Tuesday, April 14, 2015



Heads Up! Thousands of Military Vehicles Lined Up Outside of Underground Bunkers In America:


Maple Resolve: Massive Joint Military Operation in Canada with USA and UK 5000 troops!

Coward U.S. Army Officer Hangs Up When Confronted About JADE HELM 15 Psy-Op Exercise:

Large Military Convoy Spotted Headed Toward Texas from Oklahoma:

Jade Helm 15 Military Vehicle Build Up in Southern California:
Published on Apr 12, 2015
Just off of the I-15 North of Barstow, Ca, Yermo Logistics Marine Base, I travel past this place on a regular basis, I have never seen so many vehicle/tanks/mraps/humvee's at this location EVER.. In my opinion this is clearly a build-up to something much larger... There are actually maybe 5x times more vehicles there that you cant see in the video

Jade Helm, Military Drills Update: Increased Helicopter Activity from Pittsburgh to Washington:

National Guard Training To Detain/Imprison Sovereign Citizens:

Richmond, CA Dirty Bomb Drill 2015;

Caught: Role Players Are “Sovereign Citizens” in Bomb Drill; Treating Americans as the Enemy:




Hillary Clinton's blood clot explained:

SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Touting her unique life experience, Hillary Rodham Clinton (shown) launched her campaign for president on Sunday. Above all, she says, she is a grandmother who simply wants America’s grandchildren to have an opportunity to succeed:
Becoming a grandmother has made me think deeply about the responsibility we all share as stewards of the world we inherit and will one day pass on. I’m more convinced than ever that our future in the 21st century depends on our ability to ensure that a child born in the hills of Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta or the Rio Grande Valley grows up with the same shot at success that [my granddaughter] Charlotte will.
Missing from her proclamation as the savior of young people under her presidency is how she treated a sixth-grader back in 1975 who was repeatedly raped by a 41-year-old drifter. The drifter, one Thomas Alfred Taylor, requested a female court-appointed attorney, and Hillary Rodham, age 27, was assigned to defend him.
In a five-hour taped interview of Bill and Hillary Clinton that was supposed to form the basis for a lengthy in-depth article in Esquire magazine, the couple laughed about Hillary getting a minimum sentence for her rapist client — through intimidation and character assassination. That article never materialized, and in 2008 Newsday magazine obtained that interview, which provided insight into the case:
Two years into her career [as a lawyer], 27-year-old Hillary Rodham was appointed a public defender in a rape case [which she] played out deep in the gray areas of morality by attacking the 12-year-old victim’s credibility.
Though nobody involved in the case can recall a shred of evidence that the victim had any sort of history of making false claims, Hillary argued it as the centerpiece of her case anyway.
In her audiobook, Living History, published last June, Clinton failed to recall any such attempt to impugn the motives and integrity of a sixth-grader in order to get her client off, even though she knew he was guilty. AsNewsday noted,
Rodham questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations [against others] in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit [which was signed] “Hillary D. Rodham.”
Rodham added: “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed she has in the past made false accusations about persons claiming that they attacked her.”
Newsday tracked down the victim, now age 52, to ask her about Clinton’s claims. She was, according to the journalist, “visibly stunned,” asserting that the revelation from Clinton was “not true," that she never had such fantasies, and that she still resented the fact that her attacker got off so lightly.
As Daily Kos, a liberal website dedicated to promoting progressive policies, observed,
When Hillary signed that affidavit, she was giving a sworn oath that she had knowledge and evidence that the 6th grader had a history of making false charges. That’s what the affidavit says.
But nobody, including the victim who has no axe to grind, believes this has any truth….
That’s the difference between zealous defense and breaching ethical responsibility.
It turned out that the plea bargain resulted from Hillary’s threat to use an “expert from New York” who had no evidence, just an opinion, and so her attack on the victim’s credibility was merely a bonus. Her strategy was to threaten the prosecution with the “expert” testimony of a specialist who was known for providing support for defense attorneys who otherwise had precious little defense. Blood and semen samples from Taylor’s boxers were somehow misplaced, and when Clinton threatened to bring in this “expert from New York” to testify, the prosecution agreed to a plea bargain. Instead of getting 30 years, Taylor was let off after two months in jail.
During the five-hour interview, Hillary and Bill repeatedly laughed about how the case went down, about how the prosecutor folded like a cheap suit when threatened with testimony from an expert witness.
Using fraud, deceit, and unsourced statements, Hillary not only let a rapist off with a wrist slap, she also impugned the victim in the process.
Just another day at the office for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Little has changed in 40 years.


SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

About one third of the world’s governments and dictatorships are on track to meet United Nations education targets aiming to change the values of humanity as part of its “Education for All” initiative, according to a report released last week by the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). With Common Core and related schemes, the Obama administration has been at the forefront of that effort. To deal with those that have not yet met UN schooling goals, UNESCO bureaucrats are seeking more than $22 billion per year in taxpayer funding to provide what the self-styled global education agency refers to as “quality education” for all children. Going forward, as a component of the broader UN “post-2015 agenda,” the UN outfit outlined even more extreme plans to impose its “quality education” scheming on all of humanity.
However, as UN documents make clear, the planetary entity’s vision for “quality education” is radically different from traditional American notions of proper schooling and instruction. For example, UNESCO documents and global agreements dealing with the UN education agenda focus a great deal on bringing about “changes in attitudes, values and behavior.” In official documents, UNESCO argues that these changes are “required” to move toward the "sustainable" new world they seek. The global education bureaucracy, which is also pushing planetary school standards, boasts of its efforts to turn children into “global citizens.” As the UNESCO Global Citizenship Education webpage explains: “social justice, diversity, gender equality and environmental sustainability” are needed to “empower learners to be responsible global citizens.” 
In an April 9 UN press release touting “major gains” toward meeting what it calls the “world’s education goals,” the dictator-dominated global body summarizes the findings of its “2015 Global Monitoring Report – Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges.” The report boasts that more and more children are now in “early childhood care” — an increase of nearly two thirds in the last 15 years. Governments have also “increased efforts to measure learning outcomes through national and international assessments, using these to ensure that all children receive the quality of education they were promised,” the UN document explains.
Of course, since taking power, the Obama administration has taken the lead in foisting the controversial UN goals onto the American people. In fact, Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who referred to UNESCO as a “global partner” of the administration in its “cradle-to-career” agenda to shape the minds of children, has openlycelebrated the unconstitutional scheming in speeches to the UN agency and other groups. Among the elements that have taken massive leaps forward are the Obama administration's push for more “early childhood education”and the vacuuming up of unprecedented amounts of data about American children. Perhaps the most obvious, though, is the administration’s use of unconstitutional bribes to impose Common Core national standards on U.S. schools formerly controlled by local communities, as well as the accompanying federally funded national testing regime.
The UN celebrated its global success in that regard, too. “In 1990, 12 learning assessments were conducted according to national standards, but by 2013 the number had increased to 101,” the UNESCO report boasts, as if stripping families and local communities of control over education and even the right to self-governance were somehow a positive development to be proud of. The controversial report also celebrates the UN role in pushing governments toward educational centralization via national and global assessments based on those national and international standards. Of course, those Obama-pushed “national” standards in the United States, as The New American has documented extensively, line up well with the radical global standards being pushed by globalists and the UN. In 2004, chief Common Core financier Bill Gates even signed a “cooperation agreement” on education with UNESCO.   
The more than 500-page UN education report also outlines what it refers to as the “post-2015 global education agenda,” which will be even more radical than the previous set of goals. “This Report draws on all of this experience, to make sharp recommendations for the place of education in the future global sustainable development agenda,” the report summary written by UNESCO boss and longtime Communist Party operativeIrina Bokova explains, with the term “global sustainable development” essentially interchangeable with planetary tyranny. “The lessons are clear. New education targets must be specific, relevant and measurable.”
Even more Orwellian systems to gather sensitive information on all children around the world — similar to the Common Core-linked data-gathering and data-mining schemes imposed on American states via bribes from the Obama administration — are also critical, the UN said about the next set of global education goals. “The future agenda will also need ever-stronger monitoring efforts, including data collection, analysis and dissemination,” the summary continues. As The New American has documented extensively, parents would almost certainly be shocked and appalled by the intrusive violations of student and family privacy already being rolled out across the United States. UNESCO wants more of that — worldwide.  
Indeed, UN bureaucrats bragged that there is much more to come. “The world has made tremendous progress towards ‘Education for All,’” said UNESCO boss Irina Bokova, a Bulgarian Communist Party operative with well-established ties to the ruthless dictatorship that enslaved her nation until recent decades. “However the agenda is far from finished.” UNESCO Report Director Aaron Benavot was even more explicit. “Unless concerted action is taken and education receives the attention that it failed to get during the past 15 years, millions of children will continue to miss out and the transformative vision of the new sustainable development agenda will be jeopardized,” he explained.
