National Guardsmen committing treason

 <iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7DFqCVgOZlY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Proof Of George Soros Trying To Overthrow The American Public?

https://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMcKinneyOfficial/posts/i-am-going-to-bring-down-the-united-states-by-funding-black-hate-groups-well-put/10154784822694515/
I AM GOING TO BRING DOWN THE UNITED STATES BY FUNDING BLACK HATE GROUPS. WE'LL PUT THEM INTO A MENTAL TRAP AND MAKE THEM BLAME WHITE PEOPLE. THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS THE EASIEST TO MANIPULATE.” – GEORGE SOROS, DURING AN INTERVIEW WITH GERMANY'S “BILD” MAGAZINE, SEPTEMBER 2014

Evidence: George Soros Is Funding the Nationwide Trump Protests -- Just Like He Did the Ones in Ferguson

http://planetfreewill.com/2016/11/11/looks-like-george-soros-funding-trump-protests-just-like-funded-ferguson-riots/
Page has since been taken down - this means that it did exist and that the statement was possibly real

More Evidence: Follow the Money-List of Organizations Funded by George Soros; Many Involved in Organizing the Anti-Trump Protests

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
This page was taken down - again, this means it existed and that the claim is likely real


Very Telling Interview with George Soros on CBS “60 Minutes”-1998

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg2P4kcIrZ0
Supposedly blocked by CBS due to copyright infringement - means the claims made about Soros by insinuation are likely real

George Soros Is Now Meeting with Other Neoliberal Mega-Donors in Washington DC to Plot One of His “Color Revolutions” for America

https://www.activistpost.com/2016/11/soros-liberal-mega-donors-plotting-resist-trump-behind-closed-doors.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f82acf7922-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-f82acf7922-387733810
This one still up - suggests collusiion on the part of Soros and the Dems to hinder Trump's presidency.  By inference, this post being active suggests that planetfreewill.com, discoverthenetworks.org, and youtube.com are Soros likely buddies or bribe takers, maybe both.

Freedom From War: American Treason In Favor Of The United Nations Governing Us

Behold the treason of the United States Department of State under President Kennedy!

Freedom From War

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents

INTRODUCTION

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.

Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.

--------

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

• The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
• The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
• The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
• The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:

• As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
• Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
• Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
• Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
• Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.

DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.

FIRST STAGE

The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:

• The nuclear threat would be reduced:
     All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
     The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
     States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
      States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
     A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
• Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
     Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.
• Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
     The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
     An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
• Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
     The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
     States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.
• U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
     Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.
• An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:
     Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
     It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
     It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.
• States would be committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:
     States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
     A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
     States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.

SECOND STAGE

The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:

• Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
• Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
• Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
• Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
• On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
• The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
• The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.

THIRD STAGE

During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:

• States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
• The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
• The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
• The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

Appendix

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

The Nations of the world,
Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man's material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:
(a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
(b) The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
(c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
(d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Call on the negotiating states:
(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
(c) Also to seek --- without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program --- agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
(d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:

STAGE I

A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.

B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
(d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.

C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.

E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.

F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
(a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.

G. To Keep the Peace:
(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force--including nuclear, conventional, or CBR--contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.

STAGE II

A. International Disarmament Organization:
The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.

B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.

E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:
(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.

STAGE III

By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O 609147 [end of document]

President Obama Denies Citizenship To American Gun Owners

By:  Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- (WorthyNews)  On January 5, 2016, President Obama announced new gun control measures that are being put into effect that are supposed to help reduce gun violence, especially mass shootings.  What you may not realize is that as part of his effort to "reduce gun violence" he is quietly asserting that American citizens who are gun owners are to be denied their citizenship.

In paragraph 17 of his speech, President Obama makes a distinction between gun owners and American citizens.  While the average person will dismiss this as simply a slip of the tongue, it reflects the attitude of President Obama in this speech, that Americans should not be able to own guns.

       So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check.  That doesn’t make sense.  Everybody should have to abide by the same rules.  Most Americans and gun owners agree.  And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.  (Bold type and italics mine.)
 
Notice how he makes a distinction between American citizens and gun owners?  Again, in paragraph 12 of the same speech, he attempts to deny Americans the right to gun ownership by saying that the Constitution of the United States of America only guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms.  Here is a copy of paragraph 12:
       Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start -- and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do -- I believe in the Second Amendment.  It’s there written on the paper.  It guarantees a right to bear arms.  No matter how many times people try to twist my words around -- I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this -- (applause) -- I get it.  But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.

