers from Apple’s core operating system group, a quality assurance engineer, a project manager, and either a document writer or a tool writer.
In addition, Apple would need to both develop and prepare detailed documentation for the above protocol to enable the FBI to build a brute-force tool that is able to interface with the device to input passcode attempts, or design, develop and prepare documentation for such a tool itself. Further, if the tool is utilized remotely (rather than at a secure Apple facility), Apple will also have to develop procedures to encrypt, validate, and input into the device communications from the FBI. This entire development process would need to be logged and recorded in case Apple’s methodology is ever questioned, for example in court by a defense lawyer for anyone charged in relation to the crime.
Once the new custom operating system is created and validated, it would need to be deployed on to the subject device, which would need to be done at an Apple facility. And if the new operating system has to be destroyed and recreated each time a new order is issued, the burden will multiply.

As the legal battle between the FBI and Apple continues to rage on.  Apple, thanks to the tyranny of government, is reportedly already working on iPhones that they themselves wouldn’t never be able to hack.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This my friend it exactly what the Framers foresaw when they designed the constitution, and in a (Con Con) included the first ten Amendments.  The U.S. Constitution, is not just an old irrelevant document.  It’s the Central Autocracy that is pushing that agenda.


Thanks for listening - de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

Obama Ordered DHS To Delete Records of Hundreds of Muslim Terrorists.



Obama Ordered DHS To Delete Records of Hundreds of Muslim Terrorists.

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for  
Published February 25, 2016


Not only did Obama order just the cancellation of counter-terror programs of jihad and Islam, now we find out that he scrubbed the records of known Muslim terrorists.

I got ‘a say: If you want more of this, then please vote in one of the hate America Communist Democrats as President for 2017.  Then in no time at all the United States will become and Ideological Tyranny.   Either one will finish the job of destroying America that Obama started.

If the American Alphabet Soup media were not aligned with the Islamic Jihadi force, this would be front-page news across the nation.  So why haven’t you heard this on CNN?  Well…I just told you, wake up! Dah!

An agent of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, for 15 years, Philip Haney, reported Friday that after the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, if you remember, tried to blow up a crowded passenger jet over Detroit, “This was not a failure to collect intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.” He said

Haney also revealed: "Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, Obama’s condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew he had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material – the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away."  DELETED…

What Haney discloses is truly shocking, but for a jihadist in the Whitehouse, it is not unexpected: "Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to 'connect dots.' Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database."

Who gave the order to scrub the records of Muslims with ties to terror groups? Your Muslim jihadist president Barrack Hussein Obama.

These new shocking revelations come fresh on the heels of whistleblower testimony in the wake of the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, revealing that Obama shut down investigations into jihadists in America along with the San Bernardino shooters, (If you remember they were not on the no fly list,) at the request of the Department of State and the DHS' own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. Haney noted: "They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers' civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?"

How is this not impeachable? When did foreign terrorists get civil rights?

Haney described how he began investigating scores of individuals with links to the traditionalist Islamic Indo-Pakistani Deobandi movement, and its related offshoots, prominently, Tablighi Jamaat. Read more about that here.

I have reported on this infiltration for years. But I am not the only one to report this, so don’t say I made it up. It was reported on it extensively in the book, "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance." By Pamela Geller.  Obama has partnered with terror-tied groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society and others. The stealth jihad in the information battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement of blasphemy laws under Shariah law, as Obama ordered that counter-terror training materials must avoid all reference to Islam and jihad. Under Islamic law in America, it is prohibited to criticize Islam.

Obama is Shariah-compliant at all costs. His number one priority is to protect Islam, even when it puts American lives at risk. The cold-blooded slaughter of Americans in the homeland by Muslims has not tempered Obama's Shariah enthusiasm. On the contrary, Garland, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UCMED, San Bernardino, etc., have accelerated it.

My civil liberties and your civil liberties are being abridged in accordance with the blasphemy laws under Shariah. There are now 15 different free-speech lawsuits against various cities. A free-speech lawsuit against Boston is heading to the Supreme Court, because even though truthful, anyone who says anything against Islam violates the laws of Shariah (do not criticize Islam my friend…well, unless you are me). We are being forced to adhere to Shariah Muslim terrorist customs, but jihad murderers are given sanctuary and protection – to slaughter Americans.

