Monthly Archives: November 2019

A Giant Statue Of Molech Or (Baal) Has Been Put Up Right At The Entrance To The Colosseum In Rome.

Le musée du cinéma (Turin)

download (17)

A Giant Statue Of Molech Has Been Put Up Right At The Entrance To The Colosseum In Rome


Tourists that visit the Colosseum in Rome these days are getting quite a shock. A gigantic statue of a pagan Canaanite deity known as “Molech” has been erected right at the entrance. In ancient times, those that served Molech would literally sacrifice their children to him, and apparently this involved burning them to death. And now a massive statue of this pagan idol is the centerpiece of a new “archaeological exhibition” at the world famous Roman Colosseum. Yes, the exact same Colosseum where countless numbers of Christians were martyred for their faith is now the home for one of the most monstrous pagan deities that the world has ever seen.

I know that this sounds almost too strange to be true, but this is actually happening. The following comes from the official press release for this “exhibition”…

A reconstruction of the terrible deity Moloch, linked to Phoenician and Carthaginian religions and featured in the 1914 film Cabiria (directed by Giovanni Pastore and written by Gabriele D’Annunzio) will be stationed at the entrance to the Colosseum to welcome visitors to the exhibition.

They are referring to this enormous statue as “Moloch”, but according to Wikipedia this ancient pagan god was also known as “Molech, Milcom, or Malcam”…

Moloch[a] is the biblical name of a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice, through fire or war. The name of this deity is also sometimes spelled Molech, Milcom, or Malcam.

For purposes of this article, I will use the name “Molech”, because that is the name that will be most familiar to the majority of my readers.

The organizers of this “exhibition” could have chosen to put Molech in a dark corner where nobody would have really noticed him, but instead they purposely decided to feature him in a place where 100 percent of the visitors to the Colosseum would immediately see him.

One woman that recently visited the Colosseum told LifeSiteNews what she witnessed…

“We were so excited the day we decided to go to the Colosseum,” Alexandra Clark told LifeSiteNews via email. She and her sister Tiffany were looking forward to visiting the site of Christian martyrdom.

“But the moment we got there the sight that greeted us was horrifying! Standing guard over the entrance was the colossal pagan statue of Moloch. It was placed in that prime spot so that everyone that entered into the Colosseum had to pass it,” she continued.

How in the world could something like this possibly be allowed?

And what makes this even more shocking is that the Colosseum is actually controlled by the Vatican. The following comes from Breaking Israel News

A source close to the matter told Breaking Israel News that: “There is no way that such a thing could be done without direct permission from the highest levels of the Vatican. The Colloseum of Rome is owned by the Vatican, and specifically the Diocese of Rome, also called the Holy See. If anyone wants to do anything there, they must get permissions from the office of the Diocese of Rome. This exhibition, called “Cathargo: the immortal myth” could not be held there at all unless permissions were granted at high levels.”

Somebody at the Vatican really messed up on this one.

This isn’t just some random ancient deity. In Leviticus 18:21, the people of Israel are specifically warned against sacrificing their children to this monstrous idol…

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

And in Jeremiah 32:35, we are told that this is precisely what many of the people of Israel ended up doing as they fell away from the Lord…

And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Why in the world would anyone think that such practices are something worth celebrating?

According to the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, the way that these babies would be killed was truly horrific…

The ancients would heat this idol up with fire until it was glowing, then they would take their newborn babies, place them on the arms of the idol, and watch them burn to death. I can’t help but compare today’s abortion massacre to the sacrifice of children by these ancient pagans. In both, innocent life is destroyed for the gain of the parent.

Over the past few years, there seems to have been a concerted effort to put up symbols from ancient pagan religions in the Middle East in key locations all over the globe. This includes erecting the “arch of Baal” in both Washington D.C. and New York City.

But unlike some of those other “”exhibitions”, this one is going to last a whole lot longer than just a few days.

In fact, we are being told that this statue of Molech will remain standing at the Colosseum in Rome until March 29, 2020

The statue of Moloch, worshipped by both the Canaanites and the Phoenicians, is part of an exhibit dedicated to Ancient Rome’s once-great rival, the city of Carthage. The large-scale exhibition, titled Carthago: The immortal myth, runs until March 29, 2020.

That is almost five months from now.

Interestingly, Rome was just hit by a magnitude 4.4 earthquake. It is extremely unusual for such a large quake to happen there, and it really shook a lot of people up.

I have no idea if there is any connection, but I felt that it was noteworthy enough to share with all of you.

Without a doubt, it truly is an abomination that a gigantic statue of Molech is now standing right at the entrance of the Colosseum where so many Christians were brutally slaughtered by the Romans.

Unfortunately, not many people are talking about this story, and even fewer are getting upset about it.

Video: Ghost Photographed in Baltimore?


download (15)


October 25, 2019

By Tim Binnall

An eerie photograph taken outside of a popular Baltimore restaurant with a reputation for being haunted may show one of the site’s resident spirits. The spooky snapshot was reportedly captured during a recent ghost tour which began at the famed Bertha’s Mussels. An attendee at the event took a picture of the building and later noticed what appears to be an apparition of some kind reaching out of a third-story window.

Some observers have postulated that the anomaly could be the spirit of a little girl who has been seen at the site on several occasions over the years. And, strangely enough, the part of the building in which the potential apparition was seemingly spotted lurking was, in fact, closed off at the time that the picture was taken and, therefore, the area was devoid of any people who might account for the oddity.

For their part, the owners of the restaurant were rather nonplussed about the image as they have apparently become accustomed to the ghostly tales attached to the building. Laura Norris told a local TV station that she used to regularly talk to the spirits at the site and recalled one particular instance in which she felt the presence of a ghost and declared “I’m not going to hurt you. I’m just going home, bye-bye.”

