Citizens of the Us of A...

Natural allegiance as         stated in English Law, "is due from all men born within the king's         dominions immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and         perpetual, which cannot be divested by ANY ACT of their own."         




If this be so, then         wouldn't the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution be         evidence of a violation of the allegiance due to the king by these men         who declared their independence?








Surely it would but for         the fact that America and the freemen were already out of the King's         dominion and domiciled on their own land.  They had already been         manumitted by the Charters of King Charles the I & II.








"The civil law reduces the         unwilling freedman to his original slavery;         but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after         free."  Maxim of Law


These freeholders were not "contending that         our rabble, or all unqualified persons         [non-freemen], shall have the right of voting or not be taxed, but that the freeholders and         electors         [i.e. allodial land owners] whose right accrues to them from the common law, or from         charter, shall not be deprived of         that right."  The Works of Alexander         Hamilton,         edited by Henry Cabot Lodge, N.Y. 1904, I, 172 Ibid, March 31,         1768


As you can see as early as 1768 in America there were         "freemen" called "freeholders" who had the actual possession and         absolute ownership of a parcel of land who were, because of their status         and ownership of land, "electors" who could vote and could NOT BE TAXED         without their consent.


"Freeman" - The possessors of allodial         lands.  See: Liberi, Blacks 3rd & Oxford Dictionary          


Homo Liber.  A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to         act as juror.  An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a         vassal or feudatory.  Black's 3rd.


A "freeman" is defined as         someone who has a free hold title in land.  


In colonial         America "The ordinary citizen, living on his farm,         owned in         fee-simple,         untroubled by any relics of Feudalism [such as land tenure]         UNTAXED saved by himself, saying         his say to all the world in town meetings, had gained a new self-reliance [i.e.         independence].  Wrestling with his soul and plow on week days, and         the innumerable points of the minister's sermons on Sundays and meeting         days, he was becoming a tough nut for any imperial system to         crack."  History of the U.S.         Vol. I -         James Truslow Adams, page         176  Not so         today.


It was due to the status and estate of "freeman" and being         the possessors of allodial lands and their self-reliance or independence         that these freeholders could lawfully sign the Declaration of         Independence in which they claimed the unwarranted usurpation by the         king of those rights that had accrued to them from the common         law and from the charters of King Charles I & II.   These         men were "freemen" and "freeholders" and no longer a subject of the         king.


These men had worked for the company for a number of years         in order to gain their freedom and a small parcel of land they could         call their own.  The problem was the king was usurping their hard         earned freedom and rights and therefore in dishonor.  These men had         earned the beneficial use of their own land and property by paying for         it with the substances of their own sweat and tears and hardship and no         usurping king was going to go back on his word and make them his         subjects again.  Where are such men today?


One historical         account estimates that around 50,000 Americans joined the British to         fight against those Americans freeholders seeking independence from the         King's abuses of their liberty they had earned by voluntary servitude to         the company for those many years.  These 50,000 are the "rabble"         who would join with the king to fight against the freemen when the         revolution began to which  Alexander Hamilton         referred.


Today "citizenship" in the United States has become a         "political obligation" depending NOT on ownership of land as it once         was, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government, and it binds         the subject citizen to the observance of all laws of his sovereign, not         just the common law.  This class of citizen is not a sovereign but         rather the government is the sovereign and the citizen is a subject         thereof.


What happened to the idea that "People of a state are         entitled to ALL rights which formerly belonged to the king by his         prerogative?"  Lansing v. Smith


And, what about this declaration of the court where it declared:         "In once sense, the term "sovereign" has for its correlative         'subject.'  In this sense, the term can receive NO application; for         it has NO object in the Constitution of the United States.  Under         THAT Constitution there are citizens, but NO subjects."  Chishom v.         Georgia         (1793)


What do we have today?


"The ultimate ownership of         all property is in the State; individual so-called 'ownership' is only         by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must         be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."          Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17,         1933


Of course "necessity" knows no law.


