Sunday, December 30, 2012

We have Constitutional Law on our side - We simply have to enforce the nullification of Unconstitutional Laws by Congress

I have researched court rulings on the constitution.

It seems though Congress and the President may pass and sign federal laws, any that are unconstitutional (like NDAA, FISA, a gun ban, etc) are in reality null and void.   The constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and all states can easily nullify them.  They already have that right, they just have to use it.

The courts, especially the Supreme Court has to rule by the constitution.   They are required to hold the constitution up as the supreme law and then interpret any laws passed by Congress and the Senate using the Constitution as the standard of the law.  They then can nullify federal laws as unconstitutional.  The suits have to be filed and be heard by them of unconstitutional laws.

That means there is no way that the NDAA is in any form constitutional, even though the U.S. government wants to say it is for all the "domestic terrorist", which they think everyone of us are.   This means spying on us without warrants and reading our emails and listening to our phone calls etc is completely unconstitutional.   Needless to say arresting and holding a U.S. citizen without rights to a trial and so on are completely unconstitutional. 

This also means that the state legislators need to have the balls to stand up for the citizens of their states and nullify all federal laws that do not abide and follow our constitution.

It seems they have been able to get by with all the unconstitutional laws due to all of our inactions and ignorance of the laws.   That is what they have counted on and of course all those smart phones, T.V., etc keeps the people in "dumb down" mode.

I believe this gun grab may have been a catalyst to wake people up.

The point with this is... instead of getting ourselves worked up over what they have been doing, we simply need to stand up and give it back to them by the Supreme Law of the land that they can not change.  Once we have the knowledge, we also have the power to stop it.  We just have to do it smart without violence.
**Edit to add.  After I did this article I found that others are writing about the same thing.  Here is a great article from Market Ticker - Karl Denninger about our constitution and it being the Supreme Law of the land and over rules all other laws  **

Here are links proving what I have said above:

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification, is the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional or exceeds Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[2]

A portion of the ruling:

  • Despite the fact that the Court seemed to agree that Marbury was in the right, they ruled against him, because they found that they didn't have the power to hear the case.
    • Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the court system and gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus.
      • Although, to be honest, the Judiciary Act of 1789 should be read to say that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in mandamus cases. Most legal scholars feel that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the law. Section 13 talks about the Supreme Court's Appellate jurisdiction, so it's wrong to read that it gives original jurisdiction.
    • However, Article III of the Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction only in cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, and those in which the state is a party". In all other cases, the Supreme Court only acts as an appellate court to 'inferior courts'.
      • Article III is talking about representatives of foreign governments, not US Ambassadors and Ministers.
      • Article III also has an exceptions clause which states, "...with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make." This can certainly be interpreted to mean that the Judiciary Act of 1789 augments Article III, as opposed to being in conflict with it.
    • Therefore, the Court found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicts with the Constitution.
    • The Court found that in cases of confliction, the Constitution, by right of it's being the basis for the entire government must take precedence. It is superior, paramount, and is unchangeable by ordinary means.
      • Article VI could be read to show that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (aka the Supremacy Clause). Or, you can read it to just say that all laws passed previous to the Constitution no longer count.
      • The Constitution is very clear on how it is to be changed (and it's purposefully hard). If Congress can unofficially change the Constitution through normal transitive legislative means, then what's the point of making it so hard to officially change the Constitution?
    • The Court found that they have a duty to say what the law is. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the right to say that a law enacted by Congress (or anybody else) is invalid, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The judicial power of the US is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
      • Since the Constitution is defined to be a supreme law, somebody has to take on the duty of striking down laws that conflict with the Constitution. And if that isn't the Supreme Court, then who? Court says, "Given the structure of the government, there must be someone whose job it is to say the legislature has done wrong... that power shall flow to the judiciary."
  • So basically, the Court found that they were being asked to uphold two laws that were in conflict, one saying that they could issue a writ of mandamus and one saying they couldn't. Since the Constitution trumps any law Congress makes, the Court is forced to follow the Constitution and find that the conflicting law is not applicable (aka unconstitutional).
    • So they told Marbury that even though he deserved a writ of mandamus they had no power to grant one.
      • Ironically, the ruling significantly increased the power of the Supreme Court by ruling Congress had no right to increase their powers!
  • This case established that Article III of the Constitution is the maximum jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Congress can't give them more powers by just passing a law.
    • They would have to pass a Constitutional amendment in order to give the judiciary more powers.
  • This case also established that the Supreme Court has authority for judicial review of legislative acts.
    • This ruling gave one supposedly co-equal branch of government oversight over another co-equal branch of government!

What this fully means is that We the People of the United States can have the Federal Laws that are completely unconstitutional nullified.  It is time for us to take actions.   I don't know constitutional lawyers.  Maybe someone who is reading this can pass it on to lawyers that are willing to stand up for the constitution.  Also, I believe our military needs to start standing up to the oath they all took which is for the constitution and enemies that are foreign and domestic.   

The enemies of this land are not the ones screaming and shouting about unconstitutional laws, the enemies are the ones who are committing treason and passing unconstitutional laws.

It is now time for us all to stand up on an intellectual basis and not a violent one.  All we have to do is demand that our states rule and nullify by the constitution.  If they will not we need to start filing in Federal Courts all across the land lawsuits against all the unconstitutional laws/bills passed by those who are in Washington D.C.

We need to do this through intelligence not through violence.  We would never win being violent.  The way to win is through what we already have we just have to start having it applied!  No more fear!  Stand up for what our rights are right now.  The Supreme Law of the land is the Constitution!  



Our 2nd amendment is there to protect us against a government that over steps it's bounds of our freedoms.  Due to the government having bigger and badder weapons it is only correct that the U.S. citizens keep up with what could be used against us through tyranny. 

I got an email this morning and I believe it makes a strong argument.