Her husband Tony shared a similar account, revealing that his friend Bob “saw ghosts constantly” when he worked in the upstairs of the building by himself. While he has apparently not had his own experience with any apparitions at the restaurant, Tony mused that “I’m open-minded” about the possibility that the site is haunted.

Video: Clear Recording Of A Possible Bigfoot Howl In Canada?



October 23, 2019

By Tim Binnall

A chilling piece of footage from Canada features what appears to be a series of haunting howls coming from a forest and some suspect that the eerie screams could have come from a Bigfoot. The strange scene reportedly occurred earlier this month as Stargell Blackstar was grouse hunting with his wife and grandson at a rather remote wooded location around 30 miles Sioux Lookout, Ontario.

In a subsequent post of the video to YouTube, the bewildered witness says that the odd sounds lasted for around five minutes, but they were only able to film around 2 minutes of the weird event. In the footage, Stargell can be heard marveling “oh my God” as a number of unsettling howls repeatedly erupt out of the nearby forest.

At one point in the video, Stargell’s grandson starts crying, which we imagine was a worrisome moment as the family probably would have preferred that whatever creature was behind the screams did not know they were there. To that end, some observers have suggested that the animal in question was the legendary Sasquatch. However skeptical viewers argue that the howls could have come from a moose or some other prosaic animal.

Top Ten Goals in the Communist Manifesto, Accomplished in America. Idea For Federal Income Tax Comes From Karl Marx.

download (14)
Top 10 Goals in the Communist Manifesto, Accomplished in America.


By Joe Jarvis – May 05, 2018

Plenty of stupid ideas kill people. But one man’s stupid ideas have killed over a hundred million people.

Karl Marx was born 200 years ago today. And despite the utter failure of his communist philosophy in practice, the cult lives on. Still people want to try again… this time they will get it right.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels originally published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. It laid out the beliefs and action plan of the Communist Party. The goal was to get communists of every nationality to rise up and unite to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors.”

Little did they know their words would be used by the likes of Stalin and Mao as justification for over 100 million murders meant to supposedly move society forward.

In America, the goals of the communists have crept their way into society with little fanfare. Many people have no idea that public schools, the graduated income tax, and even a central state-controlled bank (like the Federal Reserve) were tenets of the Communist Manifesto.

The points are boiled down in one section of the manifesto to a list of ten main goals. These are the goals, in Marx and Engels’ own words, followed by an analysis of how deeply they have seeped into the United States governing structure.

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.”

Also known as property taxes. Can you really say you own land if you must pay the government every year in order to keep it? Fail to pay your rent, and they will eventually confiscate “your” land. This money is then used for “public purposes” like public schools (just wait for #10) and police, who will remove you from the government’s land if you fail to pay your rent.

And if the local government can fine you for keeping a front yard garden, or backyard chickens, do you really own the land anyway? Sounds like the proletariat traded capitalist oppressors for government oppressors.

The federal government owns outright 28% of all land in the United States, 640 million acres. This includes the Bureau of Land Management’s 248 million acre turf used to control or oppress political dissidents like Cliven Bundy. “The BLM is also responsible for subsurface mineral resources in areas totaling 700 million acres.” That means they control almost three times as much land as they own.

Each state government owns an average of 8.7% of its state’s land. This source claims the feds own over 31% of the U.S. landmass, which brings the combined state and federal total ownership to almost 40% of all land in the USA.

And let’s not forget about eminent domain, where the government can just take your land for “public use” (or public benefit) with “just compensation.” If the compensation isn’t just, simply take the most powerful government on Earth to court–courts that they own. I’m sure you will be treated fairly.

“2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

Even after the latest tax cuts, the federal income tax rates range from 10% to 37%.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20% of income earners in the U.S. will pay 87% of all income taxes this year. These people who earn $150,000 or more account for 52% of the income earned in the USA, but will pay almost all of the income taxes, 87%.

The top 1% of earners– the evil bourgeois making over $730,000 per year–will actually pay over 43% of all income taxes this year.

So 1% of earners who make 16% of the country’s total income will pay 43% of the total income tax.

Sounds like way more than their “fair share” to me, but the communists won’t be satisfied until everything is owned by the state.

“3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.”

They want to fleece the rich one more time when they die, even though all that wealth was taxed already as income or capital gains.

Estate Tax, or Death Tax, is one of the more egregious oppressions of the federal government.

There is a hefty exemption–the first $11 million is not taxed. While that means few typical people will be affected, it still fits with the communist strategy of demonizing the rich.

And every dollar over that exemption is taxed at 40%.

When you think about it, $11 million is not so much money when you are talking about a business, even relatively small family businesses that might be passed down through inheritance.

If a business is worth $15 million, the family of the deceased would owe $1.6 million. If they don’t have $1.6 million hanging around, they might have to dismantle the business in order to pay the taxes. That could mean a loss of good proletariat jobs and a hit to the economy.

The same could happen to a piece of land or estate that has been in the family for generations.

State level estate taxes add additional costs, sometimes with lower exemptions.

But the communists are smart, they demonize the people they rob. So no one feels bad for “the rich” because they will have plenty left over when the government is done with them. Although that too could change…

“4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.”

Let’s start with the Exit Tax.

Why don’t you just move out of America if you don’t like the taxes?

Well, America taxes it’s citizens worldwide, even if they do not live or work in the USA.

Why not renounce your citizenship then?

That is one option. But it’s actually not free. In fact, the U.S. confiscates a serious percentage of property from emigrants.

It is called the Exit Tax. It gets complicated, but basically, the government is going to tax you on your net worth, as if you just sold all your assets.

