Trader Brown...turns out to be traitor Brown

From: Worldview Times

BIGGEST Tea Party Success Now an Official Member of the Turncoat Caucus

By JB Williams

Saying "I told you so" is getting way too easy and far too common these days. Besides, I take no pleasure in being right these days. My recent predictions are usually so horrific that I would much rather be wrong.

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown represents the greatest achievement of the Tea Party nationwide. When the Tea Party decided to take away Kennedy's life-long senate seat and put a Republican in it, they demonstrated that they have the power to make things happen.

But as I pointed out at the time, replacing a leftist Democrat with yet another turncoat Republican would in the end, prove to be a hollow victory. Republicans were silent as Obama recently ordered NASA to focus first and foremost on reaching out to the "religion of peace" – Obama's Muslim heritage.

Brown wasted no time stabbing Tea Party folks in the back with his stimulus vote and now he is prepared to hand control of the U.S. economy via Wall Street, over to Obama & Co. for their global economic agenda. Instead of caucusing on behalf of those who elected him, he is caucusing with the GOP Turncoat Caucus headed up by Olympia Snowe and Sue Collins.

The Boston Herald proclaims – "Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown is winning friends in liberal places for agreeing to support a controversial Wall Street reform bill championed by Democrats Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd."

Need I remind folks that it was Dodd and Frank who headed the finance committee responsible for the financial collapse of the mortgage and banking industries, after the Bush administration tried and failed for seven years, to warn congress of impending disaster?

It's not only insane to put the most corrupt organization on earth (our federal government) in total command of our economy - it's beyond insane to place the very people who caused our financial disaster at the helm.

Clearly, Scott Brown has no problem with any of this. But this is not the bad news of the day… Let's all remember who put Scott Brown in office… The Tea Party!

As I pointed out in my last column, which some publishers refused to print, not all who call themselves patriots are in fact patriots.

Glen Beck has done a magnificent job of alerting the public to facts that many new media writers have been screaming from the internet for years now. But when push came to shove, he provided aid and comfort to Obama's efforts to remain anonymous, and his "solution" became nothing more than throwing his star power behind Dick Armey's Freedom Works, which supports most of the same Agenda 21 global socialist initiatives that Obama has under way. At the end of the day, Beck's "solution" was – "if you can't beat'em, join'em…"

Although most Tea Party folks violently oppose amnesty for illegals – Cap & Trade – global stimulus spending – federal control of once free-market capitalism – and daily assaults on personal freedom and liberty, Armey, Beck and other so-called "leaders" of the Tea Party movement are openly supporting these things.

Beck's heart-felt tear-stained calls for the people to rise up in opposition, is backed only by his rush to support his newest show sponsor, Freedom Works.

Beck is not alone however – Palin has raised millions through her PAC only to put that money and endorsements behind leftist Republicans like John McCain and Carly Fiorina, directly at odds with the people who donated that money and won't vote for these candidates.

In short, Rome is burning and the false patriots at the top of the patriot movement's "solution" is to replace leftist Democrats with turncoat Republicans, and to use money and resources from true patriots to do it.

Yet, we can already see the outcome of that effort in the behavior of Senator Scott Brown. On the current path, the Tea Party is poised to put more turncoat Republicans into office who will undoubtedly become members of the Turncoat Caucus led by McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins and Brown.

Upon the release of my last column, one particular publisher chastised me for attacking Beck, Palin, Hannity, Armey, the Tea Party leaders and others allegedly "on my team." But these people are NOT on my team.

The leftist Democrat is the obvious enemy that everyone can see. These other false patriots are the enemy that too many Americans cannot see, or dare not acknowledge.

Contrary to the hopes of many patriots, including some publishers, these people are NOT the solution to America's current challenges. In fact, they are detrimental to any real solutions. A mere circus sideshow…at best!

We need REAL conservatives like Susan Lynn and Tim Hill in Tennessee! Give directly to candidates like this – NOT to PACs. These conservatives struggle against the RNC establishment candidates. They need our help to win!

The American people are the ONLY solution to the problems we face today. ONLY the people can take this country back and they cannot do it through silly petitions, cheerleading pep rallies, PACs funneling money into turncoat candidates or any other mock initiatives.

Let me be VERY clear! Turncoat Republicans WILL NOT turn this country around. They will help Obama finish this country off!

Most of the candidates endorsed by the national Tea Party groups are turncoat Republicans. Even if they win seats in November, they WILL NOT turn this country around. The people have to turn this country around and they must immediately engage in REAL and TANGIBLE strategies in order to do that.

On November 2, 2009, a group of retired military officers and myself formed an exploratory organization under the name www.FreedomForce.us – The original strategy is still up here.

We had some significant flaws in the original strategy and we held up a full scale launch until we were certain that we had corrected those flaws.