Here is the email I received:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. 
I am the man who keeps you free.
I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. 
I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
    FYI - Obama was on Meet the Press this morning 12/29/12, from my understanding  portions of what he said:

 President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.
“I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it,” said Obama in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”

 Obama on Sunday repeated those calls and said he would meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisles to see action. 
I'd like to get it done in the first year.  I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden's task force is putting together as we speak.  And so this is not something that I will be putting off."
But the push for heightened gun control will likely face tough political opposition, with the nation’s largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), saying they will oppose any new restrictions. 
The group earlier this month held a press conference calling for national program to place armed guards in the nation’s schools, a move they said would be more effective at preventing future tragedies like Newtown. 
Obama on Sunday said that he hoped to involve all “stakeholders” in the national debate over gun violence, but expressed unease with the NRA’s proposal. 
“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me.  I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.  And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” said the president.

 Obama said that he expected even firearm owners to understand the need for new regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting.

So he wants a bill passed immediately and he doesn't think armed guards in schools as the answer to the problem. 

OH.... here is a picture of the guards  where Obama and the "elite" including the media personalities send their children to school in Washington D.C ....hhhmmm... is that the height of hypocrisy?   11 armed guards at that school!

One other thing.  In Israel they arm the teachers.  Just as some states are looking at doing today.  Here is an article about that.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Proof "Smoking 'Guns' - Sandy Hook school shooting pictures of two 'guns/rifles' taken from trunk of car. Hypocrisy of Feinstein and Movie Stars.

Well, it seems that what the authorities have said about the gun used to kill the children in Sandy Hook was a lie.

We have to ask, how could one person in a few minutes time be able to shoot multiple times and kill 26 people.  They had said that only handguns were used in the beginning.  They then changed that.   The news reported that it was "only" handguns taken inside the school.

The court in Connecticut has sealed all the information from the shooting for at least 90 days.  I guess this is so they can straighten the story up more and due to so many on the internet proving what they said has not been the full truth. 

Here is the absolute confirmation from authorities as reported on NBC News:

Then there is the fact that they say he drove his mother's car to the scene.  We now know (though the public does not) is that he did not drive his mother's BMW to the school but a convicted convict's car by the name of Christopher A. Rodia.  The media and authorities have never clarified that.  But it was heard on the radio scanner.

They then came out and said an AR-15 was used in the school shooting and they had been mistaken in saying it was in the trunk of the car.   There was a helicopter that was flying and recording the authorities opening up the trunk of the car.  Here is the video of that.  I also have screen captures of it that are cropped showing them getting two rifles/guns out of the trunk of the car.
I am putting this video at the end of the article as it goes along with all the pictures I screen shot of the video.

Now, why hasn't the media or the authorities mentioned this name in public?  Why haven't they corrected the information that he did not drive his mother's car to the school?   How was he associated with Rodia?  Where is Rodia?  Was he the one that was found hiding in the woods?

What happened to the witness that said she saw 2 men run on the side of the building into the woods?    It was confirmed that there was someone arrested in the woods.  Then there was silence, there has not even been an explanation of who that person was.  

I have written multiple times about the Sandy Hook shooting.   Here are the articles:  Things not adding upschool list of teacherspolice radio scanner (this has the Chris Rodia info over the scanner too), video proof positive of media lie.

What is something I can not even fully comprehend is that beautiful innocent children were killed in a horrific manner, yet we are not getting the truth about what happened.  The story has fallen apart in every way the authorities have tried to push on us with the media.   It has been proven that it could not have happened the way they said.  They still have not mentioned any videos from the school.

I have to talk about the hypocrisy of those who are calling for a gun ban, especially all those celebrities that made a video demanding a "gun plan." All of them looked so serious about the demand and saying the government needs to do something. I have a question for them..... do any of your security guards have guns? I have found lots of pictures and videos of them with their armed bodyguards. Are you willing to have the guns taken from your security before they are taken away from the public at large? Do you feel you have a right to armed security and the populace does not? Here is a great video that shows the stars on that video and the movies they have done.... Love it!

David Gregory of "Meet the Press" was grilling a person trying to shame them regarding the NRA saying armed guards need to be in schools. Gregory was saying that guns should be banned and schools did not need guards. What did he forget to say live on camera regarding that subject? Oh, just the fact that he sends his kids to a school that has 11 armed guards. It is the same school Obama sends his children to. So.... only the "privileged" should have their children protected I gather. All the rest of our children aren't good enough to have protection.

Here is a photo of Sidwell school's armed guards, it looks like they have some pretty intense weapons there.   

Now for the absolute height of hypocrisy - Feinstein who wants to ban guns for the citizens of the United States and is committing a treasonous act by introducing a bill to take away our 2nd amendment has a concealed carry permit which she utilizes.   Out of her own mouth, she said so:

There is a petition calling for her to be impeached. It has 11666 signatures so far.

Here is the video showing the authorities getting two guns out of the vehicle with the screen shots below it. The points to watch are at starting at the 40 second mark going to the 2:40 mark. This shows the trunk of the vehicle.

Here are screen shots from the video above that I captured. You can clearly see two "long" guns taken from the trunk of the vehicle.

Sandy Hook Guns in Trunk

Close up of the vehicle trunk

One of the guns being unloaded before the men in white outfits take it.

One of the guns out of the car as the other man is reaching in to grab the other.

2 guns gotten out of trunk.  One in the top left person's right hand and one in the man's hand on the right.

Close up, where you can see both guns

I don't know what happened at Sandy Hook and I find it really hard to understand and comprehend that beautiful young innocent lives were taken that day.  Was it a false flag to ban guns?  If so the people behind it are truly evil that they would resort to killing beautiful innocent children for a gun grab.   It does not seem possible that Adam Lanza did this on his own with handguns.  We know they have now lied many times about this shooting.  Because of the ongoing lies are why so many of us are questioning the whole event.   What really happened there?  The proof has been shown it could not have been as they have told us though they keep changing the story.

We have never gotten any motive for the killing.  Why the silence from the father, Peter Lanza, who was from all accounts suppose to have been dead in his home in New Jersey.   He has not said one word about it.

I wrote about the history and reasoning of the Revolutionary war and a case history of Zimbabwe and what happened after all the owners of guns were made to register them.  They then were confiscated and then genocide of the people.  All of this with the blessings of the Western governments, including the Queen of England knighting Mugabe in the "Order of the Bath."