If you don’t have the liquid cash to cover that, you would actually have to start selling assets–property, stocks, etc.–in order to pay the Exit Tax. Of course, you would be taxed on the income or capital gains first, and then would have to pay the exit tax with what is left over… The good news (?) is you would have less overall net worth to be taxed upon your renunciation.

Okay, but again, a big part of being a communist is hating rich people. People with less than $700,000 of capital gains in their net worth are much less affected by the exit tax.

So let’s turn to confiscation of rebels’ property that affects the poorest proletariat… civil asset forfeiture.

This is often used against poor people who cannot afford to defend themselves in court. The police simply steal property or cash that they “suspect” was involved in some type of crime, without having to prove anything. You have to prove your innocence if you want your car, house, or cash back.

So if cops think a wad of cash came from selling drugs, it’s theirs. If they think your car was bought with the proceeds of drug sales, maybe because they found an ounce of weed and some baggies, they can take the car, without charging you with a drug dealing.

Police seized over $50,000 from a Christian Rock band that had collected donations for an orphanage. Between 2001 and 2016, “more than $2.5 billion in cash seizures had occurred on the nation’s highways without either a search warrant or an indictment.”

And that’s not even counting the more than $3.2 billion the DEA has seized since 2007 without filing civil or criminal charges.

Just having cash is a pretty low bar to be considered a rebel. Then again, what should we expect from a communist doctrine?

“5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

I wonder if today’s communists are aware of this one. They can’t possibly think the Federal Reserve helps the proletariat, yet that is exactly what the manifesto describes.

Some people might disagree that the Federal Reserve is state owned. Technically it has a private board, although board members are appointed by politicians. I suppose in that sense you could call it more fascist than communist–the government doesn’t own the bank, the bank owns the government.

The Fed sets the interest rates, prints money, and finances much of the debt of the United States government. Without the Fed, it would be much harder for the government to control the people–the homes they buy, the loans they get, the interest on their savings, and even how much of that savings is robbed through inflation.

“6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.”

FCC, FTC, DOT, FAA, TSA, CBP–oh it’s an alphabet soup of communications and transport regulators.

They regulate the phone lines, the roadways, air traffic, rails, mail and package delivery.

This is nothing new. Around the same time, Marx was writing the manifesto, Lysander Spooner was doing something productive with his time. Spooner started the American Letter Mail Company to compete with the U.S. Postal Service. He undercut their prices and provided better customer service, but was fined and cited for breaking laws which protected the government monopoly. He was forced out of business in 1851.

The government doesn’t quite have control over the internet, but they did create the conditions to allow a handful of companies control access to the internet.

The NSA monitors every communication, and the Department of Homeland Security commissioned a database to track all journalists and media influencers who mention the DHSCustoms and Border Protection performs unconstitutional searches at the border, whether you are an American or foreign.

And of course, you can’t go out in public without running the risk of being harassed by local, state, and federal police. You don’t have the right to travel without justifying every action to a police officer, while they often get off scot-free for murder.

“7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”

The state has certainly dabbled in factory ownership, like the GM bailout. They control utilities like water and power. And they have certainly subsidized their fair share of business from oil and solar panels to sugar and corn.

We can refer back to #1 to see how much land the government controls, often under the auspices of improving soil and protecting wastelands.

Then there are plenty of government contractors which are basically the same thing as a government-owned company. If 100% of their revenue comes from the government, they are not a private company. This is especially prominent in the defense industry, which is where the term military-industrial-complex comes from. And then think about the roads the government contracts out to build.

The government spends about 34% of the GDP every year. That is a significant percentage of the economy which the government owns.

“8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”

Yes, the Communist Manifesto proposes enslaving all those unwilling to work.

Now, it might not seem like the U.S. government forces people to work. But you have to make money just to park your ass on a plot of land. Local governments want property taxes, which means you must make a certain amount of money just to have a place to live.

Otherwise, you could conceivably save up for a piece of land, and once you buy it outright, you would be done. But even renting has the built-in costs of property tax.

And the fact that the government claims the authority to tax you on everything you earn basically means you have a liability to labor for the government if you want to labor at all.

Most of us cannot go through life without earning something to pay for necessities. But we can’t just earn what we need, we must earn way more than we need because the government will take a huge chunk of our income.

We tend to think about taxes as a percentage of our income. But what about as a percentage of our time? The government forces you to work as its slave from about January through April every year. In a typical career, you will spend in total more than 14 full years working as a slave for the government.

“9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”

The government helped create factory farming by regulating all the small-scale producers out of business.

Reason reports that USDA regulations have forced small slaughterhouses to close in favor of large factory-style slaughterhouses. This might sound like a good idea at first. But consider that when one infected animal makes its way to a slaughterhouse, it can contaminate so much meat.

Having many slaughterhouses distributed across the U.S. meant that any infections were localized, and affected far fewer people. Plus when the slaughterhouse is local, it is easier to know the owners and see the conditions for yourself. The animals are raised closer to home, also providing more opportunity for market oversight of the process. No hiding away from the consumers on a vast gated factory ranch.

The U.S. government has long subsidized large crop producers, which makes it that much harder for smaller farms to compete.

It started with the Farm Bill in 1933 and continues to this day.

What we get is cheap, but unhealthy products. And even though the products on the shelf look cheap, we already paid for them with our tax dollars.

The problem is, I don’t want to buy unhealthy things loaded with high fructose corn syrup. But my money will pay for that crap whether I like it or not. Then I have to spend my money on healthy items that are more expensive because they have to compete with subsidized products.

That’s where the government incentives for factory farming have got us.

“10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.”

This may be tenth on the list, but it is number one in ensuring all the rest fall into place.

American communists got this goal in place just four years after the Communist Manifesto was published, with Massachusetts enacting the first compulsory public education law in 1852. After that, it was only a matter of time until the population was indoctrinated to believe whatever the government taught them.

