Friday, June 24, 2011

Why Hillary is the Most Corrupt Presidential Candidate Ever!

To: Every American Citizen

Hillary's America The Secret History of the Democratic Party

The #1 New York Times bestseller and source for the blockbuster feature film Hillary's America, the top-grossing documentary of 2016...

Dinesh D’Souza, author of the #1 New York Times bestseller America: Imagine, a World Without Her has a warning: We are on the brink of losing our country forever. After eight years of Obama, four years—or possibly eight years—of Hillary Clinton as president of the United States would so utterly transform America as to make it unrecognizable. A must read for every American! btw Benghazi isn't a person...hello!

I know this is long so please bookmark it for further research.
Update: Oct. 26th 2016
FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting
Finicum's family said in a statement a month ago that he was "executed in cold blood" and accused police agencies of deliberately misleading the public about what happened. His widow, Jeanette Finicum, didn't retreat from that stance after watching the news conference.

"My husband was murdered," she said in a statement.

How the Clinton's Stole Our Land!

The Constitution says plainly in ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, paragraph 17: The Congress shall have Power to:
(17) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may be, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the erection of forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings:

Yet, under color of law and using illegal Presidential Directives and Executive Orders, land belonging to the sovereign people of the United States has been repeatedly seized and turned over to the United Nations.

In 1998, as if Congressional greed and stupidity weren't enough, America took place in a master environmental plan known as United Nations Agenda 21.

About 450 delegates of governments, world environmental groups, universities and banks met in Rio de Janeiro to "map the future of mankind" through Agenda 21 which is also known as "Rio+5."
The conference was a follow-up to the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit and spawned several treaties, each designed to destroy our national sovereignty under the guise of environmentalism.
One such treaty is the so-called Biodiversity Treaty which calls for global eco-regions controlled by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which is nothing more than a code word for organizations under United Nations control.

Since 1978, without Congressional approval, 47 U.N. "Biosphere Reserves" have been established on 43,560,254 acres (68,863 sq. miles) of United States soil. Two designations of 'international status' by the United Nations currently take place with no need of congressional approval: UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites.

United Nations bureaucrats have the final say over acquisitions of Biosphere reserves and World Heritage Sites, and no public hearings in the United States are required. Third world and communist dictatorships decide what goes on in Americans' backyards, and our elected officials have nothing to say about it. The United States part of the Biosphere reserve program is run by a committee of ten federal agencies, with no congressional direction or authorization. Biosphere reserves in 1998 contained a total land area larger than the State of Colorado.

The United States now has 20 World Heritage Sites, 18 of which are national parks and include the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall. Over 68 percent of our national parks, preserves and monuments are currently designated at a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both.

We are in this mess because Congress and the President have ignored two provisions of the Constitution. The first, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen of the Constitution limits federal ownership of land. The second, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, specifically designates Congress as the overseer of United States property and forbids federal, or any other takeover, of state land.

Yet President Clinton, who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, was so in favor of bio-diversity and the United Nations and destroying United States sovereignty, he even called a United Nations environmental panel to support his decision to ban a gold mine near Yellowstone National Park. His decision to steal 1.7 million acres of Utah land and place it into Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument, was based in part on his support of United Nations goals for land-use. Need more proof?

Our delegates to the Rio+5 conference signed the treaty, but to date, Congress has refused to ratify the agreement. If Congress ratifies the biodiversity treaty, it will take precedence over the Constitution. So Clinton, using the weight and power of the Presidency, has been pressuring states to comply with the provisions of the unsigned treaty or lose federal funds.

Congress and the federal government have, under the pretense of law, seized or stolen millions of square miles of valuable land and even worse, much of it has been placed under the control of foreigners. While America was engrossed in arguments about various issues, such as the sex life of the president, he and the United Nations were busy stealing America. But that doesn't make it constitutional. Just calling an act legal doesn't make it legal.

The Constitution has never been amended to allow federal ownership of any lands other than originally authorized by the founding fathers. Nor does the Constitution allow foreign powers to assume control over American soil. We have surrendered, thanks to Clinton, sovereign rights to nearly 75 million acres of the some of the most beautiful parts of our nation – the giveaway was kept secret and we never fired a shot in our own defense. The 20 World Heritage Sites are; Wrangell-St. Elias National Park/Glacier Bay, Alaska; Olympic National Park, Washington; Redwood National Park, California; Yosemite National Park, California; Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming and Montana; Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona; Chaco National Historic Park, New Mexico; Cahokia Mounds Site, Illinois; Mammoth Cave National Park, New Mexico; Statue of Liberty, New York; Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado; Independence Hall, Pennsylvania; Monticello and the University of Virginia, Virginia; Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee; Everglades National Park, Florida; Pueblo de Taos, New Mexico; Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii; Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico; Glacier National Park, Montana; and La Fortaleza and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

To: The Congress of the United States of America
From: Concerned American Citizens.

We, the below-signed citizens of the United States believe that NOW, at the beginning of a new millennium, is the time for the United States to remove herself from membership in the United Nations and to physically remove the United Nations Organization, its buildings, and its membership, from the United States of America.
We feel it is in violation of the Constitution of the United States to be signatories to a World Constitution or Charter such as that of the United Nations.

