“Obama’s Worldwide ‘War on Unborn Babies!’ Mandated Abortions is Depopulation!”

Posted on by rose4justice
The Revolution Came and the USA Defeated Communism 1945!
The Revolution Came and the USA Defeated Communism 1945!

written by Rose Colombo, original pub. (c) 5/11/2012, Rev. 6/17/2012

“The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?” Ronald Reagan, (pub. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation) On or about February 18, 2009, Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General stated, “There will be significant demographic changes this nation never faced…There will be no majority race in the United States in about 15 years…the coming diversity that could be such a powerful positive force will instead become a reason for stagnation and polarization.  Although, there is a crying need for all of us to know the contributions of Black Americans, the Black history month is still a testament to the problems that has inflicted African-Americans throughout our stay in the country….Black history is critical to the knowledge of the Black history experiment.”

Although, Eric Holder, United States Attorney General, addressed a majority of Black Americans and students at a college, his comments raise the question if his words reflected distinct statements which could reveal a sinister and secret U.N. Agenda 21 with a stated goal of reducing the world’s population by 50% between 1990 and 2015.  A major part of the U.N.’s Agenda 21 goal and Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” focuses upon mandated abortions in America and Third World nations at 50% by the year 2015. Ironically, the news recently disclosed that USAG Holder’s wife owns an abortion clinic which raises the question if Obama’s mandated abortion laws approved by senators Hillary Clinton, Biden, Feinstein, and Kerry,  in 2007, and the fact that Holder worked under the Clinton administration, is a Conflict of Interest?

Mandated abortions combined with other depopulation agendas such as ObamaCare, which includes taxpayer-funded government mandated abortions in America, also allows for infanticide.  Is it possible that mandated Abortions could lead to government mandated abortions, not personal choice, which was implemented by Communist China for about 25 years?   China’s leaders determined the female unborn babies would be aborted under their mandated law for depopulation purposes or pregnant women would be punished for non-compliance.  Holder’s comments reflect Obama’s Executive Order, The Global Poverty Act aka New millennium Goals, which the non-vetted senator Obama implemented on or about December 7, 2007, and approved without the knowledge of the majority of U.S. citizens.

Should we not raise the question and ask if anyone would want their unborn baby or unborn grand baby to be used for food?  Is it morally right to allow corporations to grind up unborn babies aka fetuses and use them for food additives into artificial sweeteners?  Is that not to be considered as cannibalism?  How many people approve of aborted unborn babies  having their brains removed for experimentation as reported in the Orange County Register newspaper as a scandal by a major hospital?  Millions of people believe that it’s moral to use unborn babies for stem cell research or for cloning.   These statements are part of the reality relating to mandated abortions, which is downplayed by the Obama administration, Wall Street, and the media.

Obviously, mandated abortions increase taxes, and fund Planned Parenthood, and generate big-profits for abortionists, as well as some businesses within the food industry. On or about 2009, my blog informed U.S. citizens that Obama’s Global Poverty Act mandates worldwide abortions, which is in line with the U.N.’s Agenda 21, a  goal to depopulate the earth at 50%, by the year 2015.   Senator Alan Keyes attempted to warn Americans that Obama’s agendas included radical programs.  In fact, Senator Obama failed to  disclose his obsession with mandated abortions during the elections which I refer to as “Obama’s War on Unborn Babies.”  He presented himself as a traditional family man with pro-life agendas when interviewed by Pastor Rick, who later on, incorporated Chrislam into his church.  The actions taken against unborn babies worldwide by the non-vetted U.S. Senator and President, Barack Hussein Obama, lead many to believe that he’s the most pro-abortion president to ever hit America.

Furthermore,  Obama’s health care bill known as ObamaCare also includes tax funded mandated abortions against the will of the majority of U.S. citizens. Once again, Obama signed the Global Poverty Act passed on or about December 7, 2007, and he signed it into law as an Executive Order on or about January 2009.  The Global Poverty Act is also known as The Millennium Global Goal and there wasn’t objection by the 111th or 112th U.S. Congress.  The reason for the U.N.’s Agenda 21 goal to reduce the population of the planet under the guise of reducing world poverty and saving the planet.  Obama’s worldwide mandated abortion laws target not only the USA, but Third World nations, especially Africa. Obviously, if the federal government and the U.N. successfully reduce the population at 50% by 2015 or 90% by 2027, poverty would be nearly eliminated, but  so would mankind.  These programs won’t save the planet but destroy the planet.  This leads me to ask how many citizens are asking their leaders and the supporters of Agenda 21 on what authority are they secretly implementing a program that includes depopulation and who made them God with the right to determine who lives and who dies.

Recently, in the year 2012, Obama shouted out in the media that women’s rights should include taxpayer-funded entitlements and their right to access Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.  He strongly promotes the right of young women to access free condoms, contraceptives, and the morning after abortion pill.  Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the majority of democrats and Rhinos support tax funded  Planned Parenthood for-profit abortion clinics.  Abortion is big business!  It allows the federal government to substantially increase taxes for this big private corporation.  Planned Parenthood is similar to a manufacturing business that operates an assembly line of commodities, but in this case, the assembly line’s commodities are pregnant women and unborn babies.  Throughout history, mankind built businesses by hunting and killing animals, fishing, and harvesting trees or  plants for big profits.  But, Planned Parenthood is granted millions of tax dollars under ObamaCare to hunt for commodities known as pregnant women and unborn babies similar to a seamless assembly line for-profit.  It is the unborn babies who are becoming the extinct species on the planet.

Remember, there’s more than one way to depopulate the planet, but mandated abortions and same-sex agendas are definitely included as well as radiation.  It’s a fact that there’s more Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in Black American communities than anywhere else in America.  It appears that Agenda 21 and the Obama administration’s mandated worldwide abortion agendas target the poor, ethnicities, religions, and races, and includes mandating worldwide abortions in Third World nations, such as Africa and India.  It appears that Obama’s Global Poverty Act is implemented as an Executive Order titled The Millennium Development Goal which appears to be in line with the U.N.’s Agenda 21.  The unconstitutional laws implemented recently in the USA appear to be linked into Agenda 21, i.e., ObamaCare, the

Also, under the guise of women’s rights, the Obama administration is focusing on young women, pregnant women, and unborn babies, through the promotion of entitlements such as mandated abortions, and promoting contraception. The Obama regime targeted the Catholic Church and Catholic hospitals, who oppose abortion and the distribution of contraceptives and the morning after pill.  The Catholic Church filed a lawsuit against the federal government’s mandated abortions and distribution of contraceptives. Mandated Abortions offends the moral compass of the Catholic religion. Shall we not ask if the U.N.’s Agenda 21 is a program that intends to use U.S. leaders to circumvent the Constitution and the U.S. Congress?