The book Teen 2.0: Saving Our Children and Families from the Torment of Adolescence delves in depth into the history and injustice of compulsory schooling.

It was designed so that the state and corporations could work together to train an obedient workforce, with the public footing the bill.

The point was not open minds and a desire to learn. The aim of the education was setting students up for whatever mediocre to low paying jobs the industrialists wanted them to fill.

The communists succeeded in getting exactly what they wanted out of American schools. And today we see the growing gap between what people learn in school, and what skills they actually need for good jobs. The communists have got the American education system stuck in a stagnant philosophy of industrial labor.

Of course, they did it with supposedly the best intentions. Sounds like a good idea to save kids from dangerous work. But in the process, they also robbed children and young adults of their autonomy and choice. They forced kids against their will into a government institution and set the course for their entire lives.

And that is the most important lesson that the communists want to teach in schools. It is all about obedience to government.

Karl Marx is like the anti-Midas. Everything his philosophy touches turns to shit. Is it any wonder that America is stagnating? You cannot grow with a communist philosophy. It doesn’t take into account the beautiful creative independence of individuals. It treats people like cattle. It robs people of the rewards of their labor.

I rue this day, 200 years ago.

Christians Are Considered A Terrorist Cult By The U.N. Occupied Fake U.S. Government. Janet Reno Made The Statement Back In 1994.

download (13)


“The following is a transcription of a “60 Minutes” interview with JanetReno (the U.S. Attorney General). She was asked for a definition of a cult member. It is very revealing. The below quote may or may not be true you be the judge. Many reports say that Reno said the statement others say she did not. To me it looks like something she would have said in my opinion.”  Michael Difensore.


“A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the SecondComing of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a highlevel of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools fortheir children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strongbelief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any ofthese may qualify a person as a cultist but certainly more than one ofthese would cause us to look at this person as a threat and his familyas being a risk situation that qualifies for government interference.”

Janet Reno, Attny. General of the United States during an interview on

CBS “60 Minutes” on June 26, 1994.

Wake Up Or Waco……….



Christians Are Extremists Like al-Qaeda, U.S. Army Taught Troops.


Written by Alex Newman

Monday, 08 April 2013

The Obama administration’s Department of Defense was caught training U.S. troops that Catholics, orthodox Jews, and evangelical Christians are to be considered “religious extremists,” even equating the major religions representing more than half of Americans with truly violent groups such as al-Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, and Hamas. After the explosive revelations hit the headlines, outrage promptly ensued. Now, critics are calling for an immediate public apology to the soldiers exposed to the hateful propaganda, as well as to the Christian and Jewish communities targeted in the presentation.

The latest scandal to hit the Obama administration and its handling of the military surrounds a so-called “Equal Opportunity” training course presented to U.S. Army Reserve forces in Pennsylvania. During the presentation, troops were subjected to a slideshow that included a segment on what was dubbed “religious extremism.” At the top of the list — the very first item — was “evangelical Christianity” in the United States. Also included were “ultra-Orthodox” Jews, Catholicism, fundamentalist Mormons, and “Islamophobia.”

Between evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews was the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamo-socialist group ruling over Egypt that Obama is supplying with advanced military weaponry including fighter jets and tanks — not to mention billions more in aid. Along with the Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Nation of Islam, a Filipino Islamist group, and Hamas were listed, along with Sunni Muslims in general. The U.S. government claims to be at war with some of the Islamist groups, while others are openly receiving American taxpayer dollars, weapons, and training from the administration.   

The KKK, identified as a U.S. “Christian” group, was also featured on the list along with other white-supremacist movements. An Indian Hindu organization, some American militias, and the Jewish Defense League were included on the slide as well. “Extremism is a complex phenomenon,” the presentation says under the slide identifying Christians as religious extremists alongside al-Qaeda, defining it as views that are outside of the “ordinary.”

The presenter also apparently defined extremism as anyone who believes that their own religion is the correct one — including, of course, anyone who accepts the words of Jesus Christ as they are recorded in the Bible. “Every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only ‘right way’ and that all others are practicing their faith the ‘wrong way,’ seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others,” claim the notes under the slide.

Religious people were outraged. Catholics, unsurprisingly, recoiled in horror, with the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services issuing a strongly worded statement. “The archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist,” the AMS said, with multiple reports noting that Catholics make up about a fourth of the armed services. “The archdiocese calls upon the Department of Defense to review these materials and to ensure that taxpayer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.”

The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, a largely discredited outfit founded by a man that even fellow leftists describe as a con-artist, denied being responsible for the deeply controversial content in the presentation. However, the presenter later claimed to have obtained the information from the SPLC. Indeed, even the very first page of the presentation, dubbed “Extremism & Extremist Organizations,” cites the radical group as its source. 

“The number of hate groups, extremists and anti-govt organizations in the U.S. has continued to grow over the past three years, according to reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” reads the opening segment of the scandalous presentation, which sparked outrage from Christians nationwide and garnered international media attention. “They increased to 1,018 in 2011, up from 1,002 in 2010 and 602 in 2000.”

The presentation also claimed that the surge in “extremism” was due to the president’s skin color — another discredited talking point parroted by the SPLC and its dupes. For perspective, consider that among the SPLC’s “surge” in supposedly “extremist” groups are organizations such as the Granny Warriors, headed by a concerned 74-year-old patriotic grandmother with congestive heart failure. 

Critics of the military training presentation blasted its reliance on the SPLC. Last year, the controversial group’s wild propaganda was even cited by a deranged shooter who attempted to slaughter innocent people at the Family Research Council, which was dubbed a “hate group” by the SPLC for supporting the traditional definition of marriage. However, even as the establishment press has slowly started exposing the SPLC’s shady antics and absurd fear-mongering, the radical group has also been exposed working closely with the Justice Department and other government agencies.

