It’s been awhile. #LifeIsGrand

It’s been a while since I was on wordpress. Not sure all I linked to with those political ramblings over the years. Ha Ha

Testing to see where this ends up on the internets. LOL

I think I’m going to post my “black book” Diary online. Someone needs to read this crap and I miss wordpress.

Whoaaa

Advertisements

My Letter to Sheriff Michael J. DeLeo Lebanon County Pennsylvania January 31, 2013 concerning his Oath of Office

sheriff@lebcnty.org

Dear Sheriff Michael J. DeLeo as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in Lebanon County Pennsylvania you were required to take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Having taken that oath I would like to know if you will honor your oath by refusing to enforce Federal rules, regulations and directives that violate the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment clearly proclaims that the people have a right to own guns and in the Bill of Rights, the government is prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to own guns if they choose to do so.

Your primary job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the rights of the people that live in Lebanon County Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government has no lawful jurisdiction in the counties and that when a Sheriff chooses to enforce an unconstitutional directive, he is violating his Constitutional Oath.

The people of Lebanon County are the employer and you are the employee and we expect you to represent us and not the Federal government. As your employer, I would like to know if you are given an order that violates the Constitution, will you honor your oath or will you do as directed by the President of the United States.

Sincerely, Melissa Lynne Kirst

See how this goes. I was kinda afraid to send it after reading that book by Michelle Gooden – Unsolved Murder of Peggy Reber … but, I did.

Hope someone makes a note.

 

 

Nation Wide Write In Campaign for Ron Paul 2012 #Pennsylvania #LebanonPa #LebCo #RPF

National Write-in for Ron Paul

National Write-in for Ron Paul

States where write-in votes for Ron Earnest Paul will be counted and reported:
IA, WI, NH, D.C., MD, OR, WY, ME, RI, WA, MO, PA,CA
among many others that already accept write-in votes.

***Keep in mind some states however, you have to say PARTY not office, and the FULL name, so there it is Ronald Earnest Paul.***

Go HERE to download your Affidavit and Instructions.

If you’re tired of being given only 2 choices every four years, share this with your friends.

If you’re sick of it all and don’t know what to do…

Write-in Ron Earnest Paul? or vote for your third party candidate of choice (Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, etc…)

If you’re tired of the B.S. like I am…

Send a strong message to the Washington elite that have forgotten about their oath of office and have sold YOUR rightful representation to the special interests, lobbyists, and corporations. Write-in Ron Earnest Paul.

Don’t forget to join the National Ron Paul Write-in Campaign on FaceBook.

All you have to do is look for the empty lines on your ballot and write:

Office: President
Name: Ron Earnest Paul

You want to vote for Gary Johnson? Do it
You want to vote for Jill Stein? Do it
You want to vote for Rosanne!? Do it.
Do what you believe in.

AMERICA: WHERE IT IS PATRIOTIC TO REBEL AND DISSENT.

GO Pennsylvania !!!

About that Batman shooter James Holmes’ psychiatrist Dr.Lynne Fenton..

 

 

 

James Holmes

James Holmes

 

Via Robert Wenzel Bolg

Dr. Lynne Fenton’s Bio that was Deleted from U of Colorado

 
The psychiatrist who was treating Aurora massacre suspect James Holmes is Dr. Lynne Fenton. Her bio has been deleted from the University of Colorado where she worked.

