Saturday, August 16, 2014

America, what's happening? If one state can do it, so can they all!

↑ The militarization of America ↓

I'm not entirely familiar with Naomi Wolf in the following video, in fact I don't know her political party affiliation, but suffice it to say that she does express, to a small degree, the idea that both political parties (that is, Democrats and Republicans) are both to blame for the breakdown of our Constitution and American way of life.  She mentions early on in the video that Obama is worst than Bush although an earlier video put most of the blame on Bush.  This video is rather long for most people to sit through (including me, but I prevailed to the end).  Wolf takes a long time to get her point across and seems somewhat hesitant, almost apologetic, in making it.  To tell you the truth I cannot see why it is she is so popular (the earlier video received over one-million views).

There are literally hundreds of websites that post patriotic editorials that exposes the changes going on within our government and suggestions for correcting all that is wrong.  For what is wrong is also reported as right from the Leftist point of view but that view generally does not stand the test of logic.  Having studied the issues over 24,000 hours in the past ten years (an that's an under estimate) I believe that I have one suggestion that will work if applied wholeheartedly.  Now that's just one suggestion, not an overall solution; but it's a beginning.  Many will say that my suggestion is impossible to enact because of the wide diversity of the population and the allegiance to the major political parties.  That allegiance by the way is due to total ignorance rather than fact...if not ignorance then plain stupidity (you can argue the point some other time not now).
There is a definite need to do away with the political parties and start electing individuals based on their allegiance to the United States Constitution...without the Constitution as a starting point we might as well give up now and start all over from the beginning.  By the case you're wondering, the Democratic party does less to uphold the Constitution than do the Republicans...and given the last seven years the Democrats have done nothing to uphold the law of the land (again, that's just a little fact I like to throw in there). 
While we are doing away with the parties we need to revise the federal election laws.  The FEC rules were written to make it difficult for individuals not associated with a party to run for high office. 
So far I have defined a couple of needs and simultaneously while that is going on there should be a national campaign to prevent voter fraud of which there are many.  I for one have witnessed first hand what voter fraud can do but that's another story for some other time.  Voter identification cards are not entirely fool-proof so there must be a way of assuring that one does not vote more than once (thousands voted more than once in the 2012 elections).   Sticking a finger into an ink jar seemed to work pretty well for the people in Iraq.  Then why not here?  (Already I can see Eric Holder screaming, "That's racist!")
While this national campaign to prevent fraud at the polls everyone should be reminded of their right to vote without any undue influence by outside forces (i.e. politcal parties).  This means that you and you alone should decide who you are going to vote for and there is no better way than the write-in vote.  By using the write-in vote we could remove ourselves from the corporations and other organizations that wish to destroy our once proud country.
These groups want nothing more than a complete globalization of all societies molded into one homogenous clump of degenerates willing to obey their every order (Bill Clinton wanted this New World Order more than anyone else, that is until Barack Husein Obama came on the scene.  Bill wanted to be president of the world while Obama just wants to be Dictator Number One.)
So I can already hear everyone out there saying the write-in vote will never work.  My first response is, "How do you know it won't?"  You never know anything until it is tried.  And if you use some American ingenuity you can  spread the word far and wide, "Write-in", "Write-in", "Write-in".  Advertise, advertise, advertise...pretty soon the ignorant masses will wake up and grab a No. 2 pencil before heading to the polls.  By the way, Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina was voted into office by using the write-in vote.  If one state can do it, so can they all! ~ Norman E. Hooben
How many times do I have to post this ↓ before the message sinks in?
Side note:  Many people go to for clarification of certain so-called facts.  Well they were 100% wrong on their one-sided view back in 2008... here, all you have to do is check this out ~ Boy! Were they ever wrong!
Want more proof that the Democrats are intentionally destroying the country...check out the following video...if you still don't believe it consider yourself brain-washed beyond hope.

And it is the Democrats who want to take away your right to free speech ...see video↓

Will Florida be first to impose Sharia Law?

The following from PolitiFact
"Florida Democrats just voted to impose Sharia law on women."