“Why is there such dependence upon the work of the SPLC to determine hate groups and extremist groups?” wondered Executive Director Ron Crews with the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, one of the many groups that spoke out after the latest scandal erupted. “It appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”

Crews, a retired colonel, also slammed the presentation itself, as well as its characterization of billions of people around the world as religious extremists. “We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” he was quoted as saying. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization…. Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States.”

Incredibly, the training scheme also claimed that “extremists” — presumably, based on the presentation, including Christians — were not welcome in the armed forces. “Extremist Organizations’ goals are inconsistent with the Army’s goals, beliefs and values with regard to equal opportunity,” states the material, which was filled with factual, spelling, and grammatical mistakes. “The Army realizes individuals do not set aside their prejudices, biases, and perceptions in favor of the Army’s values immediately upon joining the Army, however, it is vital that all Soldiers and Civilians are educated on Army Policy and what is expected of them while serving either in our ranks, or in support of our Soldiers.”

The presentation appears to conflict with American values in other ways as well. “American soldiers are supposed to be defenders of democracy,” the training program claimed. The United States and every state, according to the U.S. Constitution that all military officers take an oath to uphold, are supposed to be governed by a republican form of government based on the rule of law — not the whims of a majority. Indeed, the Founding Fathers of America wrote extensively on why democracy was not a desirable system. 

In the wake of the scandal hitting the headlines, the Army promptly distanced itself from the effort to paint Christians as extremists. “After receiving a single complaint following the presentation, this person deleted the slide, and it was never again shown,” Army spokesman George Wright said in a widely quoted statement, adding that the view of Christians as extremists did not reflect official government policy or doctrine. “This person apologized for any offense it may have caused, and we consider the matter closed.”

While the Army says that demonizing Christians in front of its troops is not official policy, the Obama administration has been hard at work on what many critics view as a “war” on Christianity and religion within society and especially the military. In 2011, authorities even tried to adopt a policy stopping visitors from bringing Bibles to wounded U.S. troops at military hospitals, sparking a public outcry that eventually forced them to back down.

At the same time, the U.S. government has been caught on multiple occasions attempting to portray returning veterans as potential terrorists even as it seeks to disarm them using various pretexts. Also potential terrorist threats, according to official documents published by multiple federal agencies, are pro-life activists, supporters of individual liberty and the Constitution, opponents of illegal immigration, gun rights activists, constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters, critics of genetic engineering — virtually anyone, actually.   

“I see it as the government’s complete abandonment of the ideals and principles given to us by our Founders that is a threat to our national security,” noted Pastor Roger Anghis, president of The Damascus Project aimed at getting Christians more involved in politics. “They have become the threat to our freedoms and rights and we must recognize this and use our election process to correct the problems that we ourselves have created by not paying attention to who we put into office. The choice is ours.”

The federal demonization of Christians, conservatives, and libertarians, meanwhile, has even percolated down to the state and local level. Last year, for example, the Justice Department was caught teaching police that popular political bumpers stickers supporting the Bill of Rights or national sovereignty could be potential indicators of domestic terrorism. Just last week it emerged that law enforcement in Colorado was being taught that organizations and individuals who take the Bible literally may present a danger to police officers. 

“Among those groups, [Colorado State Patrol Trooper and future Homeland Security functionary Joe] Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and ‘fundamentalists’,” wrote Prowers County Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge, who attended the “training” session and became alarmed. “Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by ‘fundamentalists’ but from the context it was clear he was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or ‘too seriously.’” Participants were also asked if they would seize firearms, Trowbridge reported.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Obama administration has recently been conducting military “urban warfare drills” complete with black helicopters firing blanks out of machine guns over major U.S. cities. Law enforcement was recently caught ordering targets of children and pregnant women, also fueling suspicions. The Department of Homeland Security has been under fire for months after contracting to purchase billions of bullets while deploying armored personnel carriers and other “weapons of war” for use on American streets.

Apparently, however, at least according to the administration, concern about the developments — what Obama calls his “fundamental transformation” of America — constitutes “extremism” and should be carefully monitored, if not yet criminalized. For critics of the direction the nation is heading in, though, it is time for Congress to investigate and stop the extremist policies coming from the executive branch itself.   

President Trump Supports And Pushes Forward 2005 Bush Era Real ID Card Supporting Security Over Liberty. Real ID Exposed: It Is Worse than You Think.

In Video Below President Trump refers to the Real ID card without saying the words Real ID.  Trump Supporters have no idea what he is talking about.

Source of quote below: Written testimony of DHS Secretary John F. Kelly for a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing titled “Department of Homeland Security Reauthorization and the President’s FY 2018 Budget Request”

“Biometrics is another critical DHS identification and verification initiative, and I am committed to the pursuit of robust capabilities in this area. The Budget requests $354 million to support biometric initiatives. We continue to make progress on the Biometric Entry-Exit System, with the goal of making air travel more secure, convenient, and easier.” DHS Secretary John F. Kelly

Click Here: Kelly Calls for Full Implementation of REAL ID

download (12)

Real ID Exposed: It Is Worse than You Think.


By Mark Lerner

The Constitutional Alliance strongly opposes the Real ID Act 2005; our reasons go beyond the reasoning of other organizations. Our primary reasons for opposing the Real ID Act are four-fold. It is my hope and prayer that you will share a link to our web-site with everyone you are in contact with. I do not ask a lot but I am asking now. You will learn while reading this essay why there is not as big a difference as you have been led to believe between states that are in material compliance with the Real ID Act 2005 and those that are not.