Dave Hodges from the Commonsense show wrote about "What History teaches us about Gun Confiscations"

Wow Forbes ran an oped about the 2nd amendment, here is a paragraph from it:

 The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

This is the point that we either stand up for our rights or we let the government take them away.  We have allowed them to do that in the past but we can not anymore.  This is a turning point of the United States of America where we either let her disintegrate into a country that the people that died fighting for our freedoms throughout our history would have died in vain and for naught, or those that stand up.  Are we the generation that gets our country back to where she is a country of the free or will we let her go down into a country of Nazism? 

Where do you stand?

UPDATE 1/14/13 - My message to MSM and them calling anyone questioning Sandy Hook "Nuts and Conspiracy Theorist>"

Friday, December 28, 2012

Let's revisit the Revolutionary War... What led to it . Also.. case history of Zimbabwe from Democracy to Dictatorship with Gun Registration to Confiscation to Genocide

I believe it is time to review the 1775-1783 REVOLUTIONARY WAR where Americans won their Independence FOR THEIR CONSTITUTION against England.

It is very interesting, in that the people in America felt they were being taxed without representation in 1776.... hhmmm... sounds a little familiar.

Also that England was doing things against their "constitutional rights" during that time.   hhmm.... that also sounds familiar.

Here is what Wikipedia has about the REVOLUTIONARY WAR where the United States became it's own country and WHY it happened:

 In this article, inhabitants of the thirteen colonies that supported the American Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans", with occasional references to "Patriots", "Whigs", "Rebels" or "Revolutionaries". Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are referred to as "Loyalists" or "Tories". The geographical area of the thirteen colonies is often referred to simply as "America".

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence,[8] or simply the Revolutionary War in the United States, began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies, but gradually grew into a world war between Britain on one side and the newly formed United States of America, France, Netherlands and Spain on the other. The main result was an American victory and European recognition of the independence of the United States, with mixed results for the other powers.

The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional.[citation needed] The British Parliament insisted it had the right to tax colonists to finance the colonies' military defense, which had become increasingly expensive due to the French and Indian Wars. The colonists claimed that, as they were British subjects, taxation without representation in Parliament was illegal. The American colonists formed a unifying Continental Congress and a shadow government in each colony, though at first remaining loyal to the king. The American boycott of taxed British tea led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773, when shiploads of tea were destroyed. London responded by ending self-government in Massachusetts and putting it under the control of the British army with General Thomas Gage as governor. In April 1775 Gage learned that weapons were being gathered in Concord, and he sent British troops to seize and destroy them.[9] Local militia confronted the troops and exchanged fire (see Battles of Lexington and Concord). After repeated pleas to the British monarchy for intervention with Parliament, any chance of a compromise ended when the Congress were declared traitors by royal decree, and they responded by declaring the independence of a new sovereign nation, the United States of America, on July 4, 1776. American Loyalists rejected the Declaration, and sided with the king; they were excluded from power everywhere. American attempts to expand the rebellion into Quebec and the Floridas were unsuccessful.

France, Spain and the Dutch Republic all secretly provided supplies, ammunition and weapons to the revolutionaries starting early in 1776. By June 1776 the Americans were in full control of every state, but then the British Royal Navy captured New York City and made it their main base. The war became a standoff. The Royal Navy could occupy other coastal cities for brief periods, but the rebels controlled the countryside, where 90 percent of the population lived. British strategy relied on mobilizing Loyalist militia, and was never fully realized. A British invasion from Canada in 1777 ended in the capture of the British army at the Battles of Saratoga. That American victory persuaded France to enter the war openly in early 1778, balancing the two sides' military strength. Spain and the Dutch Republic—French allies—also went to war with Britain over the next four years, threatening an invasion of Great Britain and severely testing British military strength with campaigns in Europe. Spain's involvement resulted in the expulsion of British armies from West Florida, securing the American southern flank. The decisive British naval victory at the Battle of the Saintes thwarted French and Spanish plans to drive Britain out of the Caribbean, and the joint Franco-Spanish attempt to capture the British stronghold of Gibraltar also resulted in similar defeat.
French involvement proved decisive[10] yet expensive, ruining France's economy and driving the country into massive debt.[11] A French naval victory just outside Chesapeake Bay led to a siege by combined French and Continental armies that forced a second British army to surrender at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781. Fighting continued throughout 1782, while peace negotiations began.
In 1783, the Treaty of Paris ended the war and recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded roughly by what is now Canada to the north, Florida to the south, and the Mississippi River to the west.[12][13] A wider international peace was agreed, in which several territories were exchanged.
 There is all kinds of information about the various areas of the war and how it was fought on Wikipedia, here is a little more:

The Americans

The Americans began the war with significant disadvantages compared to the British. They had no national government, no national army or navy, no financial system, no banks, no established credit, and no functioning government departments, such as a treasury. The Congress tried to handle administrative affairs through legislative committees, which proved inefficient. In peacetime the colonies relied heavily on ocean shipping, but that was now shut down by the British blockade.
The Americans had a large, relatively prosperous population (when compared to other colonies) that depended not on imports but on local production for food and most supplies, something the British could not sufficiently rely on. They were on their home ground, had a smoothly functioning, well organized system of local and state governments, newspapers and printers, and internal lines of communications. They had a long-established system of local militia, previously used to combat the French and Native Americans, with companies and an officer corps that could form the basis of local militias, and provide a training ground for the national army that the Congress set up.[92] Fighting on their home ground, the Americans were also much more acclimatised to the climate than the British and their allies.[citation needed]
At the onset of the war, the Americans had no major international allies. Battles such as the Battle of Bennington, Battles of Saratoga and even defeats such as the Battle of Germantown[93] proved decisive in gaining the attention and support of powerful European nations such as France and Spain, who moved from covertly supplying the Americans with weapons and supplies, to overtly supporting them militarily, moving the war to a global stage.[94]
Upon the creation of the Continental Army to combat the British forces and their allies in North America, the army suffered significantly from a lack of an effective training regime, and largely inexperienced officers. The inexperience of its officers was compensated for in part by its senior officers; officers such as George Washington, Horatio Gates, Charles Lee, Richard Montgomery and Francis Marion all had military experience with the British Army during the French and Indian conflict. The Americans solved their training dilemma during their stint in Winter Quarters at Valley Forge, where they were relentlessly drilled and trained by Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a veteran of the famed Prussian General Staff. He taught the Continental Army the essentials of military discipline, drills, tactics and strategy, and wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual, which was used to train American troops up until the War of 1812.[95] When the Army emerged from Valley Forge, they proved their ability to equally match the British troops in battle when they fought a successful strategic action at the Battle of Monmouth.