It would appear that such an agenda is implemented to control the masses with the intent of creating a one world government.  It’s not possible to create a one world government if U.S. laws aren’t shredded or the borders aren’t opened up for the migration of foreigners.  How then is such an agenda not sending up red flags and shocking the minds of every U.S. citizen, as well as citizens around the world, especially citizens living in Third World Nations who are on the radar for depopulation? Furthermore,  Communist China mandated the death by abortion of 400,000,000 unborn baby girls for more than two decades.  Government mandated abortions is a genocide.  Mandated abortions reduces the population of  unborn babies who are the future citizens.  The U.N. and the U.S. didn’t oppose the mandated abortions in China.  In fact, if any  pregnant woman attempted to conceal the birth of a baby girl, they were punished.  And, the Chinese government’s mandated health care programs required the monitoring of young girl’s menstrual cycles.  Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein support the U.N.’s Rights of the Child which denies U.S. parents the right to exercise parental rights.  This means the all family law matters in the U.S. could be rendered under a U.N. flag versus a U.S. flag as the new one world court. 

Once again, the U.N. has been working hand in hand with past and current  U.S. Presidents and  supporting Congressional members, as well as  international leaders who approve of redistributing America’s wealth as well as reducing the world’s population by 50% between 1990 and 2015.  They are playing God and their goals include mandated abortions, infanticide and partial birth abortions.  They believe that the federal government should replace the parents.

Remember, the key supporters of Obama’s worldwide mandated laws were senators Biden, Clinton, Feinstein, Clinton, and Kerry and a majority of representatives.  After the Global Poverty Act was signed into law, senator Obama immediately  filed the application to compete in the presidential race of 2008 even though he previously stated that he was too “inexperienced” to be a U.S. President. Consequently,  the U.N.’s Agenda 21 is known as a sustainable rural development program using U.S. tax dollars for the redistribution of America’s wealth with the alleged goal of  re-developing Third World nations by wealthy banksters.   The question should be pondered if the globalists are successful at depopulating the targeted nations how then shall mankind live, but only as slaves?  Thus, if there are traitors in the nation who are working to polarize and destroy America by comforting and abetting the enemy and supplying them with money and military defenses how then shall the American people stop this evil machine?

Also, there are rumors that the government might install vending machines into every school stocked with condoms, contraceptives, and the morning after abortion pill. Well, Obama promised change and change has come to America under the guise of women’s rights, the war on terrorism,  and health care.  The truth is that the liberal agenda began back in the 1970s, when the feminists, who were mostly same-sex women, encouraged women not to have more than two kids.  The feminists influenced young married women that motherhood was a thankless job as well as being a housewife. The feminists managed to make young married women feel guilty about being a wife and mother and caused them to feel that they should be out working.   They encouraged young wives and mothers to get out of the house – get divorced – go out and work – under the guise of equal rights.   President Reagan, warned women that equal rights for women would result in a new struggle for women, especially single mothers, in the future.  He also warned against Pro-Choice laws. In fact, Americans criticize China for passing a law that says they can’t have more than one child, but we aren’t far behind telling American women not to have more than two kids and that they should abort their babies  instead of putting the babies up for adoption.

Americans complain there’s  fewer U.S. Natural Born Citizens on U.S. soil.  That’s true.  There are fewer births of U.S. natural Born citizens today, because foreigners don’t take contraceptives.  Most foreigners aren’t aborting millions of unborn babies.  They intend to have large families.  America has aborted about  70,000,000 plus babies since Roe v. Wade was approved and we disgusted by Hitler? We’re stabbing babies sin the head and ripping apart their body parts and selling them for profit and experiments, but we send people to jail for harming an animal, and yes, protect animals, but what about human beings?  We are killing our future U.S. Natural Born Citizens who are needed to preserve the United States of America for only the natural born citizens of a civilization can preserve their civilization, traditions, laws, culture, and sovereignty.

Furthermore, scientists and researchers around the world willingly use the fetuses for experiments, stem cell research, or cloning.  They are alleged to be selling body parts, organs, and human tissue which is against the law. Great Britain was the first country to receive licensing for cloning. It’s imperative that citizens of the world and Western civilization question if mandated abortions is a sinister program that is being carried out by the secret globalists under the guise of women’s rights. They appear to seek world power and control through unprecedented mandates that go against God, the Bible, and morality. These mandates include excessive regulations, and cruel and unusual taxation and  punishments with the intent of reaching their globalist goal with their hope for change and transformation of the USA and the world.  Is freedom and liberty and God-given unalienable rights an illusion, or is a One World Order an illusion. The goal of the globalist appears to be a one world superior race – slave vs. master – a one world leader –  and a collective global utopia? (This article may be shared, but not changed or Plagiarized by a Third Party). Scroll Down to the bottom of the page to Like, Share, & Comment

Follow Facebook/Rose Colombo or
Facebook/The Justice Club – Twitter Twitter@Rose4Justice
Website http://www.fightbacklegalabuse.com
Blogs: http://www.rose4justice.com
Books: Irwin Award Winner and 5 Star Review: Fight Back Legal Abuse – self-help featured around the world -www.amazon.com
Books: Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals- 5 Star Political Satire – http://www.amazon.com
Radio: The Justice Club – MWF -9am-10:30am pst and 12-1:30pm est-usa -google Freedomizer Radio at blogtalkradio -listen worldwide online, podcasts, (347) 324-34704 – Follow – Share – http://www.freedomizerradio.com
Public Speaker csontact Rose4Jusice@verizon.net – Rose has been a guest speaker at the L.A. Press Club Speakers Bureau, Granada Forum, Chambers of Commerce, DOJ Criminal Planning; California Senate, community groups, and the Pro-Justice Summit
Other: Social Media and You Tube

Which Constitutional Authority is Obama; Congress Using to Exempt Themselves; Foreigners, Unions, Refugees,Illegals from Paying Up Front for ObamaCare?

Posted on by rose4justice
Take Back America!
Take Back America!

Rose Colombo – Rev. 4/11/2012, 3/30/2012 (C)

“The proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:  Congress shall make no law that applies to the senators and or representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States of America.”

Wake up, America!  How is it that the U.S. Congress and Executive Office and U.S. Judicial Officers would dare to hold themselves above the laws of the land, which they mandate for you and me, yet, they have the audacity to exempt themselves, even though they swore an oath to uphold all constitutional laws and follow all laws of the land?  It’s even more disturbing that most recently the 111th Congress stated they didn’t bother to read the national health care bill, which is an umbrella law known as ObamaCare, and is a  restructured set of laws replacing  freedom and liberty, in my opinion.  ObamaCare consists of 2,000 pages of excessive  mandates and excessive regulations, including excessive punishment, but it only targets American citizens , not foreigners, cronies, unions, congress, illegals, or refugees – 2,000 pages of regulations and punishments – the 111th Congress stated that they did not read, but approved!