The requirement that states collect a digital facial image/photograph of all driver’s license applicants that is facial recognition compatible. Until the signing of the Real ID Act 2005 into law many states and territories were still using a low resolution, analog photograph that was not facial recognition compatible. The analog photograph used was not facial recognition compatible because of the very high error rate associated with low resolution photographs when facial recognition software was or is used. It should be noted that a low resolution analog photograph is just as human recognizable on a driver’s license as the high resolution digital facial image Real ID calls for.

Prior to the passage of the Real ID Act in 2005 a majority of the states were not using facial recognition technology. Today the number is roughly 35 states that are using facial recognition technology.

Facial recognition software/technology maps your face measuring the distances between key facial characteristics such as your lips, ears, nose and eyes. These distances we are told are unique to each person in the same way that we are told that our fingerprints are unique to each of us.

The Real ID Act gives the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) unprecedented power by allowing the Secretary of DHS to solely determine for what “Official Purposes” citizens must present a Real ID materially compliant driver’s license. While there are three such official purposes today (Download DHS (department of homeland security) Real ID Act of 2005 Final Rules Part 1 and 2 Document bottom of page 13 and top of page 14) the fact is this provision of the Real ID Act 2005 would allow for the Secretary of DHS to add to the current official purposes without consulting with or having the approval of Congress (same link as above – page 37).

The Secretary can add the purchase of a weapon and/or the purchase of ammunition to the current list of official purposes. Also the requirement could be added to require a Real ID compliant driver’s license to pick up a prescription. The point is this unfettered discretion given to the Secretary of DHS is in our minds unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is such broad and sweeping power given to the Executive Branch, let alone a cabinet member.

I think it is important to fully appreciate just how far DHS believes its power extends. In an opinion column written by Secretary Chertoff after the publication of the final rule, he said, “embracing REAL ID” would mean it would be used to “cash a check, hire a baby sitter, board a plane or engage in countless other activities.” page 28.

The Real ID Act calls for state DMV database linking ( ). Federal authorities will have either direct or indirect access to all DMV databases This is especially important since the TSA has indicated that people will be able to board commercial airliners even if they do not have a Real ID compliant license or other alternative acceptable ID document (passport, military ID card, Enhanced Driver’s License). We envision the TSA asking an individual if they have been issued a driver’s license or other valid issued state ID issued by state DMV’s for those that do not drive. TSA would then have either direct access or indirect access to state DMV photo databases. Legally under the provisions of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 the TSA could request and receive a copy of a person’s photo from a state DMV database.

A reality of database linking is it exposes people to a much greater risk of being a victim of identity theft.

The MRZ (Machine Readable Zone) of a Real ID compliant driver’s license is not encrypted. Privacy advocates commented during the RuleMaking process of the Real ID Act that the MRZ should be encrypted. DHS felt that encrypting the MRZ would create technical challenges to the law enforcement officer in the field or in other locations. What we have learned is the “swiping” of the MRZ has become a very real problem that is doing real harm to citizens. Criminals and retailers have used the unencrypted MRZ of a driver’s license for their own purposes.

In order to in as brief of manner as possible articulate the arrogance of DHS about the power it believes it has I will leave you with the following which comes from the Final Rules of the Real ID Act: “Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the REAL ID Act, DHS assumes that States will willingly comply with the regulation to maintain the conveniences enjoyed by their residents when using their State-issued driver’s licenses and non-driver identity cards for official purposes, particularly as it pertains to domestic air travel.” (Page 124 – Final Rules – Real ID Act Download DHS (department of homeland security) Real ID Act of 2005 Final Rules Part 1 and 2 Document ) Ask yourself when our right to travel and other rights became “conveniences”?

There is a reason that our first objection to the Real ID Act is the digital facial image. It is the position of the Constitutional Alliance that too much focus is being placed on the Real ID compliant licenses itself and not enough on the standard for the digital facial image collection required in the rules of the Real ID Act. The digital facial image/photograph standard is specific for the use of facial recognition software. This fact was addressed in the Privacy Impact Statement for the Real ID Act 2005 released by DHS. Download DHS (department of homeland security) Real ID Act of 2005 Privacy Impact Assessment Document

The standard for the digital facial image can be found on page 68, footnote 17 of the NPRM (Notice of Proposed RuleMaking) issued by DHS in March, 2007. Real ID Act’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

This “standard” is an adopted standard by the international community and is the standard of the ISO (International Organization for Standardization –…

While some contend that Real ID is a national ID, the Constitutional Alliance contends that the operative word is “ID/identification.” Real ID is global or international ID. Both Interpol and Nlets (now called the International Justice and Public Safety Network ) have and are using the standards of the ISO for collection and the sharing of biometrics. The ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) has also adopted the ISO standard(s).

When it comes to identification, it does not matter whether an individual is in Paris, Texas or Paris, France, the individual can be identified by the use of facial recognition software and the use of international telecommunication systems/networks such as Nlets. Nlets itself acknowledges that one of the primary sources of information Nlets provides is state DMV databases. Further, Nlets acknowledges it does share biometric information/data/samples with countries all over the world. (there is no requirement for a warrant).

The driver’s license itself is a red herring in the long run. The goal of TSA and DHS in general is to eliminate the need to focus on the ID document and focus on the use of biometrics. The FBI is spending over $1 billion to create the world’s largest biometric database.

Normally when one thinks about the use of biometrics at a distance they think of facial recognition. While at this time it does appear that facial recognition is the only biometric that allows for the capture of a biometric sample at a distance, it is clear that DHS along with others is working towards and has achieved with limited success being able to capture iris scans and fingerprints at a distance ( ).