The moral, or in this case the immoral, of the story is this: Jihad terror works under a Muslim Jihadist President.

THE BOTTOM LINE: If you are a combat veteran or an American that believes in freedom and the American Constitution. Or especially if you are Christian or a Jew. You are, according to Obama, a terrorist, and you might find yourself on the “NO FLY LIST.” But if you are a known Muslim Terrorist, you are protected because “tracking individual’s related to [terrorist] groups is a violation of the travelers' civil liberties.” Noted Haney.


Thanks for listening - de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

The Christian Church Is Promoting Islamic Jihad.

The Christian Church Is Promoting Islamic Jihad.

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for  
Published February 11, 2016
I am once again going to ask, you’ the reader, to take a good long hard look, read and study what is printed directly under my banner at the top of this article.  Then read the article.
The Christian church is becoming a Blind benevolent people, enhanced by bribes, ignorantly believing that Christian benevolence means to help anyone and everyone, without any discernment whatsoever. They are deceived by the enemy, and encouraged by Obama’s government money.  And they are promoting the evil. agenda of Satan himself, moreover my friend, it will lead’ to their total destruction.
It is not only the Catholic church, but in this case, also the Lutheran church that is ignorantly promoting Obama’s destruction of Gods Free Republic of America and turning it into part of the Islamic State.
And bear in mind, that this is just one example of one city in one state.  This is going on all over America in every state and in every city. Today more than 3 percent of the population of the U.S. is Muslim.  How long do you think it will be before the Demographics of Islam reaches the critical stage of more than 7 percent as it did in recent history in once Christian Lebanon and Indonesia who are both now Islamic States? Today Indonesia is the largest Islamic country in the world, 50 years ago is was primarily Christian.
Sources at WorldNet Daily, report that Catholic Charities threatened to sue billboard owner Franklin Advertising Co., for posting a billboard that read: “Catholic Charities Resettles Islamists.”  

The local Catholic Charities office in St. Cloud Minnesota complained that the sign was inaccurate because their particular branch of the Catholic organization has not placed any Muslim refugees in St. Cloud.
 Obama bribes the Church to bring Jihadists into the U.S.
While what they say is technically correct in this case, but only because their particular branch of the Catholic organization has not placed any Muslim refugees in St. Cloud (the Sign doesn’t say St Cloud however…) it’s actually the Lutheran Social Services, the (LSS) that has been paid by the federal government to bring Muslims to St. Cloud. But ‘Catholic Charities’ is not off the hook when it comes to statewide resettlements of Muslims in Minnesota, says Ann Corcoran, a refugee watchdog who blogs at Refugee Resettlement Watch.
She said, Catholic Charities is splitting hairs, trying to confuse the issue when it clearly does resettle Muslim refugees in Minnesota just not in St Cloud.
“It is accurate that Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis do resettle Somali Muslims in the state,” Corcoran says. “And [typically], a shocking number of their Muslim ‘youths’ have gone on to become international jihadists, so…for the whole state of Minnesota the sign’s message is accurate.”
The truth is, that Catholic Charities are one of the three phony nonprofit money laundering (federal contractors) that first brought Somali Muslims to Minnesota beginning in the 1980s. The federal government now pays them $1950.00 for each and every refugee they bring into the U.S. — about 60 percent of the government money goes to the refugee and the rest is payola to the church, about $760.00 per head, a nice profit. Moreover, on top of the per-head fee, federal contractors like Catholic Charities and LSS also rake in millions in government grants in return for providing a myriad of services to the refugees. Thus pretending it is Christian Charities that finance the welfare refugee program, (they, as Vladimir Lenin said, are only the useful idiots) when it is in reality, government laundered welfare specifically for Muslims.
The FBI has confirmed that more than two dozen young Somalis have left Minnesota since 2007 to go fight for either al-Shabab in Somalia or the Islamic State in Syria. (The one that Obama says is not Islam) Dozens of other Somali refugees in the U.S. have been convicted of providing material support to overseas terrorist organizations.
Cracking down on free speech
Bob Enos, a resident of the St. Cloud area, said he finds the billboard company’s decision to remove the message to be a blatant censorship of free speech.  Not to mention a redaction of the truth!
“This sign was no more inappropriate than political billboards that take an attack stance on an opponent,” Enos told World Net Daily. “This episode is yet one more affront to the First Amendment. It’s not a community standards issue. It’s a public debate issue, and if the taxpayers can participate in a national debate, it’s ridiculous to think it can’t be a community debate as well.”
But of course promoters of Islam care absolutely nothing about the First Amendment or any other Constitutional Amendment.  They’re  kind of like Obama in that way!
Ron Branstner, another resident of the area, said “political correctness has a stranglehold on Minnesota, and Islam is one of the untouchables”. Debate only goes so far before the Jihadi terrorist organization who calls themselves the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), steps in and shuts down any semblance of free and open discussion.  
Note: Free speech under Islamic Sharia law calls for a beheading.
Members of CAIR have incidentally threated yours truly and my family with torture and death because I print the truth.
CAIR is a so-called Muslim civil rights organization that has been tied to terrorist groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in Federal court documents filed in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial in 2007-08 under the Bush Administration.  And just as a side note, when Obama took office in 09 he commuted their sentences.
Lutherans invite imams (Islamic leaders) to share Islam in their church.  Which is totally un-Biblical. (* I refer you to 2nd John Verses 7 – 11. Toward the end of the article.)
Many Lutheran churches in Minnesota offer their pulpits to imams in an effort to show solidarity and Christian love.  Read what happens when a Christian church goes against the Word of God and supports the enemy.  The Christian church becomes a Muslim Mosque.
Lutheran Social Services Minnesota has a program called “My Neighbor is Muslim” in which Islam LSS websiteThis from an Ignorant people who have never read the Quran, and haven’t a clue what Islam is!
is promoted in churches as a warm fuzzy religion of devotion to God and peace, according to the