I found this history very interesting.  It seems that the people had enough of a tyranny government that was taxing and trying to control everything they did.  The people also stood up saying it was unconstitutional.

WOW... it sure is great going back in history especially since we now have a run away government and every elected official has become a traitor to the country.  They have passed legislation over and over again that directly conflicts with our constitution.  From the NDAA bill that allows the detaining of U.S. citizens without any rights, the new bill they just passed that allows all of our electronic emails to be read without warrants and now they are going to take our guns.   Besides that we are now treated as criminals and terrorist and have to prove our innocence instead of being the other way around.

We have a treasonous government that does not recognize the constitution in any form anymore.  They have locked us up in an Orwellian world.  We are watched when driving down the road and walking down the street.  Who knows how they can see into our homes and bedrooms now.   (besides of course phones doing that)

I for one do not understand how the people of this country don't give a shit about their country and what the government does to them.  I guess they are too zombied out and brainwashed with their little smart phones that mean more to them then freedoms.

We have traitors of our constitution and country that are making the laws of this country.  But the laws were all ready set in 1776 when Americans won a hard fought Revolutionary war for their FREEDOMS!

One thing is for sure the Americans of 1776 had the balls to stand up to tyranny and traitors......

Funny how during that time they called those who stood up for their country "Patriots" now they call those who stand up for their country "terrorists."  Kind of funny how that has turned around.... who would have ever thought people would be considered "terrorists" for being a constitutional law abiding citizen? 

With the Feinstein bill in the Senate to confiscate guns including hand guns and registration of all guns, I believe we need to look at current history of what can happen if that is allowed to occur.

FYI - Feinstein says she has been working for over one year on the bill!  That says there was "premeditation" to take away our 2nd amendment rights way before the Connecticut shooting.  Just like the Patriot Act right after 9/11, which had already been written a year before. 
“I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation,” Feinstein added. “It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons that fall outside the bill’s scope. We must take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.”


Please make sure to see how England has supported Mugabe and the Queen has even knighted him when he was committing Genocide against the citizens of Zimbabwe!

Mugabe at UN

It is now time to look at the most recent country that was a Democracy that had 3 levels of government for protection.  Zimbabwe, believe it or not had an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government for shared power before 1980 when Mugabe was "elected" as President.  Since 2000 the structure of government completely collapsed.

Since the defeat of the constitutional referendum in 2000, politics in Zimbabwe has been marked by a move from the norms of democratic governance, such as democratic elections, the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, freedom from racial discrimination, the existence of independent media, civil society and academia. Recent years have seen widespread violations of human rights.
 Here is an article on how Mugabe is President for life now and has committed genocide in the country. 

 The Robert Mugabe government of Zimbabwe is the most corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent in Africa. And, on a continent that has the most corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent governments in the entire world, Mugabe’s achievement in this regard is a truly dubious distinction. [The iPINIONS Journal, March 2005]

Five years ago, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa; today, it is a basket case of starving people. Five years ago, there were 4000 white-owned farms in Zimbabwe; today, there are only 400 – mostly unproductive – farms left. [The iPINIONS Journal, March 2005]

Now... this is MOST interesting about Zimbabwe..... this was written by the "Jewish society for Preservation of gun ownership.

Zimbabwe enacted a gun law that made certain guns illegal and then a National registrar of guns was implemented.   Wow  that sounds totally familiar!   Once the guns were confiscated and the "legal" guns were registered.... the government knew who to target for the kill! 

Breaking News --
Zimbabwe Gun Confiscation Ordered!

What more proof do you need?

So-called sensible gun laws, such as national registration of firearms and licensing of owners, pave the way for gun confiscation. We've said it for over 15 years.
We described the process in detail in Death by "Gun Control" (book) and "Innocents Betrayed" (video). We provided copies of the key provisions of the laws that set up "gun control" that later enabled genocide. In our book we even provided copies of the provisions of the gun laws in Zimbabwe. (See pages 190-193).

Breaking News -- July 2, 2005: The Zimbabwe government has ordered confiscation of civilian firearms.

Read the news item:

The news report begins:
"Zimbabwe police have ordered all civilians to surrender firearms in what insiders said was a precautionary measure in a charged country after the government demolished thousands of homes and informal businesses in a controversial urban clean-up exercise.

"Police at the weekend said they were revoking licences for all automatic rifles and some types of pistols and said civilians owning such weapons had until today to surrender them.

"The law enforcement agency did not give reasons for the action but warned Zimbabweans that they could be prosecuted for failing to hand in their guns."

This is no trivial matter. On June 7, 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars published a warning about the looming danger of mass murder by government in Zimbabwe.

Read the scholars' declaration:

Notice that the genocide scholars do see the danger -- but they fail to point out that "gun control" with follow-up gun confiscation are two key elements to making the Zimbabwe persecution and genocide possible. The scholars calmly call for various international agencies to "exert diplomatic pressure" on Zimbabwe.

If the Rwanda genocide provides any example, then hoping for international help for persecuted Zimbabweans is beyond foolish, it's fatally stupid.

People who want to protect their lives and their families and their communities must commit to taking care of the job themselves. Civilian disarmament laws work against people protecting themselves and their families. Those laws (when obeyed) leave the disarmed people subject to persecution and destruction.

The genocide scholars don't get it. The civilian disarmament ("gun control") advocates and lobbyists don't get it.

What will it take for American gun owners and pro-rights citizens to unify against "gun control" and proclaim the vicious injustice that "gun control" laws impose upon innocent people?

Action items: read these articles (above) and forward this Alert to every gun owner you know.

What is absolutely reprehensible is the fact that England and the Western countries have supported Mugabe's genocide and have looked the other way. What is even in-comprehensible is the fact that the Queen of England knighted Mugabee into the "Order of the Bath." while he was committing genocide against the citizens of Zimbabwe.