In my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse,” I state, “The American people must not go down to their level, but must force the lawyers to come up to their level.”

After all, Article II of the United States Constitution requires that a U.S. President meets a specific requirement for a specific reason as written by our Foundsers.  A Natural Born U.S. Citizen is a  baby born on U.S. soil to two U.S. Natural Born Citizens, period!  There isn’t any compromising on the law. All laws must be changed through proposed new laws or proposed amendments in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and approved by the U.S. Congress. 

So, how is it that an inserted amendment written by Obama into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order is rendered the law of the land or even constitutional law, if it circumvents Article II without congressional approval?  Obama’s self-serving and self-protecting inserted amendment provides to himself  – the authority to conceal his identity from the government  – and from the public.  It would seem that it isn’t ethical or constitutional for a public servant to write self-serving and self-protecting laws or amendments which alter or circumvent Article II of the U.S. Constitution without congressional approval.  When did writing an amendment with the intent of circumventing a constitutional law and inserting the amendment into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order without congressional authority suddenly be rendered a law of the land?  This begs the question why is the U.S. government treating an “amendment” inserted into a pre-existing executive order which circumvents Article II being treated as an amendment to Article II of the U.S. Constitution without congressional approval?  Shouldn’t it be viewed as meaningless or not?

Isn’t it true the U.S. Congress  must approve all proposed amendments that would change, circumvent, or alter any constitutional law?  This makes it very  difficult to understand why the U.S. federal government is allowing  Obama to write an “amendment,” and insert the amendment into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order, so he can declare it as a constitutional law and conceal his personal identification records from the world, since all amendments to change constitutional laws must be presented to Congress and approved by Congress. To my knowledge,  Article II, as defined by the Law of Nations, remains the law of the land  and requires identification of a candidate’s birth certificate as proof of his or her U.S. Natural Born Citizenship in order to be eligible to be a U.S. President.

The reason our Forefathers were wise and established Article II as an intricate part of the U.S. Constitution requiring  that a U.S. Natural Born Citizen be the only person eligible to be a U.S. President is to prevent  foreign and anti-American usurpers  from stealing the birthright of a U.S. Natural Born Citizen and denying him or her their right to be a U.S. President.  It is the birthright of every U.S.  Natural Born Citizen passed down from their U.S. Natural Born Father that must be protected.  The Forefathers required that only a U.S. Natural Born Citizen be a U.S. President in order to ensure that the birthright passes down from generation to generation assuring the preservation of the U.S. Constitution, liberty and freedom, sovereignty, our Judeo Christian roots, traditions,  and for the preservation of  Western Civilization so  future generations can live free and carry on the Liberty Torch.   

For example, a usurper could bring millions of foreigners into the United States of America with the intent of dominating the United States of America.  He may intend to donate funds to public schools with the requirement that they insert foreign history into U.S. History books. His agenda might include donating funds to Christian churches and requiring they insert foreign religion into their Christian religions.  Perhaps, he intends for the migration of millions of foreigners to dominate the land and wipe out Western Civilization making the U.S. Natural Born Citizens the minority. 

A usurper with an iron fist may decide to reduce the population of future U.S. Natural Born Citizens through mandated abortions.  Perhaps, he’ll implement radiation of all citizens, but exempt those he favors; perhaps abuse the use of chemicals, indefinite detention, assassinations, assisted suicide, denying and rationing health care and medications, denying organic foods; promoting contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill; denying natural vitamins and herbs; or donate to public schools requiring that they indoctrinate U.S. kids into same-sex lifestyles under the guise of education.  All the potential agendas are programs that could be used for depopulation of a nation’s natural-born citizens and future natural-born citizens. 

A tyrannical usurper, legitimate or not, who wields power unjustly and arbitrarily to oppress the citizenry, is a despot.” 

Should it not be a major concern to the American people, when a U.S. President and U.S. Congress grant absolute power to an unvested president granting him the power to assassinate or indefinitely detain Americans based upon an accusation?  It appears to me that the American people should be  very concerned when they witness an unvested president and the U.S. Congress shredding the U.S. Constitution, especially  Article IV, and deny their citizens due process of law. Yet, Obama and Holder demand that all Middle East radicals be treated with kid gloves and that they be read Miranda Rights and be provided Due Process of Law.  How is that?

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro, raised his hand on or about January, 2009, and repeated the presidential sworn oath leading Americans to believe that he is a U.S. natural-born citizen, prominent lawyer, and law professor prior to the elections.  The American people are continuously demeaned by the media, if they ask questions about Obama’s birth place.  In fact, the media is alleged to have misled Americans into believing that the Obama’s were prominent lawyers, but failed to report that they had been investigated by a branch of the Illinois Supreme Court and prohibited from practicing law, which is public record, and this may have changed the outcome of the elections.

Although, Philip J. Berg, esq., challenged Obama’s eligibility in the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the inauguration, Justice Roberts denied the lawsuit.  On the day of the inauguration about January 2009,  Obama repeated the presidential sworn oath with his hand on the Bible, but flubbed it up, and repeated the oath a second time with his hand off of the Bible, so it begs the question if it was intentional, after all, he mocked the Bible and Jesus during a speech.  Obama swore to uphold, defend, preserve and protect all U.S. Constitutional laws, as required by the law of the land including Article II and Article IV.  A violation of a U.S. Sworn Oath can be punishable according to federal law.

But, on or about January 2009, after Obama swore the presidential oath administered by Justice Robert including, Article II,  the question remains if he intended  to circumvent Article II prior to his sworn oath or during his sworn oath because without hesitation and upon taking office, he immediately inserted an amendment into a pre-existing   presidential Executive Order to conceal his personal identity and circumvent Article II without congressional or constitutional approval, so when did he decide to conceal?  Is it not mind-boggling how Obama was allowed to provide himself  the authority to conceal his identification records  from the entire United States government including law enforcement, federal judges, and the American people, who pay his $400,000 per year taxpayer wages, and as a result are told that they aren’t allowed to request that a certified copy of his U.S. Birth Certificate be presented  in a court of law even if filed by credible professionals?  So, again, I ask the question, under which constitutional authority is Obama applying that provides to him self the authority to circumvent Article II of the U.S. Constitution by inserting an “amendment” into a pre-existing Executive Order and by-pass Congress?  

Obama’s inserted amendment to conceal his identification records states that he can seek the advice of the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder.  But, how is concealing his identity from the government and the American people lawful, constitutional, or ethical?  After all,  Article II requires identification of  the public servant and proof  that he is a U.S. Natural Born Citizen. After all, his sworn oath doesn’t state that he can pick and choose which laws he will or will not follow or that of Congress.      

