Supreme Court: We Must ‘Expressly Invoke’ Our Rights to Have Them Upheld

In order to have your rights upheld in this country, do you now have to officially announce them out loud?Melissa Melton

Earlier this month, the same Supreme Court who found thatAmericans can be strip searched during an arrest for any offense also found that a person’s silence can, in fact, be used against him if he does not officially announce that he is invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

The Atlantic Wire reported:

Basically, if you’re ever in any trouble with police (no, we don’t condone breaking laws) and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you’re invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut. ‘Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer’s question,’ reads the opinion from Justice Samuel Alito, which Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts backed. Justices Thomas and Scalia had a concurring opinion while the remaining four Supremes dissented. [emphasis added]

(Notice Justice Alito referred to our Fifth Amendment right as a “privilege” — Isn’t it wonderful that these people are appointed to their positions for life?)

Supreme Court approves warrantless DNA sampling, likens it to fingerprinting and photographing

Madison Ruppert

Law enforcement can now force suspects arrested for serious crimes to give samples of their DNA without a warrant, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday.

This is surely going to be a controversial decision, as their ruling siding with Monsanto over patents on “self-replicating technology” in May was.

Both law enforcement officials and privacy groups were keeping a close eye on the Court’s decision in this case because at least 27 states, along with the federal government, currently have regulations requiring suspects to give DNA samples when arrested for allegedly committing certain crimes, regardless of conviction.

In the states that have these laws, the DNA samples harvested from suspects are then cataloged in state and federal databases, again without conviction.

No automatic right to lawyer in US civil cases: court

The US Supreme Court in Washington
© AFP/File Karen Bleier

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that states did not have an automatic duty to provide counsel in civil courts in the case of a divorced father who was jailed for failing to pay child support.

By a majority 5-4 vote, the justices found that while the South Carolina father's rights had been violated because he was not given free counsel, US states did not have to provide such advice in all civil contempt cases.

The case was being highly watched and had become emblematic of what civil rights groups have called a trend towards "debtors' prisons" in America.

Supreme Court orders California to free prisoners

A locked cellblock inside a US prison
© AFP/File Robyn Beck

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ordered California Monday to free thousands of prison inmates, saying chronic overcrowding violated inmates' rights -- but one judge warned the ruling was "outrageous."

In a narrow 5-4 majority ruling upholding a lower court decision, the top US court said the release is the only way to address the constitutional violation of cruel and unusual punishment.

"This case arises from serious constitutional violations in California's prison system. The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a majority opinion.

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes in Kentucky

Wiki Commons

David G. Savage
L.A. Times

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Supreme Court Lets Corporations Ban Class Actions

"This morning, the US Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts." - Attorney Deepak Gupta.

Supreme Court AFP File image

Stephen Lendman, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

In an earlier article I discussed hurdles ordinary people face before America's High Court.  Saying pro-business rulings aren't new, it suggested the most damaging one occurred in 1886.  In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway, the High Court granted corporations legal personhood. Ever since, they've had the same rights as people without the responsibilities. Their limited liability status exempts them.

As a result, they've profited hugely and continue winning favorable rulings. Today more than ever from the Roberts Court, one observer calling its first full (2006-07) term a "blockbuster" with the Court's conservative wing prevailing most often.

Through today, it's been much the same, notably in its January 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, ruling government can't limit corporate political election spending as doing it violates their First Amendment freedoms. Writing for the 5 - 4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy called it legal "political speech," effectively putting a price tag on democracy.

Supreme Court rejects Guantanamo appeals

© AFP

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected three appeals by Guantanamo detainees protesting their indefinite detention.

The highest US court did not decide three other appeals, including one filed by ethnic Uighur Chinese Muslims who were arrested in error in Afghanistan in 2001, and are still being held at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The three appeals denied had asserted that the inmates' rights to challenge their detention had been violated and maintained that the indefinite detentions violated international rights law.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US Fed to release crisis bailout data

© AFP/File Karen Bleier

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Federal Reserve said Monday it would release data on its emergency aid to banks after the Supreme Court rejected arguments to keep it secret.