At the same time, asked by the BBC Panorama stringers for comment, British deputy high commissioner Roger Martin defended Mugabe’s ethnic cleansing as “comprehensible, it has a certain rationality other than mere brutishness”, he said.

The symbiotic relationship between Mugabe and the British did not end with rhetorical support and money changing hands, but it extended to royal endorsement for Mugabe and his policies.

 In 1994 the queen of England invited Mugabe to England’s Buckingham Palace and Knighted him with the Order of Bath when Mugabe’s hands were still dripping with the blood of black civilians slaughtered in the Gukurahundi genocide.

When I have written "We are going Zimbabwe in regards to the money printing the U.S. is doing in previous articles, I had no idea we were going Zimbabwe in all respects. 

I have to wonder if there are those at the top of the current U.S. government that have studied history and how to take over and create a dictatorship through "doing the best for the people?"

OUR 2nd Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Also it is interesting to see where so many people's mindset is in this country when I read comments about the gun ban.  I see so many calling gun owners "murderers, terrorists, criminals, etc. just for owning a gun.  WOW, who knew that utilizing the 2nd amendment of our constitution would become a criminal event.....

Oh, one other thing... seems the morning shows aren't mentioning the confiscation of hand guns as part of their news.....  so funny how the network medias work.  Guess they don't want to let the public as a whole know the government is going for confiscation and registration.... which could possibly lead to ALL confiscation and genocide of the people of the United States when there are no more rights by laws created, by those in Washington for the citizens of the U.S. I am not saying genocide is planned in the U.S., I am saying that history shows genocide happens when the citizens of countries are disarmed for the "betterment of the country and the people's good."

Read these Bill of Rights.... and tell me if there is even ONE left......  We have let them take our Rights away one by one.... they have done it slowly but surely.   Every thing in bold is GONE and no more......

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Natural News wrote an article about gun confiscation today.   It is a great read. 

I am simply stating history with this article and stating the obvious.  Those who are in Washington D.C. took the oaths to uphold our Constitution and Bill of Rights in these United States, but they have done the opposite.  At what point will we demand our rights be returned and our Constitution be reinstated?   Also by asking these questions and stating the obvious does that make me a "criminal"?   If so... that would mean our 1st amendment is also gone. 

I don't believe we will be able to stop any confiscation of guns because the reality is they will go to individual homes with Swat teams etc.   There is no mass defending of our rights individually.  I believe it will need to be through our justice system and waking people up to the fact we don't have rights anymore.   I believe the military will need to take a hard look at the destruction of our Bill of Rights and the treason that is being committed.  They took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States.  

Where on this Earth and in what country are people really free?  Tell me that and there will be a mass exodus of Americans.

FYI - There is a petition to try Feinstein for Treason on the site.  I don't believe it will actually go anywhere, but I had signed it yesterday.  Today Alex Jones wrote about it. 
Maybe if enough people sign it.... our displeasure and our stand for our rights will get noticed more.

I have one more question for everyone....... Did all those U.S. soldiers throughout our history that gave their lives for our freedoms die in vain as we let our Freedoms disappear, when they fought for them? 

NRA not just about Guns it is about our Freedoms! 

Thursday, December 27, 2012

OMG - Senate Bill for Guns would ban handguns too. Any owned: government wants all info of person including fingerprints.


The Feinstein bill is going for the works with banning guns.  It includes handguns too.  Basically any semi-automatic guns that can hold more than 10 rounds.

I am appalled with the fact that they are really going for our 2nd amendment right.

This is Wrong in every respect.  A whole country is going to be penalized for a few nut jobs.

I can't believe this will pass, but then again we don't know what they have planned for us in the future.

I want to see all those associated with the government officials who may protect them get rid of their guns first!  But.... oh wait... it will be fine for a few to have the guns for protection but the masses will not be allowed their rights?

It is time for us to stand up for our Constitution, they have taken it away, but it is our Rights and our decree as this country's laws should uphold!


Here is the Bill from Feinstein's website linked above:

UPDATE 12/28/12 - I just read Feinstein's statement on the new bill, which is linked below.
This is VERY telling - it shows "premeditation, just like the Patriot act after 9/11"  She has been working on taking our 2nd amendment right away for over one year now! 

“I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation,” Feinstein added. “It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons that fall outside the bill’s scope. We must take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.”

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons

Stay informed

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.
To receive updates on this legislation, click here.

Press releases

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
  • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

BTW - I am shocked at the type of comments I have been reading on places like Huffington Post and other very liberal media sites.

People are calling gun owners "crooks" and "murderers" besides many other things.  I am literally shocked that some believe those who own guns are criminals.  How is it that being a law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights makes them a criminal? 

What has happened to this country?

NRA not just about Guns it is about our Freedoms!

Abolish the Federal Reserve Act Petition on

We have all read about the "Deport Piers Morgan" petition for trying to get our 2nd amendment taken away when he is not even a U.S. citizen.

This is what the petition says:
 British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

I did not want to sign up on a government site for petitions, but I went ahead and did so today to sign the Morgan petition.   Which has over 80000 signatures now.

I was number 81486 on that petition.

There is an abolish the Federal Reserve Act petition on the site that was just put up.   I signed that one and was number 287.   Obviously there needs to be thousands who sign the petition.

This is what the petition says:  (I believe better words could have been used, but the point is to abolish the Federal Reserve Act)

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
Now this one I believe is very important.  It is up to all of us to stand up and try and get that done, just as Ron Paul has been trying for decades.

Collectively we should sign this petition and try and get it everywhere on social media sites, just as the Morgan one has been, to have people aware of it.

By taking a stance and signing it, all of us who are the 99% can begin being the power and force who are stronger than the 1%.

This petition deserves our attention and signing for our liberty and freedom from debt. 

We have to stand up and have the courage to put our name to what we stand for!

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

The U.S govt and media are the biggest bullies in the world. Drone killings - Media: names and address of gun owners in N.Y. online.

(Warning.. graphic images are in this article)

The U.S. government is the biggest bully in the world.  Not just to other countries in the world but to the citizens of the U.S. too.

Let's stop to think  about what the U.S. government does around the world.

