search
top

What Is Patriotism?

I am in utter disbelief! Have they changed the definition of patriotism? I swear I remember being taught in elementary school that patriotism was defined as challenging the existing authority (physically if necessary). Basically the idea behind fighting for independence as well as government of the people, by the people, for the people/ Enabling the PEOPLE to enforce accountability of government to the PEOPLE by force if necessary. I understood patriotism to be a mentality of preserving respective personal rights and questioning/challenging any existing authority. If you search Google for “patriotism”, this is what you get… You tell me? Are they trying to dumb us down? Are you awake... read more

10 Shocking Facts The U.S. Government Doesn’t Want You To Know

WARNING: SOME OF THESE MAY BE DISTURBING…. 1. Almost 1,200 people killed by US cops in 2015. According to the open-source reporting project Killed by Police, 574 of those who died were minorities, 511 were white, and 107 undetermined. 2. It’s Final — Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use. In 2013 the U.S. used 4.7 billion bushels of corn (40% of the harvest) to produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel. Source: YES! Magazine 3. More than two-thirds (68.8 percent) of adults are considered to be overweight or obese. More than one-third (35.7 percent) of adults are considered to be obese. More than 1 in 20 (6.3 percent) have extreme obesity. Almost 3 in 4 men (74 percent) are considered to be overweight or obese. (Source) 4. United States is a Federal Corporation. In 1871, the U.S. Treasury went bankrupt as a result of the Civil War. It sought help from global financiers, such as Rothschild’s of London. Global bankers were eager to buy, and the treasonous Act of 1871 was passed by the 41st Congress. The Constitution was altered, and America was transformed into a Corporation. Today, it’s still a corporation owned and run by central bankers. There is no Federal government, only a Federal corporation. Politicians do not serve “we the people,” they work for Corporate America and no one else. America’s product? You. The United States of America is a corporation that serves a political system that lacks anything resembling true legitimacy. The political system it serves is a handful of elite families and institutions using crony politicians such as Hillary Clinton to do their bidding. In what is known as the “Act of 1871,” the Forty-First Congress of the United States officially sold out our nation to the Illuminati (or the “global bankers” if the term global banker suits you better), because the U.S. had reached unsustainable levels of debt, and something had to be done (notice a pattern?). The following is from the post titled, Proof: US Congressional Record Says US is Actually a British Crown Colony Run By NWO (Video): The “Act of 1871” essentially destroyed our republic, and replaced it with the Corporation of the United States. Something not taught in any history books, and certainly not taught by common core, is that the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner: “The Constitution for the united states of America.” The Act of 1871 altered that, and the newer version reads: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” The 1871 version is the Constitution’s “corporate replacement,” and what might seem to layman like no more than semantics, is a far far bigger deal.  As you’ll learn in the video below from Anonymous, the corporation of the UNITED STATES is owned by the Illuminati, which means the Illuminati ultimately make any and all decisions of “real” significance for the United States. As long as the politicians SELECTED NOT ELECTED by either political party’s system, or those chosen by the global elites personally do as they are instructed to do (on a macro level), they are permitted to give off the illusion that they are the actual decision makers for the country. It... read more

If You Rename the Washington Redskins, Rename Them All!

No matter which side you are on in the matter of renaming the Washington Redskins, this is funny. This guy is hilarious. Here is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins… Dear Mr. Page, I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward. Let’s ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns. The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60’s alive. Gone. It’s offensive to us white folk. The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men’s lives. I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres. Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates! Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children. The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children. The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children. The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children. So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves. As a diehard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women’s athletic teams to something other than “the Beavers (especially when they play Southern California. Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers??? I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the “Foreskins” to better represent their community, paying tribute to the d**k heads in Washington DC .... read more

Grand Scam – The Corruption of America

This thought-provoking, issue-driven documentary takes a hard-hitting look at the open corruption and collusion that now exists between big government, big business, and big media and how they protect each others interests as they gain power and profits by subjugating American citizens and violating America’s founding documents. Click Here ToSee The Trailer Stay in touch and get more insights with the America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. To sign up click... read more

The Clinton Foundation Is Over – It proves what we’ve said all along…

While everyone’s been gearing up for President Trump’s inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: No media coverage. Nothing! For all intents and purposes, it’s closing its doors. In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it’s firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency. It proves what we’ve said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with “charity,” either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to the next president of the United States. And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. While serving as the nation’s top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least seven foreign governments — a clear breach of Clinton’s pledge on taking office that there would be total separation between her duties and the foundation. Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 95 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs. All the way back in May, we outlined how the Clinton Foundation had taken in $100 million from a collection of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires, along with millions from private businesses, who expected — and received — special access to the State Department’s top official, Hillary. In his 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” author Peter Schweizer showed how during Hillary’s years in government “the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments, corporations and private financiers.” He called the sums going to the Clintons “staggering.” Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in August obtained emails (that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton’s top State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given “special expedited access to the secretary of state” for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed the Clintons’ affairs. As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo — another very clear conflict of interest. As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, “These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors.” The seedy saga doesn’t end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into... read more