What happened in         1933 that turned the world upside down and made the government sovereign         and the people subjects?  


It appears to me that the         republic existed well before the Constitution for the United States and         the problem is that presently there are no freemen and freeholder at         home on their land in the republic.  Everyone is claiming to be or         is presumed to be a 14th amendment federal citizen who is completely         subject to the jurisdiction of the United States federal         government.  Such class of subject persons cannot own land         absolutely.


Federal citizenship.          Rights and         obligations accruing by reason of         being a citizen of the United States.  State or status of being a         citizen of the United States.  A person born or naturalized in the         United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of         the United States and of the State wherein he resides."  Black's         6th  Also in Black's Fifth edition  


This federal         citizenship was not defined in Black's 4th edition.  Yet some say         that the 14th amendment did not create a new citizenship, but that it         only clarified who was and is born a citizen of the United States.          It certainly made federal citizenship primary and state citizenship         derivative.  Nevertheless, is it not true that both before and         after the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution that it has not         been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in         order to be a citizen of his state?  How can this be if every         person is born a citizen of the United States federal government and         subject to its complete and absolute jurisdiction? 


3A Am Jur         1420, Aliens and Citizens, - "A person is born subject to the         jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, IF         his birth occurs in territory over which the         United States         IS sovereign...."


Is the United States sovereign within the         exterior limits of the several states?


What is this "territory"         in the phrase "The United States and all territory subject to the         jurisdiction thereof?"


"We are of opinion         that it means the regional areas -- of land and adjacent waters -- over         which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign         power.  ".... the term is         used in a physical and not a metaphorical sense -- that it refers to         areas or districts having fixity of location and recognized         boundaries."  See United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 390, 4L         Ed. 404


"It is now settled in the         United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to ITS         jurisdiction includes land areas under its dominion and         control, the ports, harbors, bays         and other enclose arms of the sea along its coast and a marginal belt of         the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or three         geographic miles." Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch 187, 234, 2 L. Ed.         249  This we hold is the territory which the amendment designates         as its field of operation; and the designation is not of a part of this         territory but of 'all' of it."  262 US 100 Cunard Co v.         Mellon


Again, does the United States have sovereign dominion and         control over the "physical" land areas within the exterior limits of the         several states that has not been ceded to         it?

























From: "Don S,"        
To: Cit of USA          
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:08         AM
Subject: Re:         [citizensoftheUSofA] Re: 1783 treaty of paris........... NW Ordinance,         Con-stituion, Territorial Govt, U.S. vs U.S.A.
















But, we must understand the context and         the lawful meaning of that term.





Yes, they were independent states, but         formed into a confederation


that acted as an independent body from the         states, acting for them


all in concert.





The Second Continental Congress, acted as         a singular body for all the states.

WAS BUSH SO BAD?

Why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.


The other side of the story


This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.


Some people aren't aware of all of this. Don't just skim over this, please read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.


The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007... the day the Democrats took over the House of                           Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of                           the 110th Congress.


The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.


For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is                           "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:


The DOW Jones closed at12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...


January 3rd, 2007 was the day that                           Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.


The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL                           SERVICES!


Unemployment... to this CRISIS by                           (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!


Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.


And who took the THIRD highest pay-off                           from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush..


REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd,                           2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that                           controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.


Furthermore, the Democrats controlled                           the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010                           & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat                           belatedly got tough on spending increases.


For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009                           budgets.


And where was Barack Obama during this                           time? He was a member of that very Congress that                           passed all of these massive spending bills, and he                           signed the omnibus bill as President to complete                           2009.


If the Democrats inherited any deficit,                           it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican                           budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.


If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from                           himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is                           "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January                           20th."


There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us sends it on!

CORPORATIONS CANNOT COMMIT A CRIME

CORPORATIONS CANNOT COMMITT A CRIME

The United States government has shown this distinction in the capitalization of the names of organized bodies in the 1984 USGPO Style Manual. Organized bodies are legal entities, which are organizations or associations recognized in law as an entity apart from the individual members. [ Ballantine's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., p. 719, 'Legal entity' (1969).]