On the other hand, how is it that an amendment inserted into a pre-existing Executive Order signed by President Bush, which circumvents Article II of the U.S. Constitution, be considered a constitutional law, because according to Representatives Lundgren and Ron Paul, they stated that Executive Orders were not intended to be laws and are not laws.  Thus, how is an  amendment inserted into a pre- existing presidential executive order written by Obama, which conceals his personal identification records and circumvents Article II, be treated by law enforcement and congress as a lawful law since he didn’t present his amendment to  alter Article II to the 111th Congress and  seek Congressional approval?       

So, should Americans dare ask if Obama’s intent was to conceal his identification papers prior to taking his sworn oath or at the time he swore to uphold the entire Constitution of the United States, or the day of writing the amendment, because Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton prior to the 2008 elections, secretly inserted an amendment into a military bill proposed by Rep. McCaskill,  to remove the words U.S. Natural Born Citizen from Article II, which is public record.  The intent to remove the words U.S. Natural Born Citizen from Article II combined with Obama’s writing a secret “amendment” into a “pre-existing presidential Executive Order” which circumvents Article II’s requirement of proof of U.S. Citizenship, but is intended to conceal his identity from the government and from the American people immediately after swearing his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is troubling for the majority of American citizens.    

 Furthermore, so shouldn’t there be a question by Congress as to whether or not if secretly writing an amendment that circumvents Article II to avoid producing a U.S. Certified Birth Certificate immediately after swearing an oath to uphold Article II is an  ethics violation since a sworn oath is administered and believed to be repeated in “Good Faith” in front of God and witnesses.  After all, Obama and his wife, Michelle, presented themselves as prominent lawyers in good standing with the ABA, and in fact, presented Obama as a law professor.  The media also presented them as prominent lawyers, but they didn’t disclose that they had been prohibited from practicing law prior to the elections.  And, Sworn Oaths are administered based upon the belief that everything the candidates represented to the American people is honest and factual.   After the elections of 2008,  published records from the  Illinois Supreme Court appeared on-line disclosing that Obama and Michelle Obama had been investigated and prohibited from practicing law which is public record.  If the candidates and the media had published the truth then perhaps, Hillary or McCain could have won the elections. It’s also interesting that the  ABA and the Illinois Supreme Court judicial officers allegedly didn’t inform the DNC or the Congress of that information. 

As I stated, this begs the question of  why Obama found it necessary to write a secret amendment inserted into a pre-existing Executive Order with the intent to circumvent Article II, after he swore to uphold all constitutional law, including Article II, especially since he’s prohibited from practicing law. And more importantly, one must ask why Congress and law enforcement are considering an amendment inserted into a pre-existing executive order to conceal a president’s  U.S. Birth Certificate and other personal records required by Article II  be considered  an”amendment” that lawfully or constitutionally changed or altered Article II back in 2009?   

These questions are complicated not only by the fact that Obama is prohibited from practicing law, but the fact that he admits his father is a natural-born citizen of Kenya, a Muslim, African, and Subject of Britain, making Obama a Subject of Britain at birth.  And, according to the Law of Nations, a baby born on U.S. soil to one parent who is foreign-born isn’t eligible to be a U.S. President.  Surely, Harvard students are taught basic 101 constitutional law.  

How then are the federal lawmakers justifying that the U.S. Congress and the oval office are granting themselves the authority to exempt themselves from the laws which they are mandating for the U.S. Citizens.  ObamaCare is a restructured set of laws known as consisting 2,000 unread pages which were not read, but approved.  The 2,000 pages include hundreds of mandates, excessive regulations, fines, penalties, death panels and mandated abortions, as well as excessively cruel and unusual punishments including IRS agents knocking on citizen’s doors, but not on the doors of the Obama’s or the U.S. Congress. Congress exempted themselves from the laws of the land which they are also obligated to follow, but for some reason, think they have the authority to hold themselves above the laws of the land and exempt themselves from the same treatment they’re dishing out for the American people, but not for themselves or the millions of Muslims,  SEIU union members,  possibly millions of Palestinian refugees, and illegals.  So, if ObamaCare is such a great umbrella law with thousands of pages of mandates and regulations, punishments, and fines, as well as death panels, which deny all freedom and liberty,  then why did Congress exempt themselves from being forced to pay up, comply, and from punishment?

In fact, it appears that only U.S. Natural Born Citizens will be picking up the tab for millions of people who won’t have to pay up and have contributed nothing or very little to our nation, but if the Americans are forced up to pay up and don’t comply, they will be sent to jail for one year and ordered to pay a $25,000 penalty, and have an IRS agent sent to their home or business.

ObamaCare is the restructured set of laws which replace all freedom and liberty and punish U.S. Natural Born Citizens fulfilling his father’s dream, I suppose, who believed America was an oppressive nation.  Yet, all the people who are anti-American and apologize for America are the same people  refusing to live anywhere else, jetting about ,and living off  taxes of the hard working American citizens.  ObamaCare represents tyrannical laws imposed on citizens who live in Communist and Third World nations.

Therefore, I have three questions:  1)  How can the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress, and  U.S. law enforcement follow an amendment written for self-serving and self-protecting reasons into a pre-existing executive order with the intent of circumventing Article II, with the intent of concealing an unvested president’s identification, be considered constitutional or  lawful, since the amendment which circumvents Article II wasn’t presented to Congress or approved by Congress?  2)  How can a public servant who admits his father is foreign-born and a Subject of Britain, which makes him a Subject of Britain upon his birth under the British Nationality Act of 1948, not be vetted properly by the congress  or federal courts, as it is their fiduciary duty to correct the records  for historical purposes and for the welfare and safety of the American people;  3) Under which constitutional authority is the U.S. President, the U.S. Congress applying that provides them the authority to exempt themselves  from the laws of the land they mandate for you and me  as well as provide themselves the authority to exempt millions of foreigners, refugees, illegals, and people Obama favors or those who support the Democratic Party from complying with ObamaCare?  (This article may be shared but not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Rose Colombo, a long time legal activist, award-winning former local newspaper columnist, whose Irwin Award Winning book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” available on amazon.com or Bn.com, empowers people with self-help information and true short stories of injustices.  She’s helped motivate victims of legal abuse become survivors since she founded the first self-help group in the nation for victims of injustices.  Visit www.fightbacklegalabuse.com  – Thanks for the read and please click the like star button below –

Did Panetta Say That He and Obama Seek OK of Intern’l Powers to Deploy Troops; Declare War; Forget the U.S. Congress?

Posted on by rose4justice
Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice
Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice

by Rose Colombo – original pub.(C) 3/21/2012 -(you may listen to the archived interview with myself and Chuck Wilder dated 3/27/2012 at www.crntalkradio.com/chuckwilder

Did  Secretary of State, Leon Panetta, just inform the U.S. Congress, that the U.S. Congress hasn’t  any authority over the actions of Panetta, the military, or the U.S. President?  

