The Shepherd and the Herd of Sheeple

 

By, Schuyler Montague

Benjamin Franklin stated it best when he said: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

What beautiful words of wisdom, that apply today in America, as much if not more so, than the day he was first quoted.  With the proposal of each new bill and the passing of each new law today, we find ourselves deeper and deeper in debt.  Not just in the financial sense, but equally if not more importantly, in our deficit of freedom.

Government today is completely and totally reactionary and utilizes each and every opportunity to grab another handful of our rights, liberties and freedoms.  These are all rights that we will never see again.  Each liberty that we allow to be taken away today will be just one more freedom that children born tomorrow will never know.

No right nor freedom has ever been provided or given by any government.  All of our liberties were endowed to us by our Creator at birth.  Governments only possess the ability to limit, restrict or completely absolve us of our God-given rights.  The freedoms that we enjoy today and the rights we allow to slip away were preserved, protected and passed down by the bloodshed of our ancestors.  Our brave and courageous grandfathers shed their blood in valleys, on hillsides and from sea to shining sea, just to ensure our rights were secure for us today.

Our government instills the fear factor and any other tool at their disposal to bring the citizens into submission.  They utilize conditioning and desensitizing techniques to slowly lure us down the path to servitude.  We cannot turn on the news today without being subjected to around the  clock shootings that are updated every hour on the hour.  This is just a method of saturation used to bring all of the sheeple into lock-step and march them off the cliff to serfdom.  All that is truly necessary for the government  to succeed is for the people to remain silent or give in to their demands.  We could more than likely make it another thousand years without the creation of one more new law.  What we really need is simply for the government to enforce the laws that are already on the books, not create new ones.  All we truly need is to be proactive as a society.

We place armed guards everywhere in our society today where something of value to us is possessed.  We have armed guards in our banks to protect our money.  We have armed guards at our Smithsonian Museum to protect the artwork.  We have armed guards at our military installations to protect our equipment.  We have armed guards at the CIA and NSA to protect our secrets.  We have armed guards at the Federal Reserve and Fort Knox to protect our gold reserves.  So, here is my question:  Which of the above is more valuable to us than our children?  Absolutely none of them.  Then, why not immediately place armed guards in our schools?  We do not need new laws to place restrictions on gun owners but rather, what we need is common sense.

Just think of the jobs that would be created if we placed at least two well-trained, certified armed guards in all of our childrens’s schools over the next 30 days.  But more importantly, think of the security and piece of mind that our children and parents would benefit and not at the cost of even one of our constitutional rights.

 

editorial footnote:  We respectfully ask that if you use this piece elsewhere, please source the author and this website by name and please place a link to this article.  Thank you.

Court Finds Obama in Violation of the Constitution

 

WASHINGTON –  A federal appeals court  ruled Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution when he sidestepped  the Senate to fill open spots on a labor relations panel, in a major setback for  the president.

The suit had been brought by a local business in Washington state challenging  the National Labor Relations Board. Supported by dozens of Senate Republicans,  the case argued the president didn’t have the power to make three appointments  to the NLRB.

Attorneys for the Obama administration argued that he had the authority  because the Senate was in recess.

But a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia  said the appointments were not valid because the Senate was not officially in  recess. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board  decisions.

“Either the Senate is in session, or it is in the recess. If it has broken  for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in ‘the Recess,’” the panel  said.

The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess  appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official  recess, which it defined as the break between sessions of Congress.

“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these  appointments were invalid from their inception,” a panel said.

Republican lawmakers lauded the decision. “Today’s ruling reaffirms that the  Constitution is above political party or agenda, despite what the Obama  Administration seems to think,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. “With this  ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama Administration’s flimsy  interpretation of the law, and will go a long way toward restoring the  constitutional separation of powers.”

The case is a test of the White House’s authority to bypass Congress’ power  to block nominations. Recess appointments have a shelf-life of two  years.

The ruling is an embarrassing blow to the Obama administration and could also  call into question his recess appointment of Richard Cordray as head of the  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

White House attorneys are expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme  Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over  more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board  with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board  is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting  members.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union  lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the  NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block  and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from  the board last year.

Obama also appointed Cordray on the same day.

Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays  on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate  approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed  in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro  forma” sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past –  specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install  members to the labor board. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions  — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled that  during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened  its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the  Constitution.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that  have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules  that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new  members.