Names of organized bodies

3.17. The full names of existing or proposed organized bodies and their shortened names are capitalized; other substitutes, which are most often regarded as common nouns, are capitalizedonly in certain specified instances to indicate preeminence or distinction.

U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, p. 25, 'Capitalization Rules,' (1984).

See also U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, p. 30 (2008)

Below is taken from 14a C.J. §§3024-3025

"A Corporation can not in one sense commit a crime--a Corporation cannot be imprisoned if imprisonment be the sentence for the crime; [U.S. v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. S. 50, 55, 30 SCt 15, 64 L. ed. 87; U.S. v. Pacific Live Stock Co., 192 Fed. 443 (foll U.S. v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50, 30 SCt 15, 54 L. ed. 87); Com. V. Pulaski County Agricultural, etc., Assoc., 92 Ky. 197, 17 SW 442, 13 KyL 468. "The natural inference, when a statue prescribes to independent penalties, is that it means to inflict them so far as they can, and that if one of them is impossible, it does not mean on that account to let the defendant escape."  U.S. v. Union Supply Co., supra.]  A Corporation cannot be hanged or put to death if that be the punishment for the crime; and so, in those senses a Corporation cannot commit a crime.  But a Corporation may be fined, and a Corporation may pay damages."  Pharmaceutical Soc. v. London, etc., Supply Assoc., 5 App. Cas. 857, 869 (per Lord Blackburn).

In support of this doctrine it was said by Lord Denman: "we are told that this remedy is not required, because the individuals who concur and voting the order or inexecuting the work, may be made answerable for it by criminal proceedings.  Of this there is no doubt.  But the public knows nothing of the former; and the latter, if they can be identified, are commonly persons of the lowest rank, wholly incompetent to make any reparation for the injury.  There can be no effectual means for deterring from and oppress of exercise of power for the purposes of gain except the remedy by an indictment against those who truly committed, that is, the Corporation acting by its majority: and there is no principle which places them beyond the reach of the law for such proceedings."

"While the Corporation has no arms or hands by which is self to commit a penal offense, still they can employ servants and agents who acts are the acts of the Corporation and who can and do, in its behalf and at its behest, violate the criminal law."

Below is shows that if it is not an organized body (trust, corporation, partnership or some other entity) but a man then the pleading is to have the proper Christian name:

Defendant was impleaded by the name of A. W. Becker. Initials are no legal part of a name, the authorities holding the full Christian name to be essential.Wilson v. Shannon, 6 Ark. 196; Norris v. Graves, 4 Strob. 32; Seely v. Boon, 1 N.J.Law 138; Chappell v. Proctor, Harp. S.C. (Law) 49; Kinnersley v. Knott, 7 C.B. 980; Turner v. Fitt, 3 C.B. 701; Oakley v. Pegler, 46 N.W. 920; Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 20; Kenyon v. Semon, 45 N.W. 10; Beggs v. Wellman, 82 Ala. 391; Nash v. Collier, 5 Dowl. & L. 341; Fewlass v. Abbott, 28 Mich. 270. This loose method of pleading is not one to be commended, but, as no advantage was taken of it in the court below, it will not be considered here.  Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U.S. 47, 58.

Clever!

Clever Bunch, these Spaniards!


The Spanish may not be the world power they were                   prior to 1588, but they still have some good                   ideas!


A man is buried a dead pig. Make sure you read                   the explanation at the bottom.


In Seville Spain , local people found a way to stop                   the construction of another mosque in their town. They buried a pig on the site, and made sure this would be known by the local press.


The Islamic rules forbid the erecting of a                   Mosque on "pig soiled ground." The Muslims had to cancel the project. This land was sold to them by government officials. 


No protests were needed by the local people ... and                   it worked!


PEOPLE IN USA , CANADA & THE UK NEED TO TAKE A LESSON FROM THE SPANIARDS!