Those Flaws

• We thought the many groups would unite in common strategies (WRONG!)
• We thought most patriots were ready for real action (WRONG!)
• We thought people understood that there is no difference between leftist Democrats and turncoat Republicans (WRONG!)

As a result of learning our mistakes in the original strategies, we have reset our strategies accordingly.

Final touches are being added and in the coming days, Freedom Force US will roll out as The United States Patriots Union – designed to represent the collective bargaining will of the 80+% of Americans who are not currently represented by anyone in Washington DC.

The new strategies will be released to Freedom Force members first, and then rolled out publicly.

If you have not already done so, please sign up at www.FreedomForce.us for coming information. You DO NOT have to pledge financial support to join at this time! When The Patriots Union rolls out, there will be a very small annual due for full membership. Money will not stop anyone from joining.

This union is open to all like-minded individual patriots who are ready to do something real and tangible - to peacefully regain control of their runaway government and turn this country in the right direction by way of peaceful but tangible strategies.

We DO NOT seek to work with any other organization.

We do not claim to have all of the answers, but we are in constant search for those answers, and we do have some of the answers. We will not waste time or resources on initiatives that are not designed to deliver a certain prescribed result.

No matter what you have tried in the past, if you are ready to do something real - Join us!

Sources

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,596043,00.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_xBo7nBvA

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100713scott_browns_one_of_gang_republican_praised_after_lining_up_for_wall_st_reform_bill/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010071010944/editorial/enough-with-the-profit-and-power-driven-patriots.html

http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/03/17/glenn-beck-corned-on-the-obama-eligibility-issue.aspx

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24854

http://www.hillforhouse.com/

http://www.freedomforce.us/

http://www.freedomforce.us/FreedomForceStrategy-022410.htm

Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

Eric Holder...makes morons look good with an intelligent quotient < 50

mo·ron   /ˈmɔrɒn, ˈmoʊr-/
–noun

1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

2. Psychology . a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.
 
3.  Eric Holder

The Video John Brennan Refuses To Watch...starring the friends of Barack Husein Obama

I thought I would add the video at the bottom of this post hoping that crap for brains Brennan would at least view the first minute or so...how did we allow this to happen? ~ Norm
The following from: Atlas Shrugs

Obama, Petraeus at odds on 'Islam'

Funny, Petraeus is fighting against the Islamic supremacism of Obama. This should be uh, fun to watch. Not. What does O want Petraeus to do? Fire on our own troops? Don't answer that.

Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam' Washington Times hat tip S

The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.
But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.
Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
In a speech that also severed the Obama administration from President George W. Bush's "war on terror," Mr. Brennan also said: "The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."
Asked about the discrepancy between the White House policy and the military's counterinsurgency doctrine, Michael Hammer, Mr. Brennan's spokesman, said "We don't have anything to add to John's speech."

______________________

May I add the following:

Mr. John O. Brennan, this one is for you!

I Fought For You...

Note from Storm'n Norm'n
I feel a little guilty to say, "I fought for you."  For one year in a combat zone I was fortunate to have been shot at only twice by an enemy with the accuracy of not being able to hit hit the broadside of a barn...maybe that's a little inaccurate because I could see the tracers at night and the dirt kicking up just yards away.  And then there was the night we were in alert condition one with the warnings coming in over the radio, "Tan Son Nhut, you are in alert condition one, take cover!"  During the repetitive broadcast we could hear the overhead sounds of incoming missiles and surely I thought my time was up only to be relieved that the rockets were duds that landed in the mud without incident.  I don't particularly refer to my time in the war as one of the warriors that defended you as did the combat infantry soldiers and marines for I was in the arena solely as support and with the watchful Eye of the Beholder above I was spared the agony of taking a bullet or spread about the ground by the explosion of a working missile.  So I thank God for the poor marksman and the 'made-in-China' missile but you can thank the soldier or marine that fought for you...this is an unending story. ~ Norm

Grand Jury revisited...we the people should know this stuff!

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.

	About the Author Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney who brought a case in 2008 against the New Jersey secretary of state for allowing three legally unqualified presidential candidates to be placed on the general election ballot in that state. This case was reviewed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and then was reviewed by all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in a private closed-door session. At least five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices felt that this case should not be heard in a public session of the Court. In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician.

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.
The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.
Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.
Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER

I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."

The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration

"Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.'"

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

"At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused." Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal," although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The key word is, "obsolete." Obsolete means "outmoded,", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal." And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the people," and in its vampire

Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:

like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
"Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system."

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, "[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments?" The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was "obsolete." First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor do they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments." Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated." Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know darn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.
The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes, grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors."

The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes." That's patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.    

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

" '[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people," THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people? when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own right." Yes, darn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "

This miraculous quote says it all, "the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people."

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kicking.