We feel that many, if not all, of the activities of the United Nations, are in direct conflict with the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. To cite a few examples:

The United States Constitution says plainly:

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.

Yet, in no small part due to UN influence, the citizens of America find their RIGHT to keep and bear arms infringed, regulated, and acted upon under the color of law.

The following excerpts from an article: The United Nations: Pressing for U.S. Gun Control By the Executive Director, Gun Owners of America shows UN involvement in the internal affairs of the United States, which is clearly not legal ACCORDING TO THE UN’S OWN CHARTER AND BYLAWS.

Why should gun owners concern themselves with the United Nations? After all, what jurisdiction do U.N. bureaucrats have for sticking their nose into the U.S. gun control debate since the United States Constitution gives no authority of any kind to the U.N?

Clearly, gun control (or more plainly called civilian disarmament, which is what concerned the founders) is prohibited by the Second Amendment. In reality, the Second Amendment was specifically intended to protect an individual's right to own the type of firearms in "common use." Consider the statement by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller (1939): "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

...The Constitution gives Congress no authority to enact gun control legislation.

Second, and perhaps even more surprising...the Constitution allows the Congress to require gun ownership.
Consider a law which Congress passed in 1792 -- a law which is clearly authorized by the "arming and disciplining the militia" clause in the Constitution:

In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment...
The above quote comes from a statement issued in 1982 by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The subcommittee correctly observed that Congress can require gun ownership.

The documents from the U.N.'s own web page make it clear that they are very serious about disarming American civilians.

On December 22, 1995, the UN announced the launch of a study of small arms. According to the U.N., small arms "are increasingly associated with crime accidents and suicides, and form a major source of illicit profits for transnational criminal networks.... While trade in major weapons is on the decline, small arms are spreading."

This worldwide survey of firearms ownership is being financed by the Japanese government. The Canadian government is supplying a number of gun control bureaucrats to assist in the U.N. project. Also participating is Stewart Allen, Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms along with the Russian in charge of the Firearms Control Division of the Russian Ministry of the Interior.

The survey is being done, according to a December 22, 1995, press release from the U.N., in cooperation with U.S. police customs and military services. The Clinton Administration evidently is hoping to use the U.N. study to lend support to its own desire to disarm American citizens.

Former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali spoke of a world "awash" with small arms. The Japanese got the U.N. to approve a resolution authorizing the U.N. Crime Commission to consider various measures to regulate guns. Several of the member governments spoke of the "alarming rise in the proliferation of small arms and underscored that their mounting use by drug traffickers and criminal gangs posed a grave threat to public safety and the rule of law." The same sinister depiction of guns as only used by drug dealers is the same rhetoric employed in the U.S. by Handgun Control and their champions in the Congress and other government bodies.

An earlier draft of the resolution would have encouraged the U.N. Secretary-General "to continue efforts to curb the illicit circulation of small arms and to collect such arms in the affected States, with the support of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa." While that resolution was dealing with Africa, Americans should not be relieved that the U.S. was not included -- in that resolution. The fact of the matter is, the U.N. is increasingly assuming the jurisdictional authority of a federal world government with the U.S. as just one of scores of member states. And gun control -- meaning civilian disarmament -- is high up on the agenda of the U.N.

With the end of the Cold War, the U.N. has shifted its focus to gun control and fighting drugs as a way of continuing to justify its existence. We see the same pattern of big government refocusing in the United States using the same themes of a war on drugs and gun control.
Gun control illustrates one of the dangers of the U.S. membership in the U.N.
The web of international organizations being spun around the United States has already begun to reveal a transfer of sovereignty from our national government to unelected, supranational organizations. When the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) Treaty was being adopted, proponents declared that treaty language would prohibit any part of the treaty from having effect if it would be inconsistent with any law of the United States. But other advocates, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich, were more candid. He likened GATT to the Maastricht treaty governing much of Europe, by which individual states have surrendered an unprecedented degree of sovereignty. Gingrich said that we need "to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment." (Human Events, 11/25/94, p.4)

Another candid advocate of the GATT's transfer of sovereignty to the World Trade Organization (WTO) was William Holder, the Deputy General Counsel of the International Monetary Fund who told an American University audience on November 19, 1994: "The WTO is de jure [legally] world government."

That kind of fallacious and dangerous thinking has held sway in the United States, (and causes us to believe) that assumption's of international government power even worse than we have inflicted on ourselves domestically will be imposed on the United States by the U.N. and other "entangling alliances" that George Washington warned us against.

We have seen from the discussions at the United Nations that gun control is one of the top agenda items of the U.N. and many foreign nations. The U.S. gun laws are much freer than those of most of the rest of the world. Through the web of entangling treaties attaching the U.S. to various international organizations, the rope is being slipped about the neck of the Second Amendment.
One of these days, we may wake up to headlines that the U.N. or the WTO have demanded that the U.S. "harmonize" its gun laws (translation: disarm our civilians the way Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many others have).

Free Book "The Coming Battle" read it online.