Consider with the use of hand held biometric scanners ( , biometric kiosks, the use of smart phones, CCTV, and drones the need to rely on driver’s licenses is negated. Biometric scanners, smart phones and other devices connect wirelessly to state DMV photo databases and other PII contained in DMV databases. If Real ID was repealed tomorrow the goal today of the TSA/DHS would not change; the goal being not to rely on the ID document. Another fact to consider is the regularity of which we learn federal databases have been compromised/hacked ( ). Today I learned the number of people who had their information compromised may reach 30 million plus. My point is knowing we are moving away from relying on the use of the ID document as evidenced by the use of hand held biometric devices, how long will will it before the ID process is moved from the ID document to directly on or in the body?

As far as the linking of databases or the ability to query state DMV photo databases, that is being done apart from the Real ID Act by an Interstate Photo (Sharing) Compact and the FBI’s NGI (Next Generation Identification) program. As a side bar: At an earlier date in time the FBI stated they were not collecting the fingerprints of citizens who had not been convicted of a crime. When the details of the FBI’s “Rap Back” program was came to light it was and is obvious that the FBI is collecting the fingerprints of innocent citizens (—fbi-extends-rap-ba.html ).

During 2013/2014 the United States Senate passed S744 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform). Contained in the legislation is a requirement for all employers to submit a digital facial image/photograph to DHS to be used with a “photo matching tool.”

This is a nice way to say, to be used with facial recognition software. Under current federal directives and policies agencies and departments of the federal government can share biometric information ( ). The point is it should be expected that just as with fingerprints, the digital facial image/photograph of innocent citizens will find their way into the FBI’s NGI database.

Further down I will discuss the religious implications of a global system of identification that links our body to our ability to buy, sell, work and travel. Being that I explained how S744 will ensure that even more citizens are enrolled into this global system of identification and financial control this is an appropriate time to discuss other legislation that ties our bodies to our ability to buy and sell using biometrics as the linchpin.

Currently there is legislation, The Legal Workforce Act before Congress that will require every employer regardless of size to collect the biometrics of each prospective employee. The employer then would be required to provide the biometrics to the Department of Homeland Security.

Previously, on multiple occasions The Photo Identification Security Act was introduced in Congress. We expect this legislation to be introduced again. The Photo Identification Security Act requires all financial institutions to collect the biometrics of all customers. There is no definition within the legislation that defines what a financial institution is. It can be any place where any form of money is exchanged, used, or deposited. Literally our ability to work, travel, buy and sell is being tied to our body or in other words, our body is becoming our ID.

Some argue that there are states that are not and will not comply with the Real ID Act 2005. While this is true that some states are standing by the laws or resolutions passed in those states that prohibit participating in or complying with the Real ID Act, the fact is even in these states DMV’s are continuing to meet the first 18 benchmarks of the Real ID Act to be considered in material compliance. Download The 39 Benchmarks to Full Real ID Act of 2005 Compliance Document

While at first glance it may seem I am contradicting myself by saying some states are not complying yet I also say DMVs in these states are continuing to meet the benchmarks, the fact is this is what is happening. While one may ask how this be true, the answer is simple. The state DMV’s that are continuing to meet the benchmarks even though there is a state law or resolution against participation or compliance with Real ID are doing so under the premise that they are complying with the best practices of AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators), not the provisions of the Real ID Act. This is a distinction without a difference but has been accepted by state legislators.

There is not one state that has not met more benchmarks than they had already met at the time the Real ID Act rules were published. It has also been rightfully said that not one state has met all 39 benchmarks of the Real ID Act. While this is true, it is also true that the reason for this being the case is not because of the lack of will but rather because of logistical limitations that exist today.

It is true that AAMVA said they opposed the Real ID Act but it was not because they thought the Real ID Act went too far but rather most likely because it was not strong enough in some areas. We should ask ourselves if AAMVA opposed the Real ID Act 2005 why didn’t AAMVA object to being named the “hub” and “backbone” of the Real ID Act? The words hub and backbone come directly from the Final Rules of the Real ID Act issued by DHS in 2008 ( Download DHS (department of homeland security) Real ID Act of 2005 Final Rules Part 1 and 2 Document page 10)

When I had the opportunity to question Darrell Williams, The Real ID Act Program Director for DHS at the time, while he was under oath, Director Williams provided false testimony. I asked him “What is the relationship between the federal government and AAMVA? Director Williams responded by saying “There is no relationship between the federal government and AAMVA.”

There has been a relationship between the federal government and AAMVA for decades. One can choose to go back to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, which was the first time a federal law called for the collection of a biometric from commercial motor vehicle drivers, or the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act where within the law itself, not the Rules, Congress mandated the Secretary of Transportation to consult with AAMVA about the issuance of licenses and use of biometrics.

The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens to have a right to anonymity. An officer must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion if the officer requires an individual to produce an identification document. There have been multiple occasions where we know that law enforcement has used facial recognition to determine the identity of an individual absent reasonable suspicion. Currently there is no federal law, or laws in most states that would prohibit the use of facial recognition to determine an individual’s identity.

The following three links (not all inclusive but provided just as examples) are to instances of facial recognition being used absent the knowledge or consent of the individual:–face-recognition-to-spy-on-crowds.html and


Biometrics and our right to anonymity must be raised in federal court or we will as a country be accepting reasonable suspicion being based on “Big Data” rather than observation. Once a law enforcement officer “captures” a person’s facial image when the person is in public and then compares the facial image captured to facial images in a myriad of databases including state DMV databases, the officer will not only be able to determine a person’s identity but also be able to find an infinite amount of other PII (Personal Identifiable Information) about the individual. This PII would include what charities a person gives to, what magazines the person subscribes to, which political party a person has supported or is supporting, what medication a person has been prescribed, and many other tidbits of personal information that federal law enforcement and/or state law enforcement has access to.

Unless the public has a better understanding of how integral biometrics is to the goal of the federal government, specifically DHS and the FBI, the public will be fooled into believing biometrics should not be the focus but rather the repeal of the Real ID Act 2005. The goal of the federal government is to remove any and all anonymity ( ).