In a stunning congressional hearing, which included General Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and led by the Hon. Sessions, the testimony of General Dempsey and Panetta boggled the minds of the congressional members and that of the American people on or about  March 2012.  Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, stated that he and president Obama may or may not inform Congress of their actions when declaring war or deploying U.S. troops around the world because they intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission from international powers such as NATO, the U.N., or E.U. or an international assembly.  Panetta referred back to the attack on Libya when he and Obama did not inform Congress of their intent to attack Libya and assassinate Gaddafi, but the question remains, whose “legal basis” or “permission” did they seek to fire off 220 Tomahawks?

Consequently, Panetta’s statements beg the question if he referred to Libya as justification for his current stance so he could cite Libya as a case precedent for justification of their intent and desire of eliminating the sovereignty of the United States of America preserved as an inheritance by our Fathers, who were natural-born or native-born Americans, to be passed down to the natural-born or native-born children, which should be the desire of all public servants;  but on the contrary, it appears that such actions as stated by Panetta would grant absolute powers to Panetta and Obama as he referred in his testimony, not only to Obama, but stated “we” intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission of international powers and that they may or may not inform congress of their intent in the future.  Therefore, it begs the question if it is possible that Libya was attacked as a test case for future justification should they deploy our troops around the world or attack another nation without congressional and constitutional authority?

Obviously, the American people were not pleased when they heard the news that Panetta and Obama ordered the assassination of an unarmed leader of a nation, Gaddafi, who didn’t attack or threaten America, without congressional authority and without being captured alive and provided due process of law.  For if one man is denied due process of law how then should any man be provided due process of law thereafter?  The news reported that Obama with Panetta’s blessings ordered 220 Tomahawk missiles fired off at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 per Tomahawk, and those costs were passed onto the over burdened U.S. taxpayers, who are struggling to survive.  So, shouldn’t Congress have considered that they should investigate the reckless spending of U.S. tax dollars and the risk to the country’s welfare and safety  since they control the purse strings as part of their fiduciary duty?  Also, the attacks on Libya,  in the name of freedom, and congressional approval cost the lives of an undocumented number of innocent civilians and Freedom Fighters, whose families are now seeking compensation from the U.S. government for their losses.

Did Panetta state that they may or may not inform Congress of their decisions to declare war or send U.S. troops around the world, but will base their decisions upon the “legal basis” of international powers and permission from NATO and the U.N. or E.U. and other international assemblies?  Isn’t that like lawyers playing games with words such as “legal basis” similar to Bill Clinton spinning the word “is” or the Obama administration spinning the word “war” with “mission” to avoid congressional authority?  Are they attempting to use Libya as a pattern to circumvent the will of the American people represented by the U.S. Congress and disrespect the American people who pick up the tab for their decisions?

Hon. Sessions informed General Dempsey and Panetta that the U.S. Military answers to the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President and the U. S. Constitution.  He informed them that the U.S. Congress is not dependent upon NATO or a U.N. Resolution to execute foreign policies consistent with the National Security of the United States

Rep.  Sessions asked Panetta if he was saying that Obama is taking the position that he would not act if it was in the best interest of the U.S., if the U.N. did not agree.  Panetta commented that when it comes to military action that he and Obama would like some “international legal  basis.”  He said, “We want to build a coalition – we want some sort of legal basis as we did in Libya.”

Rep. Sessions said, you worry about some “international basis” but you didn’t worry about the fundamental constitutional legal basis this Congress has over the War Powers Act.  He said that congress wasn’t asked whether or not Obama and Panetta were in direct violation of the War Powers Act.

Panetta answered that “we would come to Congress and inform you.”  He said, we’re going to seek international approval and we’ll inform you.  If we’re working with an international coalition or NATO, we will want to get appropriate “permission” to do that – all of these countries would want to do that – we will reserve the right.

Rep. Sessions asked if he was stating that NATO would give Panetta and Obama a legal basis. Panetta said that if he and Obama developed an international coalition – an ad-hoc coalition of nations of NATO – who would give them a “legal basis.”  Rep. Sessions inquired as to who they were asking for a legal basis.  Panetta said that if the U.N. passed a Security Resolution as it did in Libya- we would do that.  If NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that so we have options here.  We want to build an international support.

Rep. Sessions assured Panetta that he’s all for international support, but stated he was baffled that Panetta was stating that he and Obama needed an international assembly to provide a legal basis to deploy U.S. troops into combat.  Rep. Sessions informed Panetta that they provide “no legal authority and the only legal authority they should be seeking is from the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President, and the U.S. Constitution.  Rep. Sessions said he was “breathless” by  Panetta’s statements.

Panetta said that when it comes to the National Defense of this country, [Obama] the President of the United States, has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and if it comes – and “we will” – if it comes to whether we are trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and work in Bosnia – operate as we did in Libya – Afghanistan – then we want to do it with NATO or the international community.

So, did Panetta state that he and Obama have absolute power over YOUR sons and daughters, who are in the military, to do with whatever they want and deploy them anywhere in the world without Congressional authority and globalize the U.S. military without the consent of the American people and authorization of the U.S. Congress?  Congress is paid wages by We The People to represent Americans, not relinquish our sovereignty and the laws established for 235 years rooted into the U.S. Constitution.  It is immoral, and should be illegal and unconstitutional to use America’s troops for deployment anywhere in the world without the authority of the U.S. Congress and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, to whom the military swears their allegiance, and in accordance with the will of the U.S. Citizens, who must pick up the tab for war, as well as sacrifice their loved ones and suffer the losses when they occur.

In other words, did Panetta state that he and Obama view congress as meaningless and the U.S. Constitution as meaningless and their allegiance is to NATO, the U.N., the E.U., and international powers, not the citizens of the United States of America who pay their wages?

The country is established by the founders who become the Fathers of that nation, such as the Forefathers, who establish the original set of Constitutional laws, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights rooted into the Ten Commandments and the Law of Nations, which shall be passed down to U.S. Natural Born and Native citizens from their fathers for the preservation of the country, not foreign-born inhabitants, born to one or both foreign-born parents, who are known as naturalized citizens and foreigners permitted to settle and live in the country peacefully alongside the U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the book, ‘The Law of Nations,” pub. by Emerald de Vatell, pub. 1758; which is rooted into our U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it states, “Right of the Citizens, when the nation submits to a foreign power,” (Chapter XVI, 175).   It states, “In the case of a real subjection power, the citizens who do not approve this change are not obliged to submit to it.  They ought to be allowed to sell their effects and retire elsewhere.  For my having to enter into a society does not oblige me to follow its face when it dissolves itself in order to submit to a foreign dominion.  I submitted to the society as it then was, to live in that society as a member of a sovereign state and not in another.  I am bound to obey it while it remains a political society, but when it diverts itself of the quality in order to receive its laws from another state, it breaks the bond of union between members and releases them from their obligation.”  In other words, the law of the land infers that U.S. Natural born and Native Citizens have the right to secede from the union and remove itself from the union legally and peacefully resisting a takeover by foreign powers or under the U.S. Constitution, remove those public servants from power who have surrendered their powers to foreign nations and pledged their allegiance to a foreign entity against the objections of the majority of U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the televised video of a congressional hearing of March 2012, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, who answered questions of  Rep. Sessions, inferred that he and president Obama had the authority to deploy U.S. troops around the world without congressional authority and they would seek international permission of NATO, the U.N. or E.U., and may inform the U.S. Congress of their actions as they did in Libya.