SUE THE IRS TO COLLECT WHAT IS DUE...

From: Legalbear
Reply-To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:19 PM
To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com"
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Giving the IRS an Attitude Adjustment




After § 7433 Suit Filed, IRS Attitude Changes for the Better:


I’m kind of excited. I just got word of what appeared to be a total change of heart by the IRS after receiving a final notice of intent to sue followed by the actual filing of a suit under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. 


The IRS had made this couple promises and was not keeping them. When the couple started taking the IRS to task for not keeping the promises they gave them still more runaround. This is such a typical story that I hear all the time.


The couple had already sent a notice of intent to sue based on § 7433. But, when the couple sent a final warning that they intended to file suit and then actually did file the suit, the IRS had change of heart and became kinder and more gentle. They began to leave polite messages on the voice mail and seemed to become very sincere about correcting the errors. It appeared that they were concerned that their actions had resulted in the suit being filed and inquired about the status of the suit. 


Beneficial Features of Section 7433:


As you may recall, 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) provides: 


If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title, such taxpayer[1] may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States.


But, subsection (d) provides limitations:




(1) A judgment for damages shall not be awarded under subsection (b) unless the court determines that the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative remedies…


As some of you know, I’ve been a proponent of using the exhaustion requirement to our advantage. 26 CFR 301.7433-1(e) provides: 


An administrative claim…shall be sent in writing to the Area Director, Attn: Compliance Technical Support Manager of the area in which the taxpayer currently resides.


Administrative Claim Letter Success:


Letters sent in compliance with this provision have met with some success. 


In all, I am aware of seven instances where levees were released after one of these letters was sent. 


I had always said that there was a possibility that somebody would get a check as a result of these letters. A while back that actually happened. Somebody combined my lien and levy research in their letter and got a check back for over $6000 of wrongfully levied funds from the IRS.


Government Does Not Want More Litigation:


I recently got some additional insight as to the distastefulness of litigation to the government when I read the book The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2004. The book is about Paul O’Neill’s 1.5 year stint as Secretary of the Treasury. He was trying to make some changes in the ways that executives of corporations were treated. The results will become self-evident as you read:


On page 225:


Shifting the standard to negligence is a huge problem, the SEC chairman said. We just can’t go there. There’s no doubt that we have to prevent gaming the system. But we need a high standard, otherwise we’ll be overwhelmed with litigation.


On page 230:


Three days later, a story ran in the Wall Street Journal about O’Neill’s position on corporate governance and his desire to lift the standard from recklessness to simple negligence. It mentioned that Pitt and Hubbard were against the new standard, “concerned that no matter how it was crafted it will lead to more lawsuits.”


At page 233:


Many of the CEOs seemed to have consulted already with their chief counsels. The one thing they didn’t want was even the slightest uptick in litigation.


At page 239:


The move from recklessness to negligence was dropped for fear it would invite a wave of lawsuits. O’Neill and Greenspan were discouraged. A single issue for the corporate crowd—fear of lawsuits—carried the day, O’Neill said, his outrage boiling over.


So, big corporations and big government, with all of their attorneys and resources, as I suspected, do not want more litigation. An administrative claim for damages, or notice of intent to sue, gives us an opportunity to take advantage of the government’s distaste for litigation. 


Success after the Suit has been Filed:


There have been reports of no results from administrative claim letters, but, after hearing about the results described in the first paragraph of this e-mail, it got me to thinking about the results I found in the case law after the suit was filed; for example: 


1) Mrs. Shaw received a refund of all the money collected, and the remaining tax liability was abated.  Shaw v. U.S., Fifth Circuit.  


2) After filing one of these suits, the government dismissed the criminal action against the 7433 plaintiff.  Fishburn v. Brown, Sixth Circuit, 1997.  


3) After filing one of these suits, the IRS returned a seized Cadillac.  Washington v. U.S., Ninth Circuit, 1992.  FE


4) After filing one of these suits, the plaintiff's tax liability "was resolved in the plaintiff's favor in tax court.  Templeman v. U.S., First Circuit, 1994.  