First the government kills women and children all the time through drone attacks.  They do this indiscriminately.   The U.S. government does this even without the approval of the countries they are killing the people in.   The U.S. doesn't care about the sovereignty of another country.    I have been researching drone attacks in Pakistan and how many innocent men, women and children the U.S. has killed. (I am going to include some of the research and information at the bottom of this article)

It really is sad to see a country that was suppose to be the shining light of humanity when it was formed with equal justice for all.  Yet the country has degraded so badly due to the morals of the leaders/elected officials.

We were suppose to be a place that other countries and people could look up to as an example of moral and ethical leadership and how the people of the country were free, yet worked for the benefit of all of mankind.

The U.S. as it stands today has become the most immoral country with the least ethical leaders of the world.

Through torture, jailing people without any rights or justice in a courtroom (including U.S. citizens), invading other countries, killing the innocent people including children without thought or remorse, poisoning it's own citizens through the air, water and food and bullying it's own citizens to get it's way.

Now... there is that term "Like begets Like."

The government has become a bully, yet they are shocked when citizens of the U.S. act out in a violent manner.  I don't believe people should act out in violence at all, but I also don't pretend to be "holier than thou" either, like the U.S. government does.

How did the country come to believe that we are the ones with the rights to all things in the world and to hell with the rest of the people of the world?

The U.S bullies it's citizens and creates a mind set through the media of "peer pressure."  They did this with those who smoke cigarettes, to the point of smokers hiding to smoke. In N.Y. and California, you can't even smoke in the opened air hardly.  It doesn't not matter if you agree with smoking or not... the fact is the U.S. became a bully to those who do.   FYI - I have researched about smoking and it is not all that it has been made to be.  The facts are what causes cancer are all the 3000 additives the big corps put in.  If people smoked pure tobacco without additives.. then it is actually good for you in many ways.   Don't just believe me... do some research yourself.   Also at the time of the big push against smokers, is when they began chemtrails in the 80's.  (Smoke coats your lungs so you don't absorb a lot of the poisons)

Now with the gun issue, the government and media are going to attempt to do the same thing  with gun owners.  Where gun owners will hide the fact they have guns.  They are using the media to go after legal gun owners, to make them ashamed of owning a gun.  It is exactly what they did with smokers.

A media outlet decided to risk people's lives and safety by putting an interactive map of law abiding citizens who have a legal right and permit to own a gun.  The address and names of all of those U.S. citizens in 3 counties in New York are on the net.  They are there for any robber or desperate person to get a hold of a gun, to break in.    But what the base of this is, is to bully those who are law abiding citizens who utilize their 2nd amendment of the constitution to have a gun.   They are trying to get people to give up their guns through "embarrassment."  (I will again say, this is exactly what they did with smokers.  Many gave up smoking due to the peer pressure and being ostracized for smoking.)

Update 12/26/12 10:10 pm - Article about ..A blogger put up an interactive map of the newpaper's staff with their names and addresses.  This includes the publisher's home address that put out the gun owners interactive map. 
Here is the actual information on the bloggers site of the names and addresses of the staff. 

 What that media outlet has done is one of the biggest bullying tactics and they may have caused people to lose their lives in the future by doing so.  I can only hope that all of those people who are on the map with their names and addresses will have their guns next to them at night now.   There may be shootings in defense of themselves in houses around N.Y.

If people view things with a clear and honest vision, they will see that the U.S. government and media is the bully in the school yard that talks out of both sides of their mouth.

Children learn through their peers and parents as they are growing up, what is right and wrong.  They learn how to treat others through their experiences and culture.   Is there any wonder there is more violence now in the world, when the U.S. kills innocent people around the world and invades countries?  All anyone has to do is look at what they are being taught by those that are suppose to uphold the morals and ethics of the country.   Is there any wonder that kids think it is okay to bully another, when the U.S. government does it to the rest of the world?  Is it any wonder that kids think violence is okay over all, when the U.S. commits violent acts around the world?  Is there any wonder that people think they can get away with crimes when all the bankers that have committed fraud are free and never prosecuted?  

The media acts so outraged when someone does something in the U.S. of a violent nature.  Isn't it time that the U.S. government and media look in the mirror to view themselves? 

I have never played a violent game that I see advertisements on all the time... I am not a "gamer."  I personally don't see how someone can find killing lots of people in a game as being fun.   I do have a question, how does someone distinguish what is real or fiction when they spend hours and hours in those role playing games of killing others?

It is up to each of us to recognize bullying when we see it.  It is up to each of us to not be a part of it and speak out against bullying by an individual, government, media or peer group.

We have to stand up to bullying and it seems that the U.S. government and media gets what they want through bully tactics.    Don't forget that the U.S. government is now using drones insides the U.S..  I have no doubt at some point they will justify bombing their own citizens and the media of course will have their back in convincing people why it should be done.

Don't think that will happen?  Let me ask you this... did you ever think that owning a gun would become like smoking..where you have to hide that fact and be "ashamed" of it due to government and media pressure?

Regarding Drones there have been studies done in regards to how many people have been killed by drones and if drones really hit their targets or simply kills innocent men, women and children.

Last week an article came out "Confessions of a Drone Operator." 
The guy quit after he killed an innocent child, yet another person that was part of the government called that child a "dog."    It makes you stop and contemplate... how did the morals in our government go so far down to call a child a dog?  

I began researching drones and what the U.S has done and how many children have been killed last week.

The U.S. has continually jeopardized other countries sovereignty by using drones to kill the citizens of the country.   You have to wonder what would happen if another country felt it was there right to use drones inside the U.S. boundaries to kill people they said were a threat to their country?   We know that a war would start as the U.S. would scream and shout that the country that is using the drones would be committing "acts of war."   The U.S. would be the typical bully in that they can do as they want but don't turn the tables on them... then it is "unfair and unjust."

There is this site of the stories of the victims of U.S. drone attacks. 

Here is the information about a village and innocent people killed from a U.S. drone attack.

As of August 2011 an estimated 168 innocent children have been killed by the United States government and they have not once apologized for it.  

Where are the morals and ethics of that?

The Columbia Law school did an extensive study about U.S. drone attacks and their impact on the countries and citizens that were attacked. 