Where then should the blame fall, on the executive office, or the congressional leaders, for failing in their fiduciary duty to properly vet a U.S, President under Article II; and secondly for not holding him accountable, when he fired off 220 Tomahawks at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 each, passed onto the American taxpayers?  How many freedom fighters in Libya depended on our help, but were met with Tomahawks, which created their disillusionment, when they witnessed civilian men, women, children killed as well as  Gaddafi’s grandkids, and his 16-year old son and friends.   How is this any different then the U.S. soldier who killed 17 Afghans while they slept and the White House calling out “murder” before an investigation took place?  At the very least, shouldn’t congress have suspended Obama and Panetta, while congress performed their fiduciary duty and investigated the actions taken in Libya on behalf of the military and  the American people as it is their fiduciary to uphold just and fair actions against American citizens or foreign nations.

Consequently, it isn’t just the fact that Obama and Panetta claimed attacking Libya was only a “mission,” but it’s also the fact that the U.S. Constitution requires that America must be under threat or attacked before attacking a foreign nation.   How is it that Libya didn’t threaten or attack America, yet the Obama administration fired off 220 Tomahawks at taxpayer’s expense, which cost the lives of innocent people, as they by-passed congress and the constitution?  For example, we should ask if the attack on Libya without oversight is any different from Obama funding Fast and Furious under the watch of Eric Holder,  without oversight, which cost the lives of U.S. agents, Mexican police, and thousands of innocent foreigners. It is immoral to think, oh well, the lives of the victims, whether legal or not, is worth the price.  If the government were to add up the number of people who died in Libya and Mexico at the hand of the U.S. government since 2008 versus 3,000 lives on 911 – what would that number be?

Furthermore, isn’t this exactly why oversight is established and written into the U.S. Constitution?  Isn’t the fact that abuse of power can’t be monitored if congress grants one man or  2 men the right to knight themselves with  absolute power as if they pledged their allegiance to the British Queen?  Obama called the attack on Libya,  a “mission.” and said he didn’t need congressional authority because there wouldn’t be boots on the ground and the mission would only take but a few days.  Today, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control of Libya and established Sharia Law, so why did we attack Libya and assassinate an unarmed foreign leader who didn’t threaten the U.S. if we couldn’t deliver freedom to the citizens of Libya? Shall we ponder if the  answer lies in the fact that if Gaddafi had been captured alive, it may have set off questions as to the constitutional and legal justification for the attack as required by constitutional law?

In conclusion,  if the congress continues to approve absolute power to Obama and Panetta, then they are failing, in their duty to country.  If congress allows this pattern of self-government, without congressional authority to continue, which could establish a consistent pattern,  it could be the “legal basis” that Panetta and Obama are seeking to exercise and claim that they have absolute authority to declare war and deploy U.S. troops anywhere in the world without congressional authority, based on the fact there wasn’t any opposition by congress or the citizens. This unconstitutional behavior could lead to spreading our military troops too thin and creating a financial burden upon the American taxpayers.

Furthermore, if  the presidential executive office continues to assassinate foreign leaders because they “think” specific foreign leaders are “evil” people, then who in America is next to be targeted as an enemy, based upon their opinion?  America has leaders, who foreign nations believe are evil, so what’s the difference should foreign leaders  conspire to attack America’s leaders if we’re behaving in the same manner?

How then does congress justify that the Obama administration and the 112th Congress is denying the American people their constitutional right to exercise Due Process of Law since they voted to deny Due Process of Law  rendering Americans helpless by shredding Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and approving the unconstitutional and tyrannical law known as NDAA?  By the way, what’s the difference between a law that allows public servants to place them on a “hit” list versus the mafia creating a hit list knowing innocent people will die without a trial?  Even a guilty person should be given a trial!  In fact, our laws are based upon just laws that allow even the guilty to defend themselves until now.  The NDAA law has caused the American people to fear their government and places mistrust of the federal government in their minds.  The NDAA law places grave doubt in the minds of the citizens knowing that the government is spying on Americans as  potential targets of their own government for indefinite detention and assassination based upon an accusation only.  By the way, how is that even legal in America?  It is the love of country of our natural-born and native-born fathers who preserve the laws and pass them onto their U.S. Natural Born children or Native born children for the preservation of our culture, lifestyle, and laws.  Shame on the U.S. Congress for not invoking their powers and agreeing to shred Article IV, Due Process of Law, that targets Americans who pay their wages!  Americans didn’t agree to pay their wages and provide them jobs and retirement in exchange to suspend or shred and replace constitutional law, but to uphold, defend, preserve, and protect the U.S. Constitution. ***(This Article May be Shared but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Click the like button and leave a comment, please.  You may share this blog with anyone and check out my website which includes my bio, awards, videos, photos, laws I’ve proposed, and my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” on Amazon or visit   Disclaimer:  Nothing said in this blog is meant to be legal, political, medical, or financial advice but a dissemination of information for educational purposes only. www.fightbacklegalabuse.com

Thanks for the read…..

Grievance: DOJ Tracking Law Abiding Americans, but Not Cartel Members using U.S. Recovery Fund: “Hit” Lists: Missing Guns?!!

Posted on by rose4justice
Fast & Furious: Gun Sales to cartels!
Fast & Furious: Gun Sales to cartels!

written by Rose Colombo, original (c) pub.  10/19/2011

We The People exercise our constitutional right to file this Grievance and demand that the U.S. Senate follow through and appoint a Special Prosecutor in the egregious matter of Fast and Furious: a Gunrunning program launched on or about March 2009.  Thousands of murders by assassination along the borders were carried out with U.S. guns sold to ruthless criminal cartel members  between 2009 – 2011.  The victims were a majority of innocent Mexican citizens who called out to the U.S. for help, but also included law enforcement victims who were murdered by their own agency’s sale of U.S. guns sold to cartel members which is unconscionable.