Jodi Harpstead, CEO of Lutheran Social Services Minnesota
Jodi Harpstead, CEO of Lutheran Social Services Minnesota, had this to say on the agency’s website about welcoming Muslims:
“The American popular press has been filled with news of the ‘war on terror’ with negative characterizations of Muslim people. Though devout Muslims have tried to counter the media with reminders that Islam is a religion of devotion to God and peace among neighbors, those voices are sometimes hard to hear.”
“We are offering a resource to our church, and to anyone else who would like to use it, to help learn the basic tenets of Islam and understand our new neighbors. Our intention is simply that this resource will open doors, minds, and hearts and dispel stereotypes and myths about Muslim neighbors just enough to start more conversations. I am touched by the stories of Christians who are inviting Muslim imams into dialogue, accepting the invitation to participate in iftar dinners during Ramadan, and hosting community multicultural celebrations. We hope you can also use this resource to spread goodness and welcome Muslim neighbors to your community.”
Never mind the fact that this is totally against the teaching of the Word of God.
Branstner said Somalis are welcomed in Minnesota but are not held accountable for their non-assimilation or the high cost of their welfare dependency. Anyone who questions them on this or any other issue is automatically deemed an “Islamophobe” by CAIR and its indoctrinated   media supporters.
“They bring in a Muslim to have dialogue, and then when you confront them on the issues, they suddenly stop the dialogue,” he said.
U.N. sends 91,000 Somali Muslims to U.S. since 9/11
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, the United Nations and U.S. State Department have worked together to deliver 91,057 Somali Muslims to dozens of U.S. cities and towns from Alaska to the East Coast of New Jersey. But Minnesota has received the most Somali refugees of any state, at 14,820 or 16 percent of the total since the 9/11 attacks, according to the federal refugee database.
And not all have been sent to the big cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
The city of St. Cloud has received more than its fair share, according to some residents who say the Somalis have worn out their welcome. The city, with an estimated population of just over 65,000, has been on the receiving end of 1,450 Somali refugees, most of them arriving within the last eight years under the Obama Administration. 
THE BOTTOM LINE: The Christian church is ignorantly being used to promote Sharia Law in the U.S. while they believe as the Lebanese did that being benevolent (Without discernment) is the Christian thing to do.  They couldn’t be more wrong. It ultimately nothing but suicide.
Just another side note: All banks in Minnesota are now Sharia compliant.   (Little by little)
First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."
The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).
*  7 for many deceivers are in the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves that you do not lose what you have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not even give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” (2 John 7-11)
…do not receive him into your house…  House also means “HOME.”  And my country is also my home. 
According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required.
My friend… Instead of listening to the lies of Islam and the deception of the media, please get yourself a Quran and a Hadith and discover for yourself what Islam is really all about.
At the very least Listen to what David Wood, a Christian pastor who lives among Muslims in the already Islamic city of Dearborn Michigan says about “The three Stages of Jihad” and why people are deceived by so-called “Moderate Peaceful Islam.” 
Like any other false ideology Islam is progressive, It is presented in stages, just like Nazism, Communism, Buddhism and all other false destructive and deceptive ideologies. They all begin with the outside fringes of their beliefs with a false “Peace and tolerance,” and a wonderful utopia.  It’s called the “Hook.” One doesn’t get introduced to the next layer or stage until it’s the right time or one is hooked and then it doesn’t get to the core like ISIS until it’s too late and one is completely controlled by the evil agenda of complete violent militant Jihad.
Obama says: “ISIS isn’t Islam.”  The truth is that ISIS is the core and foundation of Islam.  It is the ultimate agenda.  If one is not a Jihadist one is just deceived and not a Muslim.
Christianity on the other hand, begins’ at the core, with salvation…no “Hooks.” Just the raw unfiltered truth from the get go…One knows everything about Christianity in one verse: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Name one place where Muslims are at peace.
Name one place  where Christians are at war.  