In the final days of Florida’s legislative session, some conservative blogs claimed that they had unearthed the "real" war on women -- a war being waged by Democrats.
"Florida Democrats just voted to impose Sharia law on women," read one headline April 30, 2014, on, a blogging platform for "conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers."
The story explained: "Anyone who isn’t certain that Democrats are devoted to destroying America need only take a look at their despicable conduct in the Florida Senate. In a vote that never should have had to be taken, every single Democrat voted to force Sharia law on the people of Florida. By doing so, they placed women and children in very real danger. The vote was 24 votes for America and 14 votes for al-Qaida and the Taliban cast by loathsome Democrats."
The article said that elements of Sharia law include women being barred from voting, forced marriages for young girls, stoning to death of adulterous women and a requirement that women wear burqas -- the full-body clothing required of women in some very traditional Islamic societies -- when in public.
While we were distracted by the close of the legislative session and a hotly contested governor’s race, we somehow missed Democrats voting in favor of burqas and stoning. But readers have made clear to us that they want to know: Did Florida Democrats vote to impose Sharia law on women?
What the bill was about
It's important to note that claims that "Florida Democrats just voted to impose Sharia law on women" are wrong on many levels -- the first of which is that Democratic lawmakers didn't vote affirmatively for doing any of those things. They voted against a bill that would have barred the use of foreign laws in some contexts, something far more limited.
Sharia law is a wide-ranging set of rules that govern aspects of Islamic life, including religious practice, daily living, crime and financial dealings. Muslims differ on its interpretation.
At root of the Florida issue is a dispute between a Tampa Islamic center and some of its ousted trustees. In making a ruling on the case in March 2011, a circuit court judge cited Islamic law, sparking outcry from conservatives. That month, two Republican state lawmakers, Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, announced they would push for a bill to ban foreign law in Florida courts.
After several failed efforts, the bill that passed this year -- Senate Bill 386, "Application of Foreign Law in Courts" -- was watered down compared to previous versions.
The bill doesn’t specifically mention Sharia law, and it doesn’t outright ban the use of Sharia law, said Eduardo Palmer, a Coral Gables lawyer who serves on the legislative committee of the Florida Bar’s international law section. But much of the discussion centered on Sharia law.
The bill only applies to family-law cases, including divorce, child support and child custody. It doesn’t apply to other areas of law, such as corporate matters.
The bill states "A court may not enforce: (a) A choice of law provision in a contract selecting the law of a foreign country which contravenes the strong public policy of this state or that is unjust or unreasonable. ... The purpose of this section is to codify existing case law, and that intent should guide the interpretation of this section."
The law allows a judge to agree to apply foreign law as long as it doesn’t contradict public policy in the U.S. For example, if a couple signed a prenuptial agreement in Argentina and later gets a divorce in Florida, a Miami judge could decide to apply Argentina’s law in the divorce case here, Palmer said. But if a foreign law violated our public policy in the United States about child labor rules, for example, then a judge could reject it.
"That is the universal standard that most civilized countries adhere to," Palmer said.
In reality, the bill doesn’t change existing law, which already allowed judges such discretion.
An earlier version would have been much more aggressive -- it would have raised the standards before a judge could have allowed the use of foreign law. A compromise essentially codified existing law.
The Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which tracks and counters anti-Islamic attacks, and Florida’s Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights anti-Semitism, both lobbied against the bill.
Legislators who voted against the bill argued that it was unnecessary and was tantamount to an attack on Muslims.
Rep. Jim Waldman, D-Coconut Creek, told the House "This bill, this proposal, stems directly from a hatred of Muslims. It's caught on across the country and many other state legislatures have dealt with this, and I find it reprehensible."
Waldman called the bill "a solution in search of a problem."
A Florida Senate staff analysis in April stated there were six states that currently had laws restricting foreign law in state courts: Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. (An amendment approved by Oklahoma voters that expressly banned Sharia law was ruled unconstitutional, prompting Legislatures to later go with the more generic "foreign law.")
The Senate approved the bill 24-14, with all the votes in opposition coming from Democrats. The House approved the bill 78-40, with a majority of Democrats voting "no." (House Democrats who voted "yes" included Daphne Campbell of Miami, Betty Reed of Tampa and Hazelle Rogers of Lauderdale Lakes.)
As of May 6, Scott had not signed it into law yet and a spokesman said his office would review the bill.
How common and controversial is the use of foreign law in Florida courts?
International law experts told us it’s not unusual for foreign law to get used in Florida courts.
"Foreign law is applied all the time, in various ways, and it is almost never controversial," said C. Ryan Reetz, a Miami lawyer and chair of the Florida Bar’s international section.
For example, parties in international contracts frequently agree to apply a specific foreign country’s law to govern their agreements.
"In addition, there is an entire body of law called 'conflict of laws' or 'choice of laws' that governs when the law of a different state or foreign country will be applied to one or more issues in the case," Reetz said. "As in all other states, the Florida courts have developed a series of conflict of laws rules that address this question. This body of law dates back to the founding of our country, and it has been especially well-documented over the last 100 years."
In contracts, parties can choose to apply the law of any jurisdiction and the court will accept those laws as long as it doesn’t conflict with our Constitution, said Cyra Akila Choudhury, Florida International University law professor who wrote a paper about states passing anti-Sharia laws.
"The Hillsborough case that is referred to was a contract case in which both parties chose shari'ah as the law," she said. "And the court had to give it credence as the freely chosen legal rules by which the contract was to be interpreted. It was no different than if they had chosen German law, or Klingon law."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida opposed the bill, although spokesman Baylor Johnson said the final version "has relatively little impact on existing law."
"Just like some folks think that tinfoil hats will protect you from the imaginary threat of aliens reading your thoughts, the ‘foreign law’ bill won’t protect against the imaginary threat of ‘Sharia law’ taking over Florida, because that threat isn’t real," Johnson said.
Our ruling
Claims like this one recently circulated on the internet: "Florida Democrats just voted to impose Sharia law on women."
Senate Democrats did vote against a bill that prohibits judges from applying foreign law in family-law cases if it contradicts United States public policy. In reality, though, the bill would have essentially codified existing practice. The bill didn’t single out Sharia law, and the United States Constiution still applies.
It’s ridiculous -- beyond ridiculous, really -- to suggest that Senate Democrats forced on women such elements of Sharia law as burqa-wearing and stoning to death. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