So far, the radical UN education agenda to transform children into what its ringleaders refer to as “green” so-called “global citizens” ready for the “New World Order” has advanced largely in the shadows. However, despite the lack of media attention — and the brazen deception used to promote the plot — it was never truly a secret. Indeed, UNESCO’s leadership has openly boasted about preparing humanity for world government based on “humanism” since it was founded. UNESCO’s “World Core Curriculum” has served as a template for the global miseducation regime now being imposed on the planet. The curriculum was developed by UN Assistant Secretary-General Robert Muller, a self-declared disciple of Lucifer Publishing Company (now Lucis Trust) founder Alice Bailey.
The plot got a major boost in 1990, when governments and dictators from around the world converged at the UN “World Conference on Education for All.” At that summit, UN member regimes agreed to the “World Declaration on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs” (the Jomtien Declaration). While obscure and misleading language is often used to conceal the agenda — mandatory government schooling for all, for example, as outlined in Karl Marx’s Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto — it is not difficult to see through it.
“Meeting basic learning needs constitutes a common and universal human responsibility,” argues the declaration. In other words, education was no longer supposed to be a responsibility of families, local communities, or even national governments — but of the UN. “It requires international solidarity and equitable and fair economic relations in order to redress existing economic disparities.” The so-called “basic learning needs” of children are described by the UN agreement as, among other elements, “the basic learning content ... required by human beings.” Therefore, at least in the globalist mind, there is a need for global standards to ensure that all human beings learn the content that they “require.” Even children who do not attend government schools — homeschoolers, private-schooled students, and more — must rely on “the same standards of learning applied to schools,” the UN document states.
More recently, the UN convened governments and dictators from around the world in 2000 to sign the “The Dakar Framework for Action — Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments.” That is where the formal goals addressed in last week’s UNESCO report originated, unbeknownst to the overwhelming majority of humanity that was being targeted by the scheme. That document also explains what the UN and its mostly autocratic member regimes had in mind. For example, it demands that governments “implement integrated strategies for gender equality in education which recognize the need for changes in attitudes, values and practices.” Later on, the same report explains that to achieve “gender equality” — in actuality, radical feminist doctrines aimed at getting all women into the workforce and all children into “early childhood care” — “changes in attitudes, values and behavior are required.”
The targets for those “required” shifts in values and behavior, of course, are your children. Even now, with support from the highest levels of the Obama administration, America’s future — its children — along with students around the world, are being subjected to UNESCO-backed “sex education,” absurd “sight method” reading methodologies that destroy literacy, dumbed-down educational standards to crush critical-thinking abilities, and much more. If American parents and taxpayers do not rise up and put a stop to the abuse in the near future, the prospects for preserving liberty, prosperity, national sovereignty, Biblical values and religion, and even common sense will continue to diminish. Common Core has already ignited a firestorm of trans-partisan opposition across America among outraged teachers, parents, students, experts, and taxpayers. However, much more must be done if the globalist education plotting is going to be successfully crushed.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter@ALEXNEWMAN_JOUHe can be reached at
Related articles:


Published on Apr 14, 2015
On the 1 year anniversary, the media and the government are still spinning the Bundy Ranch standoff misrepresenting the issues that led up to it and lying about what happened.

Fed Bullies Run In Fear; A Review of 2014:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.
And that’s probably not going to turn out well.
The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.
The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.
Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.
The new brief goes much further.
“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”
The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.
Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.
“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.
The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).
The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”
“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”
WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.
Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.
That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.
“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.
Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”
“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.
When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.
In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”
The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.
“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”
The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?
“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”
The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.
“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.
But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”
On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”
“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”
The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.
“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”
The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”
Beware, the brief says.
“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”
Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.
And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”
“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”
Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.
Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.
The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”
Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.
The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.
Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.
“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.