wth
success…i can post.
March madness
Cuomo in trouble for harassment and deaths
Clinton and Doug Band links to epstein.
Sinema and Manchion blowing up the Ds in Senate.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/barrack-obama-said-pete-buttigieg-short-gay-president-according-new-book/>Cuomo in trouble for harassment and deaths
>Clinton and Doug Band links to epstein.
>Sinema and Manchion blowing up the Ds in Senate.
obama outed as homophobic…
Barrack Obama Said Pete Buttigieg Was Too Short and Gay to Be President, According to New Book
By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published March 5, 2021 at 1:30pm
who is posting their nonsensical manifest?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-clintons-ex-aide-doug-band-gave-feds-evidence-on-clinton-jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislaine-maxwell-report?via=twitter_page
Ex-Bill Clinton Aide Gave Feds Evidence on Ties to Epstein, Maxwell: Report
Blake Montgomery
Reporter/Editor
Published Mar. 04, 2021
Bill Clinton’s former body man and aide has cooperated with the federal investigation into the former president’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Radar Online reports. Doug Band, normally reticent to speak about his former boss, spoke with prosecutors for the Southern District of New York around December 2020 about the millionaire sex trafficker and his alleged madam, according to the site. Band made frequent appearances on Epstein’s flight manifests in the early 2000s, at one point traveling with his alleged girlfriend Naomi Campbell to the financier’s private island Little St. James, known locally as “pedophile island.” He also accompanied Epstein and Clinton on lengthy trips through Africa and Asia. Band has claimed he urged the Clintons to cut ties with Epstein and Maxwell for years, but photos as recently as 2007 show him partying with the pair. Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein’s many victims, named Band in a 2016 court filing as one of 70 people who would have knowledge of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s alleged sex trafficking.
Read it at Radar Online
link gone
Flashback to rule Obama signed in 2013 which stands today
New Rule Allows U.S. Military to Act without President’s Authorization
May 20, 2013
In a major power grab of dubious constitutionality, the U.S. military last week claimed for itself the power to act unilaterally—without the authorization of the President—in case of “civil disturbances,” threatening a 200-year-old system that strictly forbids the military from becoming involved in civilian law enforcement. Seemingly innocuous in its brevity and simplicity, the new rule's chief danger lies in its vagueness:
Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances. (italics added.)
The rule defines none of its key terms, which appear in italics above, raising questions of enormous import. A sergeant, for example, has command of soldiers in his or her squad—is the sergeant a “commander” under this rule? Even if the rule were restricted to those with the rank of Army colonel or above, there are more than 4,000 full-bird colonels in the Army. What is a “civil disturbance”? How large is “large-scale”? Where is the line between situations civilian authorities are able to control and those they are not? If elected officials believe a situation is under control, can the military commander countermand them and intervene with force anyway?
“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” argues Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, who calls the rule “a wanton power grab by the military…because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
Drawing a chilling comparison to interwar Germany, Afran says the rule is “no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [that governed Germany from 1919 to 1933]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.” Pointing to the lack of a clear definition of a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” Or the brutal crackdowns on Occupy.
Rejecting Afran's view, a Pentagon official told the Long Island Press that “the authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised.” Despite these claims, the previously existing laws said by DoD to permit direct military participation in civilian law enforcement include obscure, century-old statutes like an 1882 law (16 USC § 593) empowering the President to use military force to protect “the timber of the United States in Florida” and the Guano Islands Act of 1856 permitting the President to use force to protect the rights of one who discovers a guano island covered by the Act.
The problem for the military is that both the Constitution and federal law are clear in their intent of keeping the military out of domestic affairs. Even the Declaration of Independence weighs in, criticizing King George III for trying “to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” The Constitution, in Article IV, bars the military from intervening in any state unless the state requests help because domestic violence threatens its “republican” government.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 limits the circumstances under which the president may use the military to suppress an insurrection, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from assisting civilian law enforcement except in circumstances “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” including “insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law” as well as actions “taken under express statutory authority.”
The trouble for the Pentagon is that there is no such “express statutory authority” for its sweeping new rule. As Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, puts it, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute,” making the new rule “an unauthorized power grab,” according to Freedman. Given President Barack Obama's tacit support of the new rule, only Congress or the federal courts have the power to roll back or strike down the military's latest move.
>New Rule Allows U.S. Military to Act without President’s Authorization
The new rule was in the 2012 NDAA BILL AND WENT all the way to to the Supreme Court…
http://pandaunite.org/ndaa-breaking-supreme-court-denies-ndaa-lawsuit/
Supreme Court Denies NDAA Lawsuit
by d.johnson | Apr 29, 2014 |
BOWLING GREEN – On September 12th, 2012, Federal District Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. In July 2013, the 2nd Circuit ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge that law.
Monday, the Supreme Court put the final nail in this suit by denying to hear the case, without comment.
The lawsuit at issue, Hedges v. Obama, was brought in early 2012 by a group of journalists, scholars and activists. Containing such noted figures as Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, journalist Chris Hedges, and others, this “Freedom 7” challenged Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as unconstitutionally overbroad.
This section determines who is covered by the 2012 NDAA, and contains such vague terms as “substantial support” “direct support,” and “belligerent act” and, if one falls under one of these terms, they could be subject to indefinite military detention without charge or trial.
Dan Johnson, PANDA National Director, said:
“In 1944 the Supreme Court approved the pre-emptive detention of over 110,000 Japanese-Americans. The Court’s denial 70 years later proves that we cannot rely on 9 people in black robes to defend our freedom.
It is now up to the states, cities, counties, and people of this nation to show the Supreme Court that it is not the final arbiter of our human rights. As 5 cities have already done so, I urge Americans across the country to begin action to ban these sections in their communities, raise awareness, and push back against this denial. If Washington D.C. thinks this is the last they will hear from us, they are very, very wrong.”
In a statement on the outcome of this denial, lead plaintiff Tangerine Bolen wrote:
“We are no longer a nation ruled by laws. We are nation ruled by men who have so steeped themselves in a false narrative that at the same time they are exponentially increasing the ranks of terrorists, they are destroying the rule of law itself. It is madness upon madness – the classic tale of becoming the evil you purport to fight while believing you remain righteous. “
If the outcome of this lawsuit does not cement the fact that the courts will not defend the Constitution, nor our rights with it, there is little more evidence to be presented. The Federal tier has failed us. The states, localities, and eventually the people, are where we will stand. As we resist, the work of the plaintiffs will not be forgotten.
>New Rule Allows U.S. Military to Act without President’s Authorization
sauce
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/new-rule-allows-us-military-to-act-without-presidents-authorization-130520?news=850072
https://twitter.com/Wildman_AZ/status/1367982064251768834
The Daily Beast just removed an article about a former Clinton aide who has come forward with claims that Bill visited Epstein's "Pedophile Island" in 2003.Doug Band is the third credible witness to say as such.
5:35 PM · Mar 5, 2021·