The Supreme Court declined to review a ruling that forces the Fed to publish the names of banks that borrowed from its discount window in April and May 2008, months before the industry fell into a panic.

Supreme Court Rules The Fed Has 5 Days to Release Records to Bloomberg

Dees Illustration

Zero Hedge

In a crushing blow against the Fed and the banks that own it, in this case represented by the Clearing House Association, the Supreme Court rejected an industry appeal set forth by the CHA, that sought to keep critical bailout data from going public. The lawsuit was originally started by the great and late Mark Pittman, who tragically passed away around Thanksgiving 2009: we are confident we would be delighted to learn that his unprecedented act of suing the Fed in order to generate more transparency has finally succeeded.

From Bloomberg:

The justices today left intact a court order that gives the Fed five days to release the records, sought by Bloomberg News’s parent company, Bloomberg LP. The Clearing House Association LLC, a group of the nation’s largest commercial banks, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The order marks the first time a court has forced the Fed to reveal the names of banks that borrowed from its oldest lending program, the 98-year-old discount window. The disclosures, together with details of six bailout programs released by the central bank in December under a congressional mandate, would give taxpayers insight into the Fed’s unprecedented $3.5 trillion effort to stem the 2008 financial panic. 

“I can’t recall that the Fed was ever sued and forced to release information” in its 98-year history, said Allan H. Meltzer, the author of three books on the U.S central bank and a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Supreme Court and Pharmaceutical Terrorism

Dr. Mark Sircus
IMVA

The Supreme Court showed the world today that there is nothing supreme or noble about it and that it is as corrupt and cruel as most other governmental institutions. In a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled for Wyeth, saying they could not be sued for vaccine damages. Wyeth is now owned by Pfizer Inc. The U.S. Supreme Courtruled that federal law shields vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits in state courts seeking damages for a child’s injuries or death from a vaccine’s side effects.

The trial case was a lawsuit by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered seizures as an infant after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine in 1992. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday the 22nd of February 2011 sustaining the federal law that shielded vaccine manufacturers from desperate parents who seek damages for serious health problems suffered by their children.

Today’s children are hit with more shots in a day then most of us were hit with in our entire childhood. No doubt certain pharmaceutical madmen fantasize having a permanent tubular hookup with every child receiving constant (24/7) chemical injection and the Supreme Court would obviously go along with that. Pharmaceutical terrorism and medical madness is alive and well in this world of ours and is part of the backbone of our modern civilization and the legal system has totally bought into it even though they understand nothing about medicine and the consequence of supporting the madness of pharmaceutical companies.


The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is a law that was adopted by Congress that created a special program to handle disputes in an effort to ensure a stable vaccine supply—by shielding companies from most lawsuits. The federal program, involving what is known as the vaccine court, has awarded more than $1.8 billion for vaccine injury claims in nearly 2,500 cases since 1989. It is funded by a tax on vaccines. The 1.8 billion dollars awarded is proof positive that vaccines are not safe.And everyone knows that the government employs an army of lawyers to make it as difficult as possible for parents and their lawyers to win their cases.

A careful study of pharmaceutical terrorism entails taking a trip into the darkest places that exist in humanity and it is no accident that when we make the journey we find ourselves in places where doctors and scientists work together as they did in Nazi Germany. This subject takes us to the bottom cellars of hell, into the deepest and darkest dungeon, into a place and into a type of person that defiles the very nature of beauty and love, a place where all human heart is lost. The Nazi doctors offer us a view of monsters that have remained invisible, dressed as they are eternally in three-piece suits or white lab coats. And now we have the Supreme Court of the United States in on the terror supporting laws that support and protect vaccine companies.

Let’s face it, our children’s lives have been ruined.
Have you ever lived with a family that has a child
with thimerosal-induced autism? It’s not pretty.
Not only do many of these children have no lives but they also
live in a daily hell that many cannot even begin to imagine.
They can’t sleep. They can’t communicate.
They bang their heads and roll up in pain.
Many have eating disorders or cannot tolerate most foods.
And many are easy targets of sexual predators.
Lori McIlwain

There is a direct line of continuity that can be traced between a group of men and companies that arose to the heights of industrial power years before Hitler, men and companies who existed and supported the rise of Nazi Germany and who continued on to the present day in comfortable corporate luxury and power. (The personnel, infrastructure and technology of companies like Bayer, for example, have flowed on continuously through three incarnations of corporate name and structure.)