Some quick thinkers grabbed the Google cache, so that we can all see what Fenton/U of C might want to hide:

 
Lynne Fenton, MD
Assistant Professor

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS, PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS, AND HONORS

Positions and Employment:

Medical Director, Student Mental Health Service, University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 7-2009 – present

Research Fellow/Instructor, Research and Development Service, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 7-2008 – present

Research Fellow/Instructor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, 7-2008-present

Fellowship in Brain Imaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Denver, 1008-2010

Residency in General Psychiatry, University of Colorado Denver, 2005-2008

Physician, private practice, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Denver, CO, 1994-2005

Medical Acupuncturist, Mile High Spine and Rehabilitation, Greenwood Village, CO, 2001-2002, and 2004-2005

Physician, Colorado Rehabilitation and Occupational Medicine, Aurora, CO, 1993-1994

Chief of Physical Medicine, United States Air Force, San Antonio, TX, 1990-1993

Staff Physiatrist, Wilford Hall United States Air Force Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, 1990-1993

Residency in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University Medical Center, 1986-1990

Other Experience and Professional Memberships:

Colorado Psychiatric Society Junior Trustee, 2009-present

American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology Board-certified, 2009

Colorado Psychiatric Society Early Career Psychiatrists Trustee, 2008-2009

State of Colorado Medical License – issued 1993

American Board of Electrodiagnostic Medicine Certified, 1992

American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Board-certified, 1991

Honors:

Associate Investigator Award for training in research from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 2008-2011

PRITE Award, 2006, 2007

Medal of Commendation, United States Air Force, 1993

Scholl Fellowship Award for research in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1990

Teaching Activities (limited to Psychiatry-related teaching):

Supervision:

Psychiatry Residents:

weekly supervision of six R2 residents, 1-hour per resident 2007- 2008
supervision of R1-R4 residents in outpatient clinic, 4 hours per week 2007- 2008
inpatient and consult-liaison call, supervision of R2 and R3 residents 2008 – present
Student Mental Health Service, supervision of R4 and R3 residents, 2009 – present

Lectures:

“Pain – Diagnosis and Treatment”, 2006, 2008
University of Colorado, R2 Consult-Liaison Psychiatry class
“Somatoform Disorders”, 2006, 2008
University of Colorado, R2 Consult-Liaison Psychiatry class
“CATIE”, 2007, 2008, 2009
University of Colorado, R3 Evidence-based Medicine course
“STEP-BD”, 2007, 2008, 2009
University of Colorado, R3 Evidence-based Medicine course
“STAR*D”, 2007, 2008, 2009
University of Colorado, R3 Evidence-based Medicine course

Courses:

Psychiatry Board and PRITE Review Course – Developed and co-taught 10 session weekly course for R1-R4 residents, 8/2007-10/2007
Psychopharmacology for Non-Prescribing Clinicians – Developed and taught weekly course for social work interns, 9/2007-3/2008
R-3 Evidence-Based Medicine – Co-taught weekly 90 minute course for R3 residents
Axis-II Disorders – 4 lecture series, part of R-1 introductory lectures, 1/2009, 4/2009
Student Mental Health – New 5 week course for R-4 residents to begin 2010
R4 Clinical Rotation in Student Mental Health – One-half day per week, 2009 – present

Presentations:

Grand Rounds: “Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality, and Chronic Pain”, University of Colorado, Department of Psychiatry, 9/28/2005
Poster presentation: “Psychotherapy for Patients with Neuropsychiatric Disorders”, Junior Faculty Poster Show, University of Colorado Department of Psychiatry, 3/2007
Grand Rounds: “Student Mental Health – a Developmental Perspective”, University of Colorado, Department of Psychiatry, 10/11/2009

Clinical Activities:

Medical Director, Student Mental Health Service, University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, 2009 – present

medication and psychotherapy for 15-20 graduate students per week
coordination of team of four mental health clinicians
supervision of R4 and R3 residents who treat student
lectures, outreach to students, administrators and faculty

Psychiatrist, 5-10 general psychiatry patients, medication and psychotherapy, 2008 – present

SCHOLARSHIPS AND PUBLICATIONS

Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications:

Roth EJ. Fenton LL. Gaebler-Spira DJ. Frost FS. Yarkony GM. Superior mesenteric artery syndrome in acute traumatic quadriplegia: case reports and literature review. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 72(6):417-20, 1991 May.