Thanks for listening - de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

Monday, February 15, 2016

Teachers Calling For 16 Year-olds To Vote


Teachers Calling For 16 Year-olds To Vote

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for  
Published February 15, 2016

“Well…other countries are doing it.” says one ignorant high school teacher.

Yeah well…America isn’t quite yet, but is rapidly becoming just like the …other oppressed countries… the teacher is referring to.

Already since the 18 year-old vote was made law, Americans have lost most of their rights. They have evolved into government controlled privileges.  And now the Fabian Communists useful idiots want to speed up the process of tyranny in the U.S. by reducing the voting age of children even more and setting free a generation of government indoctrinated brainwashed programmed robotic children to rapidly change the direction of the country. 
The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from using age as a reason for denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States who are at least eighteen years old. The drive to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 grew across the country during the 1960s, driven in large part by the broader student movement protesting the Vietnam War. The impetus for drafting an amendment to lower the voting age arose following the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), which held that Congress may establish a voting age for federal elections, but not for state or local elections.
On March 23, 1971, a proposal to extend the right to vote to citizens eighteen years of age and older was adopted by both houses of Congress and sent to the states for ratification.  The 26th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution on July 1, 1971, three months and eight days after the amendment was submitted to the states for ratification, making this amendment the quickest in history to be ratified.
The Twenty Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Senator Harley Kilgore began advocating for a lowered voting age already in 1941 in the 77th Congress.  Despite the support of fellow senators, representatives, and socialist First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, Congress failed to pass any national change.  However, pressure in lowering the vote from special interest groups supported by the American Communist Party became a topic of interest at the local level.  In 1943 and 1955 respectively, the Georgia and Kentucky legislatures passed measures to lower the voting age to 18.
During the 1960s, both Congress and the state legislatures came under increasing pressure to lower the minimum voting age from 21 to 18.  This was in part due to the Vietnam War, in which many young men who were ineligible to vote were conscripted to fight’ in the war, thus lacking any means to influence the people sending them off to risk their lives. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was a common slogan used by the Fabian Communists to lower the voting age. The slogan traced its roots to World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the military draft age to eighteen.
In 1963, the President's Commission on Registration and Voting Participation, in its report to President Johnson, further encouraged considering lowering the voting age. Historian Thomas H. Neale argues that the move to lower the voting age followed a historical pattern similar to other extensions of the franchise; with the escalation of the war in Vietnam, constituents were mobilized and eventually a constitutional amendment passed.
In 1970, Senator Ted Kennedy proposed amending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to lower the voting age nationally. On June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon ignorantly signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. In his statement on signing the extension, Nixon said: “Despite my misgivings about the constitutionality of this provision, I have signed the bill. I have directed the Attorney General to cooperate fully in expediting a swift court test of the constitutionality of the 18-year-old voting provision.”
During debate of the 1970 extension of the Voting Rights Act, Senator Ted Kennedy argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allowed Congress to pass national legislation lowering the voting age. In the 1966 decision of Katzenbach v. Morgan, the Supreme Court ruled that "if Congress acts to enforce the 14th Amendment by passing a law declaring that a type of state law discriminates against a certain class of persons, the Supreme Court will let the law stand if the justices can 'perceive a basis' for Congress's actions".