 

 

source:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional/

Breaking News: Sandy Hook False Flag Operation Exposed: The Seed of Disarmament

 

Some new information has just recently come to light in the Sandy Hook School shooting.  According to the records of the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) has Adam P. Lanza, the “alleged” shooter in the Sandy Hook School shooting as being deceased the day prior to the day of the tragic school shooting.  Keep in mind the shooting was on 14 December 2012.  Here are the records from the SSDI:

 

Adam P. Lanza: Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Death Record:

Name:	Adam P. Lanza
State of Issue:	New Hampshire
Date of Birth:	Wednesday  April  22, 1992
Date of Death:	Thursday  December  13, 2012
Est. Age at Death:	20 years, 7 months, 21 days
Confirmation:	Proven

http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/doc/ssdi/v1:143EB37C71A1FA78

 

 

Let’s also remember that the name of the alleged shooter the authorities first released was a name different from that of Adam.  When authorities were called on that, they quickly attempted to walk that comment back.

Please do not think for even a moment that we are saying we do not believe the shooting took place.  We absolutely believe the shooting took place.  We are saying, it did not take place the way we have been told it did.  There has already been eyewitness testimony given that there were a minimum of two or three shooters.

There are still many private investigations ongoing in the Sandy Hook School shooting.  Since the beginning of this tragic event, we have been outlining our position based on early evidence that pointed to a Manchurian Candidate operation involving a small, well-trained group of assassins.  We believe there is sufficient evidence that supports the theory that it was carried out by the CIA, as a proxy operation of the obama administration.  This would provide Obama the “excuse” to disarm the American public and eventually repeal the 2nd amendment.  Here is one of our first articles on that subject:

http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/could-adam-lanza-be-a-manchurian-candidate/

 

Here is a follow-up story we did as more evidence became available:

http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/breaking-news-new-information-discovered-in-sandy-hook-massacre/

 

Now please try to understand that there will more than likely never be 100% conclusive evidence supporting this theory or any other alternative theory.  There never is in a cover-up.  The perpetrators are usually very well-trained, very well prepared and they will have their support structure in place to collaborate their defense.  This case will probably go down in history in a similar manner that JFK’s case did.  No matter how many holes that can be discovered in their story, they will always have the element of plausible deniability.

Not to mention, when innocent people get a little “too close” to the truth, they tend to either experience ‘brake trouble’ coming down a mountain, their car ‘spontaneously combusts’ when they start it one morning or they are marginalized by the media as “the lunatic fringe” wrapped up in a cocktail of conspiracy theories and aluminum foil.  Oh well…

 

 

source:  Classified Source (‘s)

Proposed Weapons Ban Legislation: H.R. 226

source:  H.R. 226

Egyptian Court Rules the “Muslim Brotherhood/Salafist Drafted Constitution be Put on Hold”

April 10, 2012 — An administrative court in Egypt has voided the process – temporarily – by which Egypt’s new constitution was being drafted.

Tensions have been rising since the country’s main Islamist political parties, the FJP [Muslim Brotherhood] and the Nour party [Salafist], made the decision to stack the 100 member assembly [charged with drafting the document] with Islamists supportive of a theocracy, based upon strict Shari’a enforcement.

Copts, leftists and what are described as “liberals,” have expressed their objections by leaving the assembly, claiming it has no legitimacy because it is dominated by hard-line Islamists.

Though the Ikhwan [Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood] has stated that it supports the court’s decision [see, Dr. Morsi: Freedom and Justice Party Respects Verdict on Constituent Assembly, http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29867%5D that support only goes so far in that the FJP is challenging the decision.

“Freedom and Justice Party lawyer Ahmed Abu-Baraka has announced the party’s intention to appeal a Tuesday verdict issued by the Supreme Administrative Court that found Egypt’s recently-established Constituent Assembly – tasked with drafting a new national charter – unconstitutional…”

This roadblock has of course thrown Egyptian politics into a state of increased turmoil as the country prepares to elect a president.

Especially troubling for those in the West [read the Obama administration] should be a statement by one of the MB’s attorneys that seemed to indicate that a new Egyptian constitution will not contain such broadly accepted propositions as judicial review, saying that the legislature has “the right to function without supervision.”

source:  Al-Ahram