Green D. Lee MY. Lim AC. Chmiel JS. Vetter M. Pang T. Chen D. Fenton L. Yarkony GM. Meyer PR Jr. Prevention of thromboembolism after spinal cord injury using low-molecular-weight heparin. Annals of Internal Medicine. 113(8):571-4, 1990 Oct 15.

Geary GG. Fenton L. Cheng G. Smith GT. Siu B. McNamara JJ. Failure of pretreatment with propranolol to reduce the zone of myocardial infarction after 2 hours of coronary occlusion in the primate heart. American Journal of Cardiology. 52(5):615-20, 1983 Sep 1.

Grants and Contracts:

Reward Processing in Schizophrenia: the Effects of Aripiprazole and Risperidone, 2008-present

A functional MRI investigation

False Pattern Recognition in Schizophrenia, 2009 – present

Involvement of the dopaminergic reward system.

Functional MRI Correlates of Overeating in Schizophrenia Treated with Olanzapine, 2009 – present

Associate Investigator Award, Department of Veterans Affairs, Schizophrenia Research Department, 2008-2010

Lynne Fenton, MD

Bldg. 500, Level 4, Rm. C4002

 

 

#LebanonPa #LebCo #RPF #Pennsylvania Today is the Vote on a FULL AUDIT of the FED – HELP pass this !!

 

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas.

 

TODAY around 2:00 is the vote to get a FULL AUDIT of the FEDERAL RESERVE !!!

This is it folks. HELP us get Ron Paul‘s FULL AUDIT of the FED passed TOADY !!!!  AUDIT the FED will prolly go from the House to the Floor back to back … call both Reps and Senators !!!!! Kindly mention DO NOT GUT THE BILL !!!!

Capitol Switchboard’s phone number: 202-224-3121

Call your people NOW !!!!!

House of Representatives

H.R. 459

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011

To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes.

Find out if your Representative is a cosponsor HERE.

Don’t know who your Representative is? Enter your zip code in the top right HERE.

If your Representative is not a co-sponsor, urge them to cosponsor H.R. 459 to audit the Federal Reserve. If your Representative is a cosponsor, thank them for their support.

Find contact information for your Representative HERE.

 

Senate

S. 202

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011

To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes.

Find out if your Senator is a cosponsor HERE.

If your Senator is not a cosponsor, urge them to co-sponsor S. 202 to audit the Federal Reserve. If your Senator is a cosponsor, thank them for their support.

Find contact information for your Senator HERE.

 
GOOD LUCK AMERICA !!!!

 

 

The DHS says Liberty Lovers are Terrorists soo a song for us. LOL Thanks TMike !!

July 4, 2012

Source

Since the Department of Homeland Security said all Liberty Lovers are Terrorists ..

Come on everybody …..sing with me

sung to “I’m a pepper”

here we go….

I vote for Doctor Paul and I’m proud
I used to be alone in a crowd
but now you look around these days
there seems to be a Doctor Paul craze

I’m a terrorist
he’s a terrorist,
she’s a terrorist,
we are terrorists
wouldn’t you like to be a terrorist too….

I’m a terrorist
he’s a terrorist,
she’s a terrorist,
If you vote for the Doctor you’re a terrorist too…

us terrorists are an interesting breed
An original man is what we need
ask any terrorist and he’ll say
Only Doctor Paul can save the day

I’m a terrorist
he’s a terrorist,
she’s a terrorist,
we are terrorists
wouldn’t you like to be a terrorist too….

I’m a terrorist
he’s a terrorist,
she’s a terrorist,
we are terrorists
wouldn’t you like to be a terrorist too….

be a terrorist vote Doctor Paul
be a terrorist vote Doctor Paul
be a terrorist vote Doctor Paul

#RPF #LebanonPa #LebCo ObamaCare vs. Constitution = Constitution will triumph

Supreme Court of the United States Seal

Supreme Court of the United States Seal

Philosophy_of_Politics

June 29, 2012

Not all of us are the most articulate when it comes to our nation’s history, and our own Constitution. However, most of us here (at the minimum) understand the importance of our government being restrained under our rule of law. I’m making this post as a means to help clear some muddy waters, for those who may not comprehend just how ObamaCare is a violation of the Constitution in legal terms.