Although President Nixon disagreed with Kennedy. In a letter to the Speaker of the House and the House minority and majority leaders, in it he asserted that the issue is not whether the voting age should be lowered, but how; in his own interpretation of the Katzenbach case, Nixon argued that to include age as something discriminatory would be too big of a stretch and voiced concerns that the damage of a Supreme Court decision to overturn the Voting Rights Act could be disastrous.
In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Supreme Court considered whether the voting-age provisions Congress added to the Voting Rights Act in 1970 were constitutional. The Court struck down the provisions that established 18 as the voting age in state and local elections. However, the Court upheld the provision establishing the voting age as 18 in federal elections. The Court was deeply divided in this case, and a majority of justices did not agree on a rationale for the holding.
The decision resulted in states being able to maintain 21 as the voting age in state and local elections, but being required to establish separate voter rolls so that voters between 18 and 20 years old could vote in federal elections.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Nixon argued that to include age as something discriminatory would be too big of a stretch and voiced concerns that the damage of a Supreme Court decision to overturn the Voting Rights Act could be disastrous.  Well as it turned out Nixon was absolutely correct.  And now the useful idiots of the Fabian Communists are at it again.  And now instead of the original excuse of “old enough to fight old enough to vote.”  We are encouraging the children’s heads full of the communist brainwashing of Common Core to vote as they have been robotically programed to do.
Under Common Core, all of the little children are all the same, (common) they are little heads full of mush all in a row, like a generation of robots vomiting out what the government has indoctrinated them with.
The useless ignorant idiots just couldn’t wait another two years until the robotically programed children reached age 18 to be unleashed in the political arena and finish changing America from a Free Constitutional Republic, to a full blown Criminal Socialistic Democracy, paving the destructive road to Communist tyranny.
They want to make sure that Burney Sanders an admitted Socialist Democrat communist gets elected as President of these United States so that it becomes a rapid downhill ride to Social Despotism of Centralized Power.
While the Framers knew that all rights, liberty’s and the pursuit of happiness came from Almighty God, as reflected in the Declaration of Independent Thought. The Fabian Communist are indoctrinating your kids with the lie that all rights and every good thing comes from the Almighty Central Government and the declaration of social dependent citizens. This in effect replaces God with Government.
How are you going to like being totally dependent on a criminal autocracy???
Thanks for listening - de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

What’s Really Going On In Oregon


What’s Really Going On In Oregon
And who are the real' illegal occupiers?

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for  
Published February 11, 2016

Now that the so-called occupation of government land in Oregon is officially over,  one must understand what was really going on in Oregon – which actually began in Nevada -  More importantly, one must understand what the  Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is, and the evolution of how it came into being.

Who and what is the BLM and is it even legal?

Ed Abbey called it the "Bureau of Livestock and Mines." Less creative writers call it the "Bureau of Land Mismanagement." It sometimes calls itself "the nation's leading conservation agency." Whatever you call it, the Bureau of Land Management illegally owns more of your land than is owned privately. Especially in the Western U.S.

It may also be true that, as a Sierra Club book once said, BLM lands are the "lands no one knows," then the BLM itself is the agency no one knows.

People active in public land issues know that the BLM itself owns and manages more than 264 million acres of land—most of all the land west of the Mississippi is in one way or another illegally owned by the Federal Government not by the people or the states as Constitutional Law requires.

So-called government BLM land is the land "left over" after homesteaders, timber companies, land developers, states, the Forest Service, Park Service, and other private parties and public agencies took the lands they wanted. The Bureau also owns the mineral rights on both its land and most other federal lands.

