This Little Light Of Mine

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Drone Strike: The REAL Target!

President Obama Can Order Drone Killings of American Citizens

The U.S. Justice Department has just released a 16-page memo outlining its justification for why President Obama can order drone killings of American citizens and it seems everybody is screaming foul! Saying things like: “This is a chilling document,” (Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACL); "If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable," (constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald); "But when an oppressive government regime decides to utterly ignore the Constitution and the limits of power described therein, it become a dictatorial tyranny. We are there now in America". (Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews.com); “Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” and “This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done", said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame; "Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them"....Senator Wyden; "In plain language, [the Obama administration memo] means that [any Americans can be assassinated if] the President considers the citizens to be a threat in the future. Moreover, the memo allows killings when an attempt to capture the person would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel. That undue risk is left undefined"....Top constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley.

Well my point is this. Where was all of this concern back in September of 2011? I wrote about Obama's murdering ways in October 2011 after he assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki! But no one wanted to listen then! NOW that as I said....."If the government can hunt down and EXECUTE even just ONE American, and WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW IT... who says YOU won't be the next one within their crosshairs"?.... has come to pass, everybody wants to scream foul! Where were all of of you back when President Obama first publicly did this? It's evident y'all didn't care THEN! Why? Cause y'all RE-ELECTED the tyrant! But NOW, cause you let Obama get away with killing a US citizen back then, and then told him you approved his doing so by re-electing the murderous son-of-biscuit maker, and he has decided that the rest of us can be put into his cross hairs, NOW you scream no? Where was all of your concern for your fellow US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki? Seems to me that all of you just may deserve what's coming down the road cause you never stood up for YOUR rights when this was done to Anwar al-Awlaki! Cause make NO MISTAKE about it, when ONE American's rights are violated... ALL Americans' rights are violated!!! And this authorized presidential drone killings only serves to point this out!

First they came for the communists, 
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. 

 Then they came for the trade unionists, 
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

 Then they came for the Jews, 
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. 

 Then they came for me 
and there was no one left to speak out for me. - Pastor Martin Neimöller

Well folks....now they are coming for you....aren't you lucky that there IS SOMEONE LEFT (like me!!) to speak out for you?

Monday, February 4, 2013

Double Standards In Maine Attorney General's Office On Robo-Signing!

On January 31, 2013 the Maine Attorney General's Office reached a settlement against Lender Processing Services Inc. and its subsidiaries, LPS Default Solutions and DocX and Maine will receive $500,000 as part of the $121 million multi-state settlement in a mortgage robo-signing case.

I called the AG office and talked with Linda Conti, AAG who was the one who supposedly negotiated the settlement. My conversation with her was less than enlightening and down right discouraging. I asked her how it was possible for one fraction of the state government (AG's Office) understands the illegal practices of robo-signing which make the documents illegal, yet another fraction of the state government (The Courts) does not? How can the state, who hasn't lost anything, receive compensation based on illegal documents, but homeowners get foreclosed upon, with these same documents? Her answer? Because you didn't lose your case because of robo-signing, you lost because you didn't pay your mortgage and the judge found that the bank owned your mortgage. Excuse me????? How can the bank show that they own my mortgage when their proof of ownership are the very same robo-signed documents that the AG office has just said were illegal? And this isn't about whether I paid or not, this is about whether the bank OWNS MY NOTE & MORTGAGE OR NOT!!!!

Now, my documents aren't LPS or DocX, that I know of anyways. Countrywide (and we know how corrupt THEY were!) kept it in house. But, the very same ROBO-SIGNOR names that were used by LPS were used. Whether Jill Wosnak's name was used by LPS, or Countrywide, she's still the same robo-signor. If robo-signing is illegal and the signatures are forged, it makes those documents fraudulent ones. So how can a bank use fraudulent documents to show ownership? Especially when I had a hand writing expert's report that the signatures were forged! (Think maybe the judges in my case are either ignorant or corrupt here? Either way, their rulings are null and void due to fraud...as fraud vitiates everything. And the AAG doesn't know this? BULL PUCKIES!)
Ms. Conti's answer? You just aren't listening and don't understand and I don't know how else to explain it to you. It seems you just don't agree with me or the judge and need to appeal your case. I cannot help you.