For starters:

The SCOTUS ruled that ObamaCare as well as, the Individual Mandate, are constitutional because it was deemed, and I quote, “a tax.”

The President nor the SCOTUS have been granted any such authority by we the people, to impose taxes on we the people. Only the House of Representatives has the Constitutional Authority to raise revenue (taxes) on we the people.

ObamaCare is officially INVALID according to the SCOTUS ruling, and cannot legally be applied, without breaking our fundamental laws.

U.S. Constitution: (Article 1 Section 7) All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

As you can see, a clear violation of Article 1 Section 7. Now let us continue to the 10th Amendment.

Also, ObamaCare, as well as the SCOTUS ruling, are invalid due to a violation of the 10th Amendment. The SCOTUS does NOT have supreme power over the constitution. The constitution IS higher than the power reserved to the Supreme Court Justices, because the constitution IS the SUPREME LAW of the land.

Healthcare is not a power that was delegated to the United States Government per the constitution. Thus, ObamaCare is officially invalid under the 10th Amendment as well. Why? Healthcare is a power that resides within the power of the states, and their citizens.

U.S. Constitution: (10th Amendment) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The third argument you will face, is often the misconception about our nation’s history, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not truly possess the power of Judicial Review, but, the Supreme Court has been using Judicial Review since the 1800’s even without Constitutional Authority. The following will help put this into context more precisely.

Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court’s nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.
Powers of the Supreme Court

Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.

“Well,” you might say, “someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?” Some possible answers:

First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.
It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of “the fox guarding the hen house.”

The Constitution’s “checks and balances” were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.

Justices are appointed for life. If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

It is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even the Supreme Court should be accountable for overstepping Constitutional limits on federal power.

There are only nine Justices and, under the current system, it takes only a simple majority — five votes — to determine a case. Given the supermajority requirement mandated by the Constitution to pass Constitutional amendments, a simple majority requirement by the Supreme Court, to uphold a suspect law, defies the spirit of the Constitution. If 44.44% of the Supreme Court justices (four of nine) think a law is not constitutional, we should err on the side of caution and declare it unconstitutional.

The people and the states have little control over the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Officials in all three branches of government take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Congressmen, and Vice President, and other federal officers, all take an oath of office to “support and defend” the Constitution. (The president’s oath of office in Article II, Section 1, requires that he “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”) Why is the Supreme Court’s version of “constitutional” considered more authoritative? Is the Judicial branch more to be trusted than the Executive or Legislative branches? Prudence dictates that we be wary of all three branches (and especially wary of the one unaccountable branch).

Given that it was the people and the states which established the Constitution, it is the states who should settle issues of constitutionality. The Constitution is a set of rules made by the states as to how the government should act. The “judicial review” paradigm allows the government to make its own rules with no say by the original rule-makers — the states.

The Constitution was created by the states and any question as to the meaning of the Constitution is rightly settled by the states. When you make rules for your children, do you permit your children to interpret your rules in any manner they like? Of course not. Yet, the states are permitting the federal government — the “child” of the states — to do exactly that.

Since the power of Judicial Review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, this power, per the tenth amendment, is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Read that last listed reason above again, for it contains the key to this site’s being. The Constitution is very clear; any power to review laws to see if they are constitutional belongs to the states and to the people. Therefore, the Supreme Court is itself acting unconstitutionally when it exercises the power of ‘Judicial Review.’ It would require a Constitutional Amendment specifically granting this power to the court in order for ‘Judicial Review’ to be constitutional!

And just how should the determination of “constitutionality” be handled? For that answer, it helps to understand how the Constitution is (supposed to be) amended.