As you can see in the highlighted section, (highlighted and italicized by me here), President Obama is directly saying that Americans do not have the right to own guns, a.k.a. keep arms.  Here is what the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

       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.  (Bold type mine.)

All this, however, is just another step toward the total disarmament of the American people.  In the 1990's, when President Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, he stated to John Lott, Jr., that "I don't think people should be able to own guns."  While this may not be an attempt to ban private ownership of firearms, it certainly testifies to President Obama's thoughts then and actions now.

What about our military?  If President Obama wanted to ban ownership of guns, wouldn't he take away their guns as well?  Perhaps; however, President Obama knows that he needs military protection in case we ever rise up against him and that he cannot count on it from foreign countries.

President Obama is a clear and present danger to the rights of American citizens, including their lives.  His actions are treasonous and it is the duty of Christians everywhere to humble themselves before God, seeking his forgiveness of their sins, and supplicating him for the removal of President Obama from power.  Of that there can be no doubt.

Source articles:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/remarks-president-common-sense-gun-safety-reform?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email544-text1&utm_campaign=guns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/author-quotes-then-professor-obama-saying-i-dont-believe-people-should

Prophetic Murals In Plain Sight: Bank Of America

http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news205_bank.html

Is the United States of America Now Iran's B!tch?

By:  Marshall Ramsey II

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a speech last week, Iran's real president Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced to the Muslim world that the U.S. has "given up" the option of using military force to achieve its goals and also boasted of a world-wide "Islamic Awakening" that could not be stopped.

Speaking on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic who died in 1989, Khamenei issued his first public reaction since President Obama asserted at a speech at the West Point military academy in West Point, NY, that chances for stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons are better through diplomatic channels than military ones.

"For the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement," Obama said, "one that is more effective and durable than what would be achieved through the use of force."

Mr. Khamenei on June 4, however, had a different take on the matter.

"America cannot do a d--- thing," said a banner which appeared underneath Khamenei during the speech.

"They have renounced the idea of any military actions," he said.  "They have understood that in Afghanistan and Iraq, after a military invasion, they were harmed.  They realized that military attacks are as dangerous or even more dangerous for the assaulting country as they are for the country attacked." (The only reason our soldiers were harmed in Afghanistan is because of President Obama's rules-of-engagement, one of which declares that if a Taliban fighter fires a weapon at a U.S. soldier and then straightway drops his weapon, he is no longer considered an enemy combatant and therefore cannot be fired upon.)

What Mr. Khamenei may not realize is that President Obama hates this country about as much as he does, maybe more.  In a straight-up military conflict, the United States of America would wipe Iran off the map, without the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.  Both President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei know this.  The only way for the United States of America to fall is from within:  First, by forsaking Jesus Christ, which we've done; second, we have to have a corrupt leadership who would sell us out for some campaign contributions and/or the promise of a greater role in the coming global government, which we have and they have.

In his speech at West Point, which was delivered at the end of last month, President Obama said "all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon" are still on the table, but talked repeatedly about America's "costly wars" which he refuses to end unless his popularity is slipping, and warned that not every problem has a military solution.

"Some of our costly mistakes came ... from our willingness to rush into military adventures," the President stated.  "U.S. military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership."

For one thing, Mr. President, the United States of America does not have military action as its sole, or even primary, way of handling foreign affairs.  Second, unless it is against our allies, even our own citizens, military action doesn't even appear to be an option.  President Obama's comments have all the effect of telling our military and our citizenry that we should just bend over and let Iran butt-rape us at will until they kill us.

Al-Monitor reports that when protests began in the Middle East and in North Africa, they were called the "Arab Spring."  Many Iranian officials however, viewed them as a continuation of the 1979 Iranian revolution, thus giving them the name "Islamic Awakening." (Islamic Awakening is code for "global jihad.")

"Perhaps Western intelligence organizations give reports that they were able to suppress the Islamic Awakening in our region," Khamenei said, according to an Al-Monitor report.  "This will be another one of our enemy's strategic mistakes and incorrect analyses.  It's possible that in some parts of the world the Islamic Awakening will be suppressed, but undoubtedly, it will not be uprooted -- and it will spread."

Make no mistake, Iran's real leadership, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has declared war on the United States of America.  He will do everything in his power to destroy us, including with President Obama's help.

Source article:  http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/iranian-leader-celebrates-u-s-has-given-up/

Nuclear Detonation In Charleston Harbor? Sen. Graham Thinks So.