Complaint Dismissed in Indiana – Prosecution Withdraws

A big congrats to Dale in Indiana for taking a principled stand against the predators and getting a prosecutor to withdraw their false charges. Dale was accused of violating the code in Indiana. Dale defended against the accusation by challenging the prosecutor’s foundation claim, that since Dale was physically in Indiana, the rules created by men and women called “government” apply to him. This is the basis of their claims of jurisdiction, the court’s and police, and an essential element of the alleged code violation. Because no matter how much you believe otherwise, it’s not possible to prove a rule was violated unless you prove it applies in the first place. Dale filed a discovery/Brady request with the motion to dismiss. The prosecution offered to drop the charges if Dale complied with their rules. Dale didn’t accept, he wanted the motion and discovery request addressed. The judge decided to give the prosecution thirty days to respond to the motion and provide the evidence requested. Again, this included evidence the constitution applied to Dale because he is physically in Indiana and the witness with personal knowledge of that evidence. Instead of providing the evidence the prosecution said they needed thirty days to provide, they moved to dismiss. The motion as you can see, was granted. Why would it take thirty days to provide the evidence proving the constitution applied? Why couldn’t she give Dale the name of her witness with personal knowledge of evidence proving the code applied? She didn’t have it, it doesn’t exist and she had to know that before she told the judge she needed thirty days to comply. Why didn’t she object to having to provide such discovery saying her claim the constitution applied doesn’t require evidence, didn’t need to be proven and is irrefutable so she wasn’t required to provide any such evidence? Why not argue, as the critics do, that whether the constitution applied is a theoretical issue of law requiring no evidence? The prosecutor should have objected to anything that was not relevant discovery material. If asking for evidence the constitution and code apply and the witness with personal knowledge of such are not legitimate items of discovery, then the judge would have ruled that when giving the prosecution thirty days to respond. The judge was obviously aware of the discovery request, asking the prosecutor twice if they had read it, even suggesting to read it thoroughly. Could it have been “too much trouble”? Sure, but why is it too much trouble to prove the rules apply? Too much trouble to show your witness has personal knowledge the constitution applies because Dale is physically in Indiana? I keep seeing critics say that proving the rules apply is really easy, but with us it suddenly becomes “too much trouble”? If it was so much trouble, then the prosecution could have moved to dismiss in court when the judge required them to provide the evidence requested. Instead, they lied to the judge claiming they needed thirty days. Yes, when the judge actually held the prosecutor... read more

Does the Government work for us or we work for the Government? WAKE UP!

Does the Government work for us or we work for the Government? What if the Constitution no longer applied? What the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the Government? What if Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution no longer limited Congress, but were actually used as a justification to extend Congress’s authority over every realm of human life? What if the President, meant to be an equal to Congress had, instead become a democratically-elected term-limited monarch? What if the President assumed that everything he did was legal, just because he’s the President? What if he could interrupt your regularly-scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him?What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and your texts without a search warrant? What if he could kill you without warning?What if the Supreme Court justices no longer looked to the Constitution to determine the Constitutionality of the law but rather simply, to what justices who preceded them thought about it? What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution had been so distorted over the past two hundred years, as to be unrecognizable by the Founders? What if the Fifty States were no longer sovereign entities, equals to each other and parents of the Federal Government they voluntarily constituted? What if the states were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully nationalized government? What if the Constitution was amended stealthily, not by Constitutional amendments, duly ratified by the States but by the constant and persistent expansion of the Federal Government’s role in our lives? What if the Federal Government decided if its own powers were proper and Constitutional? What if the Constitution were no longer the supreme law of the land? What if you needed a license from the Government to speak, to assemble or to protest against the Government? What if the Government didn’t like what you’d planned to say, so it didn’t give you the license? What if the right to keep and bear arms only applied to the Government? What if Posse Commitatus, the Federal Law that prohibits our military from occupying our streets were no longer in effect? What if the Government considered the military an adequate dispenser of domestic law enforcement? What if cops looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police? What if you were not secure in your person, in your papers, in your property? What if federal agents could write their own search warrants, in defiance of the Constitution? What if the government could decide when you were and were not entitled to a jury trial? What if the government decided to take your property whenever it wanted? What the if the government could continue prosecuting you until it got the verdict it wanted? What if the government could force you to testify against yourself, simply by labeling you a “Domestic Terrorist”? What if the government could torture you until you said what the Government wanted to hear? What if people running... read more

Maybe it’s time to protest the protesters!

Let’s talk about these protesting college kids. Good for you, great job exercising your First Amendment rights,” cowboy internet phenom, Chad Prather, begins. “Now, I’m gonna exercise mine… I remember when I was in college and thought I knew everything too.” Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more
Page 4 of 3312345678...2030...Last »
top