Furthermore, how is it that media alleges that the executive office has enacted an assassination “hit”  list, not only against America’s enemies, but allegedly against unarmed foreigners and American citizens who President Obama (or Panetta?) decide should be included on a “hit” list without due process of law at the hand of our own government?  It is not only a sin but immoral and unethical to use taxpayer dollars to assassinate unarmed people and American citizens.  If that’s the case, why did we go to war against Saddam or attempt to assassinate Gaddafi who are said to be tyrants who assassinate their own citizens without due process of law?  A U.S. “hit” list is the same as telling Americans that they are going to pay for their possible “assassination” with their own tax dollars!

Furthermore, there is the push by this administration to disarm Americans. President Obama stated on Meet the Press in 2008:  “It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm Americans to the level of acceptance to our Middle East brethren.”

The news reports every day that Iran and other Middle East nations as well as Korea and Russia are arming themselves with nuclear weapons. In fact, China has been building up its armies and weapons for decades. So, if Americans were disarmed as the Obama and Clinton administration propose then the American people would be left defenseless against criminals or an invasion by their enemies.  It appears that the most prominent names pushing hard to disarm Americans are President Obama, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Senator Feinstein, Senator Shumer, and New York Mayor, Bloomberg, and now Homeland Security proposes laws to spy and track innocent Americans at Wal-Mart and gun stores, who purchase guns and ammunition, but didn’t RFID tag the U.S. guns sold to ruthless cartel members.  There are hundreds of missing guns!

Consequently, President Obama allegedly switched $10 million of U.S. Stimulus Money from the Recovery Fund for his program, “Fast and Furious and Gun-running.” In “Good Faith,” the  American people believed President Obama, when he promised to use the stimulus money to “create jobs.”  Instead, America’s tax dollars were turned into blood money.  The fact that missing guns are in the hands of criminals sold to them by our federal government renders every man, woman, and child on both sides of the borders potential victims.

How is it that the Obama czars,  the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,  and the Homeland  Security administration has funding and procedures in place to track legal citizens on U.S. soil, who purchase guns, but they didn’t bother to monitor and track, videotape, photograph, audio tape, and follow basic surveillance procedures when they sold U.S. guns using straw buyers to traffic guns into Mexico that were sold to cartel members on foreign soil?

We The People commend Representatives Darrel Issa and Charles Grassley.  We The People believe this is one of the biggest scandals to hit our nation.  More people have been assassinated in two years, 2009-2011 than in some wars or ethnic cleansing ordered by tyrannical leaders.

Below is a list of events involving public servants in the media who have been actively engaged in gun control legislation; the Second Amendment; the gun trafficking into  Mexico while tracking Americans buying legal guns after the lone assassin murdered and injured innocent people and Rep. Gifford in Arizona; but the federal government failed to track ruthless cartel members for two years.

The following list below is a compilation of events reported in the news relating to gun control by U.S. federal government representatives commencing in 1992:

1.  1992:  Senator Hillary Clinton supported a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

2.  2000:  Senator Hillary Clinton favors “sensible gun control legislation, but limiting gun control lawsuits.  She made gun licensing and registration a part of her 2000 senate campaign.  She also made strict gun control laws at the federal level part of her 2008 presidential campaign.

3.  March 24, 2003: SB 1195 – Obama votes to ban many rifles and shotguns in the U.S.

4.  March 25, 2004:  SB 2165 – Obama voted to prosecute people who use a gun for self-defense in their homes (which is law in Great Britain rendering the victims helpless against a criminal)

5.  July 29, 2005:  S 397 – Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting and fishing

6.  September 2005:  Obama opposes the right of citizens to carry hand guns – Chicago Tribune

7.  2006:  Mayor Bloomberg helps organize a coalition of mayors to perform background checks on customers who buy guns and clerks who sell guns; videotaping the sales; and keeping a record each time the BATF and Explosive links a gun buy at other guns and the purchase flagged. [Ironically, the BATF is required by HLS to link into legal sales of law-abiding Americans, but the Obama administration didn’t tell Americans they were paying to have the  BATF sell U.S. guns purchased on U.S. soil for gun trafficking without any tracking of illegal guns or the cartel criminals]

8.  2008:  New York Times:  “Mayor and Wal-Mart Back Gun Sales Plan” – “A coalition of mayors….led by Michael R. Bloomberg of New York…said it had reached a 10 point agreement with Wal-Mart, the country’s largest seller of guns to track the sales of firearms more closely which include criminal background check of even store clerks.” [ironically, Obama and Bloomberg and Hillary want to spy on law abiding citizens and investigate U.S. citizens who purchase guns and ammunitin as well as other consumer items on U.S. soil, but they don’t care that President Obama conceals all his background records].

9. October 20, 2008:  Meet the Press – Obama said, “It’s my intention if elected to DISARM Americans to the level of acceptance to our Middle East brethren.”

10.  March 13, 2009:  Gun Ban List:  HR 1022 – Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and President Obama support U.N. Treaty to ban guns in the United States and by-pass the Second Amendment.

11.  L.A. Times 3/27/2009:  “U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton ending, a 2 day visit to Mexico centered heavily on the drug war toured a state of the art police center and condemned drug violence meeting with university students….This situation is intolerable for honest law-abiding citizens of Mexico, my country, or of anywhere of ‘conscience live,’ she said.”

Also, “Clinton acknowledged that the U.S. bears some blame for the crisis because of its insatiable appetite for illicit drugs and its role as a supplier of weapons that are SMUGGLED into Mexico to the cartels by ‘hit’ men.”

“President Felipe Calderon’s government applauded on Obama’s administration plan….that will place more U.S. agents and other personnel along the border.”

12.   March 2009:  Letter from senators Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein…..” According to the ATF more than 90% of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the U.S. of A.  Feinstein added that it is unacceptable to have 90% of the guns that are picked up in Mexico to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things coming from theU.S. and I think we must put a stop to that….[the actual number of guns according to Fact Check and Fox was 17%].  They pushed for a massive new gun control and assault weapons ban.

13.  March 24, 2009: YouTube: “Obama Orders Launch of Fast & Furious”: Deputy A.G. Ogden announcing on national television that President Obama launched Fast and Furious and approved $10 million from the Stimulus Recovery Fund for the program naming Holder and Ogden to head it up.

14.  May 12, 2009, You Tube: “Did Obama Make You Laugh”- Obama said Hillary Clinton just returned from Mexico [regarding guns and drugs] and these days they’ve gotten very close and she kissed him.

15.  August 14, 2009:  CNN, Anderson Cooper, You Tube, Part 1:  “Mexico Says Guns Coming From U.S.”

16.  August 14, 2009, CNN Anderson Cooper, You Tube, Part 2:  Mexico Says Guns Coming From U.S.” – and Mexican officials state the guns coming into Mexico from the U.S. are the key problem to the assassinations.