Each of these illegal encroachments on the 10th Amendment of U.S. Constitutional law represents a bit of evolutionary pork, a favor Congress handed out to some special interest at the expense of every free American--and, often, with a serious environmental cost as well. Yet the agency remains largely unknown to the average ignorant brainwashed American.

As in any criminal government agencies, there is no oversight, no one even knows or keeps track of revenues vs. expenses. This is not surprising, since Congress has always focused on physical outputs rather than efficiency or profitability. This has allowed the Bureau to become wasteful and inefficient. Even if physical outputs were an appropriate goal, those outputs could be produced at a far lower cost by the states themselves.

History of the BLM

The BLM was created in 1946, when the Department of the Interior merged two older agencies: the General Land Office, created in 1800 to sell off the public lands and encourage settlement; and the Grazing Service, created in 1934 to manage grazing on public lands. The conflicting mandates of land disposal and land stewardship contributed to a schizophrenic nature that remains to this day.

The General Land Office

The General Land Office's man-date was to dispose of the hundreds of millions of acres the federal government had acquired from treaties with Indian tribes, English land grants, and other land deals. The very first branch, located in Cincinnati, gave western settlers access to auctions of public domain land that had previously been held in New York City and other eastern ports.

The Grazing Service

Outside the national forests, homesteading and unrestricted livestock use on public domain lands continued unabated until the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which directed the Secretary of Interior "to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing." The secretary created the Division of Grazing (renamed the Grazing Service in 1939), complete with "regional grazers" to complement the Forest Service's regional foresters. Like the Forest Service, the Grazing Division was established to bring order from social chaos and to impose controls on public land grazing.

The 1946 debates over the Grazing Service led the Secretary of the Interior to combine that agency with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM inherited the Grazing Service's mission of managing the public domain while it was still public and the General Land Office's mission of disposing of the public domain. In the eyes of the cattlemen, it was a temporary agency only necessary until they could gain title to the public domain.

The BLM and Minerals

The United States initially leased, then sold, minerals on lands it held in the east. The 1848 discovery of gold in California, however, caught the United States without a general mineral policy in the West. Miners developed their own laws and regulations, organize mining districts, devise rules to determine how claims were staked and titles held, and enforce these in miner courts.

BLM and Forestry

The BLM's largest timber holdings are on Oregon and California (O&C) lands. These lands had been granted in 1866 to the Oregon and California Railroad Company for construction of a railroad from Portland to San Francisco. The company, which only reached the Oregon border, ignored the conditions of the land grant--that lands be sold to actual settlers in 160-acre parcels for no more than $2.50 per acre--so in 1916, Congress illegally revoked title to nearly 3 million acres of the grant. In 1919, the federal government illegally reclaimed another 93,000 acres from the nearby Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant.

So how does this all relate to the Oregon and Nevada land occupation?

First a sequential report on the major confrontations in Oregon:

January 4, 2016: The Hammonds report to prison in California, even though the Hammond’s had already served their original sentences resulting in double jeopardy and violating their Fifth Amendment rights. Their attorney announces that they'll seek pardons from President Barack Obama.  During the original trial the Hammonds Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a witness for the defense was not allowed.  The witness saw the BLM set fires that burned over to the Hammonds property.

January 5, 2016: Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum, an Arizona rancher often serving as spokesman for the occupiers, says he believes there's a warrant for his arrest and tells reporters: 'I'm not going to spend my last days in a cell. This world is too beautiful to spend it in a cell.'

January 6, 2016: Cheers erupt at a community meeting in Burns when the appointed not elected Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward who previously worked for the BLM, says it's time for the occupiers to 'pick up and go home.'

January 7, 2016: Ward and two other sheriffs meet with Bundy and other occupation leaders at a remote intersection, but nothing is resolved.

January 11: 2016: The occupiers announce they're going through documents and accessing computers used by employees at the refuge. They tear down a stretch of government-erected fence, saying they are giving a local rancher access to the preserve.

January 19, 2016: Several hundred people rally in Portland — about 300 miles north of the remote refuge in southeastern Oregon — to demand that Bundy end the occupation and to note that federal management makes it possible for all kinds of people to enjoy public lands.