5) After filing one of these suits, an injunction restricting state court filings was vacated.  Templeman v. U.S., First Circuit, 1994. 


6) After filing one of these suits, improperly levied funds were returned.  Raymond v. U.S., Sixth Circuit, 1993. 


7) After filing one of these suits, the government conceded that an assessment was erroneous and released its liens.  Miller v. U.S. (N.D. Cal. 1992). 


8) The government provided the forms during the litigation that they had previously refused to. Ball v. U.S., No. 94-2125 (7th Cir. 1995). 




It Is Possible to Win Damages off a Section 7433 Suit:


Let’s not forget the 5th Circuit case Gandy Nursery v. U.S. where $388,500 in damages were awarded and $317,738.50 in costs and attorney's fees; plus, post-judgment interest on the $16,800.   


Some Suggestions for Those Dealing With IRS:


If you already sent your claim letter:


26 CFR 301.7433-1(d) provides that, “…no action under paragraph (a) of this section shall be maintained in any federal district court before the earlier of the following dates: (i) The date the decision is rendered on a claim filed in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section; or (ii) The date six months after the date an administrative claim is filed…”


If you had a decision on your administrative claim letter, you can go ahead and file your suit, or, you can do like the couple in the first paragraph and send them a warning letter.


If you send an administrative claim letter and less than six months has passed you may want to send a warning letter telling them that the six month deadline is approaching; and that they may want to take action.


If you send an administrative claim letter and more than six months has passed you have the option of sending the warning letter or filing suit.


If you have one of my packages, but have not sent a section 7433 letter:


You may want to go into my package and locate the file 26USC7433. If you need to search your hard drive you should quickly find the file if you search for exactly this: 26USC7433. Once you locate it you should review the notes files and the sample letters. You should also review the statute and the regulation which are here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7433


and here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/301.7433-1


I’m sure these have changed since you bought my package. Locate some statutes and regulations that the IRS violated and you will be ready to put together your letter. I am available to review letters; if you would like that please call me: 720 -675 -7230 9:00 AM to 8:30 PM MST. 


If you do not have one of my packages, but think it would benefit you to send an administrative claim letter: 


My research packages amount to what I call a “shortcut to competence”. If you follow the statute and the regulation there is somebody on the other end that is going to be reading your letter. Because of this, you want your letter to display a certain degree of competence. It must appear in your letter that you’ve done your homework. A competent letter is the shortest route to success; and may save you from having to file suit. If you go to my shopping cart here:


http://www.legalbears.com/armor/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&products_id=47


You’ll see you will see THE BIGGEST PACKAGE! THE BIGGEST SAVINGS! This package includes Lien & Levy Thumper-IRS Terminator for CDPH-All Angles Offensive MP3’s-Frivolous Return Penalties Research-Bear’s Online Legal Research Video & Golden FOIAs. This package is normally $577. For the next 10 days (June 13) when you enter IRSAttitudeAdjustment during the checkout process you will save $200 and be able to get the package for just $377. That’s a $1213 savings over what you would pay for these packages separately!


I’m convinced that filing one of these letters, sending a warning letter, and filing suit is one of the quickest and most effective ways of getting some respect from the IRS.


Knowing what your rights are is the first step to getting them: 


When the IRS violates our due process rights, most people feel bad. The bad feeling is what tells you that your rights have been violated. However, the bad feeling should only be the trigger that sets in motion a search for the authority, usually from the Supreme Court, establishing the right and explaining it. Understanding this concept is what set me on a search for Supreme Court decisions explaining due process rights. I copied and pasted 34 pages of due process quotes from the Supreme Court with the citations to the cases and quotes and put them here:


http://www.legalbears.com/armor/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&products_id=49


If the IRS agent fails to give you all your constitutional rights he could lose his job. I made a video about this and you can view it at the link above. I call this package HOW TO HOLD IRS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS over THEIR HEAD. This is a tremendous lever to use against IRS personnel, the threat of the loss of their job. Normally I sell this package for $200. Through June 13th, when you enter DueProcessViolations in the coupon code blank on check out you will save $100 and be able to buy these quotes for $100; a 50% savings!