It is 83 pages long but I have taken segments out of it that I believe are important to this discussion and understanding of what the U.S. has and is doing.

You will find that it is the CIA and the JSOC that do not have to admit what they do nor is there oversight to their killing anyone they want.  They don't answer to the military nor anyone else, except to the President.   

Oh another thing, I did not realize how extensively the U.S. using drones around the world and in many countries.  It is not just Pakistan and Afghanistan that drones are used.

Here are excerpts from the article:

In locations such as northern Pakistan, where drones often buzz overhead 24 hours a

day, people live in constant fear of being hit.125 Michael Kugelman of the Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars notes: “I have heard Pakistanis speak about children in the

tribal areas who become hysterical when they hear the characteristic buzz of a drone. […]

Imagine the effect this has on psyches, and particularly on young ones already scarred by

war and displacement.”126 Unlike deaths and property loss, which may affect one or more
families, the fear associated with covert drone strikes affects nearly everyone in a community.

The information included here is not comprehensive, as despite public and repeated allusions

to covert drone strikes by Obama Administration officials in 2011 and 2012, most official

materials related to the drone program are classified. Even the existence of a CIA drone

program remains classified, although government officials have repeatedly leaked information
to the media.2 In our interviews with government officials, most were unwilling to speak

about drone operations outside of Afghanistan. The persistent government secrecy on this
issue, particularly surrounding the involvement of the CIA and JSOC, leads us to term drone

strikes outside of Afghanistan as “covert.” In this report, we use “covert” in the colloquial,
rather than legal sense.3

Until 2006, the US reportedly notified the Pakistani government before launching strikes.62

Since that time, the Pakistani government has publicly signaled its rejection of drone strikes
as a violation of sovereignty, but there are numerous reports of its consent to continuing

strikes.63 In spring 2012, the US increased the frequency of drone
strikes, reportedly out of concern that the CIA would soon need to
halt operations due to the opposition of the Pakistani government.64
The degree of Pakistani government cooperation, including intelligence
and surveillance support, may be diminished at present.65

US strikes in Yemen increased in spring 2012, with between 15 and 62 reported strikes,
more than in the previous ten years combined.75 Media reports suggest that JSOC personnel
are on the ground in Yemen, coordinating the drone strikes. US officials state that
current drone strikes are only carried out with Yemeni government approval.76

However,in 2011, during a period of political turmoil and government transition in Yemen, the United States reportedly conducted strikes without approval.77

It remains unclear which agency takes operational lead or under which agency’s legal authority

the operations are conducted.78 In 2011, unnamed Obama Administration officials described

JSOC and CIA operations as “closely coordinated” but separate campaigns.79 Some

2011 media accounts described US operations as run by JSOC, but with CIA assistance.80

According to one account, CIA and JSOC alternate Predator missions in Yemen and borrow

each other’s resources.”81 JSOC commanders “appear on videoconference calls alongside
CIA station chiefs.”82

The scale of drone strikes in Somalia is still unknown, but appears to be increasing. A

Bureau of Investigative Journalism study estimated between ten and 21 US airstrikes in

Somalia as of publication—three to 12 of which may have been drone strikes. According to

the Bureau, the strikes resulted in between 58 and 169 deaths.89 The UN Monitoring Group

on Somalia and Eritrea stated in late June 2012 that “the number of reports concerning the
use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Somalia in 2011-12 has increased.”90

As a sampling of figures:
In Somalia, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that since 2007,
US covert actions—including operations other than drone strikes—have resulted
in the death of 58 to 169 individuals as of September 2012, of which
11 to 57 were civilians.101

In Yemen, the New America Foundation reports that drone strikes killed
531 to 779 people, with a civilian casualty rate between 4 percent and 8.5
percent, as of June 2012.102

In Pakistan, statistics are compiled by both Pakistan-based organizations
and foreign organizations, and they vary.103 The Bureau of Investigative
Journalism reports a total of 2,562 to 3,325 total killed in drone strikes,
including 474 to 881 civilian deaths as of September 2012.

Increasing Violence & Instability
Some commentators are concerned that drones may actually be contributing to an increase
in violence in Pakistan and Yemen, although studies are not conclusive and some observers
disagree. Since the drone program in Pakistan began, there has been an increase in
deaths due to terrorist incidents, peaking at 2,500 civilians killed in 2011, according to the
US State Department’s National Counterterrorism Center.113 This increase appears to predate
the escalation of drone strikes in 2008; we are not aware of a study that conclusively
demonstrates a causal link between drone strikes and increased violence. To the contrary,
some commentators argue that drone strikes have correlated with a slight decrease in
violence.114 The conflicting evidence illustrates the confusion over the effectiveness of the
US counterterrorism strategy, and the imperative for US policymakers to question—and fully
and adequately clarify—the impact of covert drone operations on the ground, including the
changing impact over time.
Drone strikes have also hit many homes in Yemen.133

Strikes have contributed to ongoing violence, which has
led to the displacement of over 100,000 people.134 Displacement
impacts every layer of civilian life and threatens
the stability of the community. 
An airstrike in Jaar,
a town in southern Yemen, reduced an entire block to
rubble in two consecutive explosions; however, whether
the strike was by the US or Yemeni government is unknown.

According to media reports, the threat or prevalence of drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan
mean some parents are unwilling to send their children to school out of fear.138 In
Pakistan, there have been several reports of drone strikes that have damaged or destroyed
local schools.139

Usman Wazir was at his job selling fruits when a drone hit his house, killing his younger
brother, his wife, their 15-year-old son, and 13-year-old daughter. He told the Center, “I demand
compensation for each member of my family and demand that my house is rebuilt.”143
For civilians who demand justice for such losses, there is no known process in Pakistan, Yemen,
or Somalia by which they can apply for compensation or file a claim of personal loss.
This is compounded by the fact that the existence of the drone program has for so long
been officially denied by the US government.