January 20: 2016: Oregon Gov. Kate Brown says she's angry that federal authorities have not yet taken action against the occupiers and that she plans to bill the U.S. government for what the standoff has cost Oregon taxpayers.

January 21, 2016: Bundy goes to the airport in Burns where federal officials have set up a staging area and, with reporters watching, speaks on the phone with who is apparently an FBI negotiator.

January 23, 2016: Occupiers hold an event at the refuge for ranchers to renounce grazing permits.

January 26, 2016: Bundy and other occupation leaders leave the preserve to hold an evening meeting in a town about 100 miles north of the refuge. The FBI and Oregon State Police move in to make arrests on a highway, resulting in a confrontation that leads to the killing of Finicum. In the following days, three more arrests were made.

January 28, 2016: The FBI releases an aerial video of the fatal traffic stop. Authorities say it shows Finicum reaching toward a loaded gun before police shoot him.  Question was: how did the police know it was a gun.

January 29: 2016: Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy, Ryan Payne and five others appear in federal court in Portland, where a judge denies their release.

February 1, 2016: Four holdouts remain at the refuge and say they want to be allowed to go without arrest. Bundy calls for them to leave.

February 10, 2016: The FBI surrounds the last four occupiers as the holdouts argue with a negotiator and yell at law enforcement officers in armored vehicles to back off.


February 11, 2016: The remainder of the so-called government land occupiers surrender to the FBI and local police. 


As I said this all started in Nevada

In the case of The United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, involved court orders, injunctions, and notices.


Bundy argued pro se (without a lawyer) that the land belongs to the state.


The Bureau of Land Management was represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the United States Department of JusticeDistrict Judge Larry R. Hicks ruled that the land on which Bundy was grazing his cattle was indeed owned by the federal government, and that Bundy had not been paying to use it as he should have been, that Bundy was trespassing, and that the government had the right to enforce the injunctions against trespass.


But the Question is: What are the rights of government to own land?


As noted in my Article titled “Is The BLM Good For America?” I included the Constitutional law regarding the Federal ownership of land.

Here is the law: (Art I, Sect. 8, and Clause 17) of the U.S. Constitution.

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings." (Emphasis Mine)

Not only was there no consent of the states to purchase state land, but the BLM has nothing to do with “…the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” for the operation of the Federal Government as the U.S. Constitution requires.
So to answer the question: Is the existence of the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), even constitutionally legal?
A big fat red NO ‘, my constitutionally challenged Americans!

Below is a map of the lower 48 states as well as inserts of Alaska and Hawaii, and unless one is totally color blind one can easily see what the Federal Government illegally owns.  It’s all the land in RED my friend. 

Nearly the entire Western United States is illegally and unconstitutionally owned and occupied by the Federal Government and controlled by the BLM or other Federal Government agencies.

As one can easily see from the map above, the Federal Government illegally owns and controls more than 90 percent of the state of Nevada, more than 65 percent of the state of Oregon, 80 percent of the state of Utah, and so on!  The anti-constitutional criminal oppressive Federal Government illegally owns, occupies and controls approximately a third of the land in the continental United States.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Like most government agencies that exist today, the BLM and the possession of land not needed to run the government is constitutionally illegal.  Most government agencies simply evolved from other agencies which in themselves are questionably legal in the first place.  An example would be the original ATF.  A tax collection agency, which was originally extension of the IRS for the collection of such questionable ‘Special Taxes’ on alcohol, tobacco, and fire arms.  Now known to have evolved into the BATFE and a Military Organization.  All of which is a violation of the Tenth Amendment among other Constitutional laws.

If one were to do a study on the constitutionality of all the Federal government agencies one would soon find that the vast majority of the Federal Government itself has done nothing but illegally evolved from a limited Constitutional Central government, (the historical intention and letter of the Constitutional Framers and Architects) into a an out of control militant autocracy.

But then who in America even knows anything about the U.S. Constitution, or much less, even cares anymore.  After all it’s just an old out dated document that use to guarantee the God given rights of every American.   


Are Liberty and Freedom just an old out dated idea of the past???

Thanks for listening - de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.