NOTE: If you would like to get both of these packages you must make separate purchases because the shopping cart will only accept one discount code at a time.


I hope this email has been some help to you and given you some hope. Bear


Call me at: 720-675-7230


On Skype: legalbear


Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST


Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:


tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


My blog: legalbearsblog.com 


Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com 


(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)


[1] The Supreme Court has held that there are two kinds of taxpayers: 1) the taxpayer from whom the tax is sought to be collected; 2) the taxpayer that is subject to the Internal Revenue Code. The court held that a non-taxpayer could not be deprived of remedies under the Code by virtue of that status.

WAS SEAL TEAM 6 ASSASSINATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT?

Who killed Bin Laden?  Here's a Marine's answer.
   
America is not at war, the US  Marines are at war; America is at the  mall."


Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin  Laden. An American sailor, who Obama, just a few weeks before, was  debating on whether or not to PAY, did! In fact, if you remember a  little less than two years ago, his administration actually  charged and attempted to court-martial three Navy Seals from Seal  Team Six, when a terrorist suspect they captured, complained they  had punched him during the take-down and bloodied his nose.  Obama's administration further commented how brutal they were. The  left were calling them Nazi's and Baby Killers. Now all of a  sudden, the very brave men they vilified are now heroes when they  make his administration look good in the eyes of the public. Obama  just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found  the And our sailors took him out. Essentially, Obama  only gave an answer, Yes or No, to him being taken out. This is  NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!!


Ed  Schreiber
Col. US MC  (Ret.)
"Semper Fi"


OBAMA'S  OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:


2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's  private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6  to take out Bin Laden."


2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until  proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a  fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin  Laden."


2008: " Guantanamo    is entirely  unnecessary, and the detainees should not be  interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained  from  Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin  Laden."


I HOPE THIS GETS SENT AROUND TO  PEOPLE  WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH!


Sixteen members of Seal Team 6 -- the same who went in and eliminated Bin Laden were all killed in a Chinook Helicopter crash a month after Bin Laden was eliminated. Who authorized putting that many members of an elite Seal team all on one antique helicopter and flying iit through enemy territory without air support???? Why did they not use several heavily armed smaller helicopters???


That's totally insane thing to do considering how much money and training we have invested in those men--not to mention the sacrifice and loss of valuable human beings. How can this be a coincidence when the crash involved Seal Team 6 after killing bin Laden??? It looks like they loaded them all on one chopper, tipped off the enemy and flew them through a narrow canyon without air support. It was on the news briefly and then all was kept quiet.   

LARGE SOLAR FLARES JUNE 16TH

CHANCE OF FLARES: Big sunspot AR1504 has developed a 'beta-gamma-delta' magnetic field that harbors energy for strong solar flares. NOAA forecasters estimate a 65% chance of M-flares and a 5% chance of X-flares during the next 24 hours. X-flare alerts: text, voice.

INCOMING CMES: On June 14th, for the second day in a row, sunspot AR1504 erupted and hurled a CME toward Earth. The fast-moving (1360 km/s) cloud is expected to sweep up a previous CME and deliver a combined blow to Earth's magnetic field on June 16th around 10:16 UT. This animation shows the likely progression of the approaching storm:

According to the forecast track prepared by analysts at the Goddard Space Weather Lab, the CMEs will also hit Venus on June 15th and Mars on June 19th. Because Venus and Mars do not have global magnetic fields to protect them, both of those planets will probably lose tiny amounts of atmosphere when the CMEs strike.

Here on Earth, the impact is likely to trigger a geomagnetic storm around the poles. High-latitude sky watchers should be alert for auroras on June 16th.

The CME's appear to be causing much rain in this area and clouds.