Events following one particular drone strike illustrate the complexities of deciphering an
accurate story of civilian harm. On August 23, 2010, a CIA strike reportedly killed at least
seven civilians in Pakistan. Unnamed US officials repeatedly told media for a year after this
incident that there were no civilian deaths from drone strikes:

Demand for drone pilots and other personnel will only increase as the US continues to rely
on this technology; indeed, in 2011 the demand reportedly prompted the Air Force to consider
having pilots control four planes at once.249

We are not aware of any cases in Pakistan or Yemen where drone strike civilians have received
apologies, explanations or monetary payments as amends from the US Government.

With limited information, we cannot conclude that either the CIA or JSOC is inherently unsuitable
to conduct drone strikes, although we have concerns based on their past practices.

It is incumbent upon policymakers with access to more information—particularly members
of Congress—to scrutinize and inform public debate on the suitability of the CIA and JSOC.
International law—particularly the laws of war—would require the CIA to take steps to
reduce civilian harm in using force, but observers debate whether the CIA sees itself as
bound by it. The statements of government officials have been ambiguous.308 In a major
address, Preston described the CIA’s compliance with international law “principles”—as
opposed to “rules” or treaty provisions. (To be fair, the same can be said of remarks by
his counterparts at other agencies.309) Some observers speculate that the CIA interprets
statutory provision 50 USC section 413b(a)(5)—which prohibits the president from authorizing
“any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States”—as
freeing the CIA from international law obligations, since it omits mention of them.310 A US
Army colonel notes that the Department of Defense “is legally bound to execute its military
operations in accordance with the laws of armed conflict”; “the CIA, however, is under no
similar requirement regarding international law.”311

Accounts of the CIA’s lawyering practices describe adherence to US law, but seldom mention
international law. According to Goldsmith:
These operators spend their days and nights on deceptive and deceitful
tasks that violate foreign and some international laws as well as everyday
ethics. They are constantly reminded that whatever other rules and laws
they must violate in their work, they must not violate US law.312

International law—particularly the laws of war—would require the CIA to take steps to
reduce civilian harm in using force, but observers debate whether the CIA sees itself as
bound by it. The statements of government officials have been ambiguous.308 In a major
address, Preston described the CIA’s compliance with international law “principles”—as
opposed to “rules” or treaty provisions. (To be fair, the same can be said of remarks by
his counterparts at other agencies.309) Some observers speculate that the CIA interprets
statutory provision 50 USC section 413b(a)(5)—which prohibits the president from authorizing
“any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States”—as
freeing the CIA from international law obligations, since it omits mention of them.310 A US
Army colonel notes that the Department of Defense “is legally bound to execute its military
operations in accordance with the laws of armed conflict”; “the CIA, however, is under no
similar requirement regarding international law.”311

As watchdogs in the form of journalists and human rights organizations struggle to garner
factual information in the relatively inaccessible areas where covert drones strikes occur,
the public is especially reliant on Congress to take the lead in scrutinizing the CIA’s actions.
Yet Congress’s obligation extends further: to contribute to public debate. As former CIA
lawyer and minority staff director for the House intelligence committee Suzanne Spaulding
emphasizes, Congress has the responsibility “to inform and lead public discussion and
debate” particularly “about how best to address the long term threat of terrorism.” 339 There
are established procedures for Congress to declassify and publicize previously secret information,
but these procedures have reportedly never been employed, and certainly not with
regard to covert drone strikes.340

JSOC “camouflages itself with cover names, black budget mechanisms, and bureaucratic
parlor tricks” to maintain its secrecy.342 Indeed, the official description of JSOC is confusing,
mentioning a host of roles: “ to study Special Operations requirements, ensure...interoperability
and equipment standardization, develop...joint Special Operations plans and tactics,
and conduct...joint Special Operations exercises and training.” These descriptions make no
mention of JSOC’s targeting or drone operations.343

The entirety of JSOC’s relationship to the conventional military forces and its rules is unknown.
As a general matter, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) provides special
forces units to geographic commands. “Once those forces are in a geographic combatant
commander’s area of responsibility, they work for that commander…under the same rules as
other forces,” a SOCOM officer told the Columbia Human Rights Clinic by email.344 However,
there are indications that JSOC operates independently of the conventional military forces’
geographic combatant commands and that it has its own rules of engagement.345

Unfortunately, there is so much secrecy about JSOC’s operations that it is difficult to evaluate
whether, and to what extent, JSOC’s relationship to the law and mechanisms to reduce
civilian harm continues to be problematic. This lack of transparency is compounded by
JSOC’s relative freedom from congressional scrutiny. As journalist March Ambinder notes,
“many in Congress who’d be very sensitive to CIA operations almost treat JSOC as an entity
that doesn’t have to submit to oversight.”361

Covert drone strikes enjoy wide political support as an attractive alternative to counterinsurgency
strategies that cost significant US blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan.383 As
the Administration seeks to counter a growing number of groups it describes as al-Qaeda
affiliates in a growing number of places around the globe, it may view strikes as an alternative
to adding multiple new land-war fronts in the Middle East and Africa. Policymakers
appear comfortable and confident that “surgical” drone strikes
conducted by the CIA and JSOC will disrupt militant groups and
prevent terrorist plots, and increasingly favor this strategy over alternative
means to establish security or set conditions for peace.384
In February 2012, the Bureau of Investigative
Journalism reported that at least 50 individuals were killed in follow-up drone strikes in
Pakistan when they had gone to help victims killed in initial strikes.416 There are also reports
of strikes killing rescuers in Yemen.417

There is a lot more in the site linked.  The above shows there is not accountability for the U.S. and they kill as they please.

We the people, in the United States are moral people on a whole.  We need to start demanding our government become moral and ethical as it was meant for them to be.   We need to show the world that we do not support killing innocent men, women and children of the world.

If we keep allowing it without saying something.... then how can we raise our voices when they start doing it to their own citizens on U.S. soil if we did not raise our voices about them doing it elsewhere?

How do we change what is happening?  That is one big question... because how do we each try and make that difference?  How do we each stand up and show the correct morals and ethics to the bully and hope that the example becomes the norm?  

We need to demand morals and ethics once more as part of our foundation of the United States.  We need to demand the elected officials stop bullying the world and their own citizens through the TSA, police states and drone spying.

I know that is asking a lot but in having compassion for the rest of the world's people, we will begin to have compassion for ourselves and others around us once more.