17.  June 28, 2010:  The Washington Times reads “Dozens of U.S. Citizens may be targets of Assassination by Obama.”

18.  July 20, 2010:  The Examiner by Howard Portney read:  “Obama Assassination List: The Troubling Reality” – “In an interview last Thursday with Washington Times, John Brennan, the president’s most senior advisor on counterterrorism and Homeland Security reveals that the Obama administration maintains a list of American citizens who have been targeted for assassination.”

Although, these are considered bad men and enemies or war criminals, since when does America assassinate unarmed people and dispose of their bodies; unarmed Americans who aren’t charged with a crime and visited the Pentagon as their guest;  or attempted assassinations against foreign leaders who never threatened to attack America?

19.  May 21, 2010: The Daily Paul – “Hillary Clinton Supports the Small Arms Treaty with the Second Amendment in Jeopardy” – Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton support U.N. Treaty and may attempt to by-pass congress and ban guns in U.S.

20.  June 18, 2010, NewsMax: “Obama Administration to File Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law” – and, “Hillary Clinton stated, ‘President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy.’  Clinton said in an interview.  “And, the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

21.  August 24, 2010, ImpeachObamaCampaign.com – “Obama hauls Arizona before the U.N. Human Rights Council.  The president’s first-ever report on U.S. Human Rights to the U.N. Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material….to bash Arizona’s immigration law and possibly transfer jurisdiction over from Arizona to the U.N.

22.  August 24, 2010, ImpeachObamaCampaign.com – On Obama’s command, Attorney General, Eric Holder, has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading and which merely uphold federal law….and threatens to give sanctuary cities a pass and threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Arpaio for racial profiling.

23.  August 2010:  Rep. Gifford Supports Gun Rights:  She opposed the Washington D.C. “Gun Ban” by signing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.

24.  August 2010:  Rep. Gifford and Secure Borders:  Gifford supports secure borders in support of Governor Brewer’s efforts and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s efforts.  She supported the passage of the bill to fund more Border Patrol agents and install surveillance technology at the borders as well as bringing in the National Guard.

25.  September 2, 2010:  Gateway Pundit – “Radical Obama Justice Department Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio” – “The Wall Street Journal” reported – “The Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County accusing him and his agency of stonewalling a probe into policing practice that some call discriminatory against Hispanics.  [Ironically, the senate has alleged that Holder is stonewalling in providing the senators with documentation that they had subpoenaed in the case of Fast and Furious]

26.  January 8, 2011:  Assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, who was shot in the head, by Jared Lee Laughner, a lone assassin, near Tucson, in a Safeway parking lot as she was speaking to her constituents.  Fortunately, she survived and is making a wonderful recovery according to the news.

27.  Laughner was reported to have murdered 19 people and killed six of those in attendance with one injury.  He was arrested by authorities, but like Timothy McVeigh, America’s heard very little about them.

28.  January 8, 2011:  LiteNews.com –  U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Chief Judge, John Roll, a strong Catholic man who attended Catholic schools and was pro-life.  Judge Roll was appointed by pro-life President George Bush.  He attended Mass before attending Gifford’s event and he was assassinated by Laughner.  Roll opposed taxpayer-funded abortions which was scheduled to be heard and voted upon one week after his death, but the news reported the voting had been  postponed after the assassination. Senator Obama supported mandated abortions worlwide and supports the bill he proposed and implemented into law in Dec. 2007 and signed into law as an Executive Order in January 2009 without transparency.  The mandated abortion law requiring U.S. taxpayers to pick up the world’s tab for mandated abortions through Obamacare was opposed by pro-life supporters such as Judge Roll.  Obama approved multimillions in tax dollars for abortions to Planned Parenthood which could have created many jobs for Americans rather than killing off future unborn U.S. Natural Born citizens by abortion.

29. February 23, 2011 Letter:  Senator Schumer and N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg call for stricter gun control laws saying, “President Obama could accomplish some better information sharing among federal agencies by Executive Order and that he was working with them on it.”

30.   February 2011 Letter posted on-line:  Senator Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer blame U.S. for sending military style weapons into Mexico.  “Congress has been virtually moribund while powerful Mexican drug trafficking organizations continue to gain unfettered access to military style firearms coming from the U.S.”

31.  June 2011 Letter from Senator Feinstein:  “Congress should renew the assault weapons ban which would help to prevent traffickers from obtaining the most deadly weapons now arming Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations.  This administration routinely ignores subpoenas.  The killings reached their highest levels in 2010 increasing by almost 60% to 15,273 deaths from 9,616 the previous year.”  [2009].

32.  May 23, 2011:  CNN seen on You Tube video:  Rep. Issa questions A.G. Holder at senate hearings who testified under oath that he just recently learned of Fast and Furious in the last few weeks.  [see video of 3/24/2009 with deputy A.G. Ogden)

33.  2009-2011 – Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Senator Feinstein support the U.N. Small Arms Treaty which would disarm Americans and trample on the Second Amendment.

On or about March 20, 2011, Obama attacked Libya with an alleged assassination attempt against Gaddafi, but instead killed innocent freedom fighters and Gaddafi’s grandkids, as Gaddafi, didn’t threaten America.  On or about May 2, 2011, Obama ordered the assassination of an unarmed war criminal named Osama bin laden and disposed of the body.  On or about September 30, 2011, Obama ordered the assassination of an American who wasn’t charged with a crime named Al-Awaki.  Did all three assassinations by-pass congressional and constitutional law? So, how is it that there are so many assassinations such as these and the assassination of a federal judge and an attempted assassination on the life of a congressional member as well as the assassination of thousands of innocent Mexicans and some Americans murdered with America’s guns sold without tracking on foreign soil to cartel criminals paid for with U.S. tax dollars while the constitution and congressional authority appear to be “meaningless?”  These tragedies have cast a dark shadow over the federal government causing the American people to doubt the integrity of their own government as well as live in fear.

In conclusion, We The People, submit this Grievance demanding that the U.S. Congress investigate the events involving gun control and Fast and Furious Gunrunning, going back to 1992 – to-date,  as well as the authority which a president or congress is applying providing them the authority to gather a “hit” list to murder by assassination without congressional and constitutional authority, especially against unarmed persons and American citizens.  The fact that the federal government sold hundreds of guns to cartel members which are missing renders every man, woman, and child, on both sides of the borders potential victims in the present time or future.  **(This article may be shared, but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party).

The above research was gathered for educational purposes and submitted to the best of my ability and knowledge as reported for public review.  Read Reviews and complimentary page of Rose’s 2 books, “Fight Back Legal Abuse,” and her latest political satire with delightful fictional characters paralleling today’s unconstitutional laws with an Orwellian flavor that leads to a thought-provoking ending, “Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals” at www.amazon.com