Bayer experimental drugs were tested on Auschwitz prisoners.
One of the SS doctors at Auschwitz, Dr. Helmut Vetter, a longtime Bayer
employee, was involved in the testing of Bayer experimental vaccines and
medicines on inmates. He was later executed for giving inmates fatal
injections. “I have thrown myself into my work wholeheartedly,” he
wrote to his bosses at Bayer headquarters, “especially as I have the
opportunity to test our new preparations. I feel like I am in paradise.”

 

When John D. Rockefeller interlocked his American-based international empire with that of I.G. Farben in 1928 “there was created the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known.” Not only has that cartel survived through the years, it has grown and prospered. Eustace Mullins described very well the roots of this nightmare and how John D. Rockefeller, with the help of the American Medical Association and government officials, gained control of America’s “health” care industry in the early part of this century. “Educating” medical students was instrumental in their plan. Mullins writes: “Rockefeller’s Education Board has spent more than $100 million to gain control of the nation’s medical schools and turn our physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated to surgery and the heavy use of drugs.”

Heroin, originally created by I.G. Farben, is outlawed
in 1924 as a prescription drug in the United States.

On the day of our birth doctors and nurses, with the willing acceptance and surrender of our parents, plunge cold steel into our flesh and inject a foreign fluid laced with poison and other modified genetic materials that assaults our immune and other critical systems of our bodies. Babies cry when their basic needs are frustrated, they cry when they are in need and when they are attacked and hurt.

According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood deaths
from infectious diseases in the U.S.A. were diphtheria, pertussis,
scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined
death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent
before the implementation of mass vaccine programs.Harold Buttram MD

The Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 I.G. Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. Amazingly however, by 1951 all of them had already been released, continuing to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved the I.G. Farben into Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF. Today each of the three daughters of the I.G. Farben is 20 times as big as the I.G. Farben mother was at its height in 1944, the last year of the Second World War. More importantly, for almost three decades after the Second World War, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (now Aventis) each filled its highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime.

In 1998, the pharmaceutical giant, Bayer, conducted pesticide experiments on humans in what was called the Inveresk trials. Three years later the company behind the tests stands accused of breaking the Nuremberg Code. The Sunday Herald in England reported that subjects were given a single dose of a substance called azinphos-methyl (AM) and then observed for seven days.

Mandatory vaccine programs are “A violation of the Nuremberg Code
in that they force individuals to have medical treatment
against their will, or to participate in the functional equivalent
of a vast experiment without fully informed consent.” 
Jane Orient, M.D.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to uphold it."

Dees Illustration

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Washington D.C., known more these days as the “district of criminals” commits so many crimes each day as a collective body that a moratorium on government should be declared until we can clean this nest of globalists, these kissers of corporate butts who seem more determined to protect their own private interests than protecting our country from obliteration by global cabals.

As congress moves forward with plans to end our sovereignty, as they collude with foreign interests to take our jobs, to destroy our culture and to subject us to international laws and agreements harmful to us as a nation, we need to remember who we are.  We are not globalists; we are Americans.  We are not “citizens” of some new world… We are not a collection of mindlessly identified numbers and codes, biometric identifiers, or mindless sheep that don’t understand what is being done to our nation.

We are the greatest society to have ever existed.  WE ARE AMERICANS.


The greatest threat America faces on a day to day basis are those who masquerade as protectors and defenders of the American people.   D.C. has long since ceased to be of any value to the public although corporations and the obscenely rich find a home away from home in this ten square mile district.

We are also standing on the edge of a precipice and if we don’t stand up and collectively demand a return to, and an affirmation of, who we are and what has bound us together for more than 200 years, we will be driven over the edge into an unimaginable abyss.

As congress continues its daily deluge of anti-American legislation, its un-American activities, bear in mind that just because congress said it, doesn’t make it so.  Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to."  If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void.  Keep this in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in the Constitution.  Almost without exception, every law that has been passed by one administration and congress after another in the last twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government.

Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left.  Her website is The PPJ Gazette 

Recently by Marti Oakley:
Revisiting Conflicts of Interest: Revoking the Corporate Charters of State Agencies


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

Dees Illustration

Mike Adams
Natural News

In arguing for S.510, the "Food Safety Modernization Act," there are all sorts of attorneys, legislators and internet commentators who keep claiming, "The government won't try to control the food production of small farms." They say, "Your backyard garden is safe" and that the feds won't come knocking on your door to control your seeds or foods.

As usual, these pushers of Big Government are utterly ignorant of the history in their own country. Because as you'll learn right here, not only CAN the U.S. government control and dictate to single-family farms what they can grow in their own backyards; the government has already blatantly done so!

In this article, I'll share with you the full and true story of how Big Government has already run rampant over the rights of individuals to grow their own food -- I'll even cite the US Supreme Court decision that "legalized" this tyranny. 


How the tyrants came after a farmer named Roscoe Filburn  

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed hischickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growingtoo much wheat and ordered Filburn todestroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn, and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government.

The US Supreme Court sided with government tyranny

The US Supreme Court, you see, ruled that Roscoe Filburn's wheat could be regulated and destroyed by the federal government simply because Roscoe's wheat production might reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade.

Now stay with me on this, because this is a really, really important point to understand.

The federal government claimed authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), even though the Commerce Clause was originally written primarily to prevent states from erecting tariffs, not to allow the federal government to control interstate trade. But thanks to the twisted interpretation of the government -- and believe me, the government will twist every interpretation it can in an effort to assert more power over the population -- the feds claimed that Filburn's growing of his own wheat effectively reduced interstate commerce in wheat. Therefore, they reasoned, they could regulate his backyard wheat production (and order him to destroy his wheat).

Because of this US Supreme Court decision in 1942, it now means the federal government can order you to halt food production in your own back yard by arguing that when you grow your own food, the amount of food you purchase from other food providers is reduced, meaning that your food production impacts interstate trade and therefore can be fully controlled by the federal government.

In other words, the federal government claims the authority right now -- even without the Food Safety Modernization Act -- to knock on your door and order you at gunpoint to destroy all the food in your garden, your greenhouse or your farm. They can order you to destroy all seeds in your possession and all food harvested from your own garden. And they can do all this with the full protection of U.S. law by simply citing the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 as ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLES:

Food Fascism in The Land of the Free

Independence Criminalized 

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Dees Illustration

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Washington D.C., known more these days as the “district of criminals” commits so many crimes each day as a collective body that a moratorium on government should be declared until we can clean this nest of globalists, these kissers of corporate butts who seem more determined to protect their own private interests than protecting our country from obliteration by global cabals.

As congress moves forward with plans to end our sovereignty, as they collude with foreign interests to take our jobs, to destroy our culture and to subject us to international laws and agreements harmful to us as a nation, we need to remember who we are.  We are not globalists; we are Americans.  We are not “citizens” of some new world… We are not a collection of mindlessly identified numbers and codes, biometric identifiers, or mindless sheep that don’t understand what is being done to our nation.

We are the greatest society to have ever existed.  WE ARE AMERICANS.


The greatest threat America faces on a day to day basis are those who masquerade as protectors and defenders of the American people.   D.C. has long since ceased to be of any value to the public although corporations and the obscenely rich find a home away from home in this ten square mile district.

We are also standing on the edge of a precipice and if we don’t stand up and collectively demand a return to, and an affirmation of, who we are and what has bound us together for more than 200 years, we will be driven over the edge into an unimaginable abyss.

As congress continues its daily deluge of anti-American legislation, its un-American activities, bear in mind that just because congress said it, doesn’t make it so.  Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to."  If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void.  Keep this in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in the Constitution.  Almost without exception, every law that has been passed by one administration and congress after another in the last twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government.

Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left.  Her website is The PPJ Gazette 

Recently by Marti Oakley:
Revisiting Conflicts of Interest: Revoking the Corporate Charters of State Agencies


Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page