Nuclear Detonation In Charleston Harbor?  Sen. Graham Thinks So.

By:  Marshall Ramsey II, Worthy News U.S. Correspondent

CHARLESTON, SC - (WorthyNews)  It may be about to get really warm in Charleston if U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham is correct.

On September 3, 2013, Senator Graham addressed a home crowd in Goose Creek, SC, on Tuesday regarding the ongioing civil war in Syria.  Sen. Graham told reporters that taking action on Syria is not a question of whether or not we should, but how bad do we want the consequences of our actions, or inactions, to be.

He stated that if there is no U.S. response (meaning an attack on Syria by U.S. forces), then Iran will not believe the United States' resolve to block Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, and those terrorists detonating a nuclear device in Charleston Harbor.

"I believe that if we get Syria wrong, within six months - and you can quote me on this - there will be a war between Iran and Israel over their nuclear program," Graham said.  "It won't come to America on top of a missile, it'll come in the belly of a ship in the Charleston or New York Harbor."

According to Senator Graham's own statements, he has advanced knowledge of a potential nuclear attack on America.  According to Senator Graham, the only way to stop this nuclear attack on the U.S. is to attack the nation of Syria.  This leaves some very disturbing conclusions to draw.

Conclusion #1:  The United States of America is being extorted by the government of Iran.  With the United States' vastly superior military might, we could destroy Iran off the map within a couple of days; so the only conclusion to be drawn here is that the United States government under President Obama wants it this way.  It also means that President Obama stands to profit in some manner from a nuclear attack on the United States.

Conclusion #2:  Senator Graham, while having direct personal knowledge of a forth-coming nuclear attack, is refusing to consider a preemptive strike against the Iranians.  This also suggests that he stands to profit in some manner from an attack on the United States of America.

Conclusion #3:  Given the unfortunately likely scenarios addressed in conclusions 1 & 2, it presents a third conclusion, one far more terrifying that a nuclear strike:  That the safety and security of the people of the Untied States of America is for sale to the highest bidder.

My grandfather told me something when I was a young man:  "A Western businessman will sell you the rope you are going to use to hang him with."  Although this isn't a situation dealing with American businessmen, it is actually much worse:  The leaders the people of the United States of America elect to public office, expecting them to protect us from outside aggression, are for sale to the highest bidder.  Does this mean that all politicians are able to be bribed, and therefore treasonous?  No.  But the above article, combined with known bribery attempts during the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, does suggest that there are some, if not a lot, who would do such a thing.  The only question is:  How far does the corruption go?

Time is almost up for Senator Graham's words to be prophetic.  As it happens, there are two Iranian warships headed toward the U.S. coast.  Although the names of the ships are unknown at this time, we do know that one is an Iranian destroyer and the other is a logistics helicopter carrier.  It is being billed as a training mission, one that would give them technical knowledge of our coastline and our response to perceived threats.  With this data, the Iranians could conceivably put together a plan whereby they could detonate a nuclear weapon on American soil.

These are dark days for the United States of America.  Neither Charleston nor New York harbors appear to be safe.  Who will save us, or will our leaders sell us out for a few Syrian pounds or some Iranian rials?  God help us.

Source articles:

http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/09/06/lindsey-graham-attack-syria-or-iran-will-nuke-charleston/

http://grassrootjournal.com/lindsey-graham-syria-and-iran-will-nuke-charleston-harbor-if-we-dont-bomb-syria/

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/09/03/graham-nukes-in-hands-of-terrorists-could-result-in-bomb-coming-to-charleston-harbor/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-warships-en-route-to-us-territorial-waters/

Wayne Allyn Root: Do Obamacare's foibles rise to the level of fraud?

Your friend, Marshall Ramsey II, has recommended an article to you.

Here is his/her remark:
Jail time\'s a-coming.

Do Obamacare’s foibles rise to the level of fraud?

By Wayne Allyn Root   11:54 AM 11/07/2013

Why do we allow politicians to be treated differently than CEO's in the private sector? If a CEO commits fraud and damages consumers, he goes to prison. Yet if a politician like President Obama lies, misrepresents, and causes massive damage to consumers, no one mentions the word fraud or suggests a crime has been committed. No one even suggests the politician be removed from office. Why? What's the difference?

Obamacare isn't about incompetence. It isn't about political disagreement. It's about a trillion dollar fraud, carried out by the President of the United States. Forget impeachment, it's time for citizens to start demanding criminal prosecution.
Read the Story

Copyright ©2013 Daily Caller. All rights reserved.