Hmmmmm.... either Ms. Conti is very uneducated about the fraud here, or is helping in covering it up! Either way, is this the kind of caliber of attorney we have sitting in the state AG's office? Because if she is any kind of representation of what we have up there, no wonder the citizens of Maine are having their homes and businesses stolen by the fraudulent practices of these banks!!!
Seems to me, that illegal robo-signed documents that are illegal enough for the state of Maine to collect a settlement on should also be illegal enough for homeowners to prove that the banks don't own our mortgages!!!

And what happened to the $500k to help homeowners in foreclosure? Aren't I one?? But yet, Ms. Conti can't help me!!

Sunday, February 3, 2013

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE


Carl F. Worden

January 15, 2013

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

Fascist Liberal Harvey Weinstein Wants to Curb Internet News Sharing

Oscar winning producer, Harvey Weinstein, a strong supporter of Obama, is going to push for legislation that would force websites to pay for linking to news articles. This legislation would require news websites and blogs to pay a monitoring organization (can we say, Big Brother's Watching!!) a fee for every link to an article written by a journalist.

Like my blog here and other sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google would have to pay for the privilege of including snippets and links to news stories! This is nothing more than just plain old censorship and trying to make it so that we go back to the days before the internet where we were only told the news that the liberal media (thus the government) wanted us to know!

This blogger has pointed out for many years now that mainstream media reporters have been nothing more than governmental puppets reporting only what the fascist US government wants the public to know and be aware of, even if they have to lie to do it!  They are no longer true journalists reporting both sides of the story fairly and without bias so that we ourselves can deduce the truth. The internet has provided an avenue to do just this. And not just from America, but from all over the world! We get to see ourselves from many different viewpoints and get to see what truly is happening out there in the real world.

And fascists like Weinstein want to curb this cause God forbid that the slaves become educated to what their fascist government and supporters are actually doing, right? So, let's just charge them for spreading news that might educate them with the truth, with a fee each time they do!!!!

For example, I'm going to do right now, exactly what Weinstein wants to charge us for, so you can see what Rich Ord at WebProNews so succinctly wrote:
Weinstein said, “Journalists don’t benefit when their stories are taken, and given a link. It would be like me launching a newspaper–call it Link—where I can have the greatest journalists in the world working for me without paying them. It’s inconceivable. If BMI and ASCAP can monitor the music business, we need a BMI and an ASCAP to monitor these businesses. This will be the one legislation for our industry that I’ll press.”

Weinstein may think he’s only talking about making news linking giants like Google News pay, but laws against free linking could not just apply to them. His proposed legislation would also have to apply to Reddit, Stumbleupon, Facebook, Twitter and news publishers and bloggers who routinely republish snippets of news articles with links to the original. Many of these sites also inbed video clips as well.

Weinstein challenges the assertion by publishers that linking and taking small snippets of articles is not stealing content but is actually promoting the content. Weinstein equates linking and publishing as one and the same. Weinstein also told Deadline, “When it comes to journalists and journalism, I’m with you. It is important they get paid for good work, and wrong that others just take it, with a link.”.

Since most articles have numerous social buttons encouraging “sharing” their articles via social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, you would think it would be obvious to Weinstein that publishers and journalists want their stories to be linked to. The definition of going viral is mass sharing on social media sites which pushes huge numbers of people to a journalist article if he is so lucky. Linking drives traffic to an article which theoretically can then be monitized by the publisher. If the publisher doesn’t want the traffic he can put up a firewall login and charge visitors to read the sites content.

If a news site like Deadline doesn’t want its articles linked to then it shouldn’t publish them on a linking platform called the Web. Weinstein may be surprised to learn that Deadline and most news sites are quite happy that their articles get free traffic driven by links!

Just like the music industry, which has in the past sued the parents of kids who downloaded music without paying for it, Weinstein proposes that those linking to content should also have to pay up. He wants to do it a bit more tactifully than the RIAA, but still wants to collect nonetheless. His idea I presume is to first change the definition of fair use which is permitted per U.S. and many international copyright laws, where a website can take snippets of content and reuse it to a certain extent.