Top 10 Quran quotes every woman MUST SEE  source

10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.  The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:
Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
9. Husbands are a degree above their wives.  The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:
. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)
8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.  The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:
The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)
7. A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.  The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:
And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).
6. A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man and then this second man divorces her.  The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:
And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)
5. Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.
The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:
And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).
4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.
The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:
And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)
3. A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.
The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:
It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)
2. Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded). The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)
1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.
The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:
65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Operation the media is controlled

An excerpt...
Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures. Robert Parry reported the first breaking stories about Iran-Contra for Associated Press that were largely ignored by the press and congress, then moving to Newsweek he witnessed a retraction of a true story for political reasons. In 'Fooling America: A Talk by Robert Parry' he said, "The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people."
Major networks are primarily controlled by giant corporations that are obligated by law, to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations which are often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism. There were around 50 corporations a couple of decades ago, which was considered monopolistic by many and yet today, these companies have become larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of ownership and power reduces the diversity of media voices, as news falls into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries that interferes in news gathering, because of conflicts of interest. Mockingbird was an immense financial undertaking with funds flowing from the CIA largely through the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) founded by Tom Braden with Pat Buchanon of CNN's Crossfire.
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care, pharmaceutical, and technology companies. Until the 1980's, media systems were generally domestically owned, regulated, and national in scope. However, pressure from the IMF, World Bank, and US government to deregulate and privatize, the media, communication, and new technology resulted in a global commercial media system dominated by a small number of super-powerful transnational media corporations (mostly US based), working to advance the cause of global markets and the CIA agenda. ...Read more here

So if you want a woman president... It doesn't get any better than this!

Jeanine Pirro For President

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Sooner or later even the ignorant will catch on to this...but then it will be too late!

 ↓ A Must See Video ↓                              
Everything that is happening in the above video
is happening in the United States.  And the main
reason its happening is because most Americans
don't believe that its happening.  How's that for
The Real Face of the European Union
Dir by Phillip Day, Credence ~ Campaign For Truth
THE EU HAS BEEN SOLD TO BRITAIN AS OUR BEST HOPE FOR THE FUTURE…. But behind the scenes, has another, more unsettling agenda been unfolding? The European Economic Community (EEC) began for Britain as a free-trade agreement in 1972. Today’s European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military, one police force – even its own national anthem. In this shocking new documentary featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every British citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against Britain’s participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream media has refused to confront. Running time: 40 min.

Source for the following: YouTube
Most see the European Union of today as an inefficient conglomeration of states run by self-serving career politicians anxious to guarantee their survival by safely nesting in the EU's cocoon of endless bureaucracies. Many don't really see a threat at the moment. They believe that an integrated Europe makes sense; that it would prevent any chance of a third European war; that it is the modern, forward-thinking way to go.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTHThe European Economic Community (EEC) began as a free-trade agreement in 1972. Today's European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military, one police force - even its own national anthem.
In this shocking new documentary featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream media has refused to confront.
Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship:
Phillip Day
 Sooner or later even the ignorant will catch on to this↓...but then it will be too late!
Does anybody see it coming?  ...Judge Jeannie does!

And when death comes to America you can blame Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Brennan, Valerie Jarret, and a host of others to include every American voter who cast their vote for any of the above...  And when death comes to America that means a lot of Americans are going to die and those same ignorant voters will not see it coming... And when death comes to America every one of those voters will wish we still had a 2nd Amendment in force... And when death comes to America all I got left to say is we get what we deserve thanks to all you majority voters...