It is the position of the Constitutional Alliance that any organization that would support the use and/or mandating of biometrics to achieve immigration reform or for any other purpose outside of correctional institutions and where warrants are required is furthering the erosion of our right to anonymity and thus eroding other rights such as the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to seek redress of our grievances, and our right to religious freedom. There are religious objections to both being photographed (Christians such as the Amish/Mennonite sects ( and ), some Jewish people (Exodus 20:4, Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 26:30, Numbers 33:52, and numerous Chapters and verses of Deuteronomy), and by a growing number of Evangelical Christians (mostly Southern Baptists and some Baptists) to being enrolled into a global system of identification and financial control ( Religious Objections to Biometric ID ).

The question of how expansive has the use of biometrics become on the world stage is one that must be answered for anyone to fully appreciate the threat to all freedom loving people. The following two links answer that question: and

What is undeniable after reading the two links provided above is that in a few short years 3/4 of the countries in the world will have implemented “national/international” ID’s that incorporate biometrics. The 3/4 of the world represents approximately 90% of the world’s population. Interpol has 190 member countries. As a point of information I ask that you realize that there are countries that have national/international ID’s but are not counted as a country with a national/international ID because the governments in these countries refuse to acknowledge they do in fact have such ID’s. The United States in one of these countries.

If a person was to try and ascertain just how many countries there are in the world the answer they would find is somewhat “gray.” This is because some count territories as countries and some people do not. In any case there are only a handful of countries that do not belong to Interpol. As an example I will use Cuba and Venezuela, neither of which belongs to Interpol. Both Cuba and Venezuela have their own biometric ID’s for their citizens.

Often I am asked how could there ever be near total or total global biometric enrollment since so many people live in areas that do not have running water let alone electricity. The answer is what is called mobile biometric enrollment centers. India has a population of about 1/2 billion people. Their national/international ID program, Aadhaar is the most ambitious program to date in the world. About 1/2 the population is already enrolled. Mobile biometric enrollment centers are used allowing the Indian authorities to enroll people even in the most isolated places within India. Within a short time officials expect to reach 1 billion people in enrollment. The rate of enrollment is astounding

An additional point to consider – In the past an individual rarely came into contact with law enforcement. Unless a person created reasonable suspicion that an officer could articulate, was the victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, or committed a traffic violation, the person generally did not come into contact with law enforcement.

Today DHS, the FBI, and others want every person to come into contact with law enforcement every day. The contact does not need to be necessarily physical contact. The “contact” can be achieved through the use of biometrics and surveillance tools such as but not limited to CCTV, smart phones, and drones (expected to be 15,000 or more drones in U.S. by 2020). One should be cognizant of the reality that contact need not be defined within the context of just when a person is “out in public” but also when a person is in their home with the use of smart meters and other technologies.

If there is one lesson all citizens should take from the Snowden revelations it is, if the capability does exist, it will be utilized. In other words if law enforcement and/or our intelligence community have the technology to spy on citizens, that technology will be utilized regardless of the Constitution and/or the law.

A great deal of discussion has taken place recently over the last few months about the militarization of local law enforcement. It is not a secret that the DOD (Department of Defense) develops many technologies that end up in the hands of federal, state, and local law enforcement. When we consider the budget of the DOD it should be obvious that money or funding is not really an issue when it comes to developing invasive technologies. In many ways the same is true of the NSA (National Security Agency). One example of the development of a new technology that will find its way to law enforcement is the development of 3D binoculars the have facial recognition capability built in and connect wirelessly to databases ( ). My point in bringing up new technologies is the law is falling farther and farther behind in terms of dealing with invasive technologies.

My biometrics is just that; they are mine. My biometrics is unique to me. Biometrics is often defined as measurements of the body. “Bio” meaning body and “metrics” meaning measurements. How can I be secure in my person as the 4th Amendment says I shall be if in fact I am required to provide my biometrics to any government entity without a warrant?

It is not the role of state lawmakers to be surrogates of the federal government. State lawmakers must be the buffer between an overreaching federal government and the citizens.

One area I have not addressed is the largest vendor who provides biometric capabilities to local, state and the federal government. Safran’s U.S. subsidiary is Morpho Trust. If you have any type of valid state issued ID including a driver’s license, the reality is that this document was most likely produced by Morpho Trust. Safran, 22% owned by the French government proclaims it has a nearly 40 year partnership with Red China and boasts of offices all over the world including in China and Russia. Safran also has a part in India’s biometric program(s). UPDATE. Safran is now owned 22% by the French government.

Ask yourself why both the Bush and Obama administrations believe our Personal Identifiable information including out biometrics should be in the hands of a foreign company, partly owned by a foreign government, when U.S. companies have the technical capability to do what Morpho Trust does? This makes no sense. Safran has been under investigation in a number of countries for bribery and other serious charges.

I would be remiss if I only discussed the problem and did not offer one possible alternative. The question(s) asked after 9/11 were two-fold, how to we make sure a person is who they say they are and how do we make sure a person does not have more than one driver’s license? The answer(s) is we call the “State to State Identity Verification System.” I and a Board member of the Constitutional Alliance, an organization I co-founded developed this system after speaking with people both inside and outside our government. An overview of The State to State Identity Verification SystemDownload The Solution SSIVS2411 (Power Point)

Breeder documents are documents that are used to establish who a person is. States use birth certificates and social security cards as primary and secondary forms of identification. We provide such documentation when we apply for a driver’s license or valid state issued ID for those that do not drive.

It is much better to number the document, not the person. We had the biometrics of eleven Russian spies in the United States but the biometrics did not tell us who they really were because they used fraudulent breeder documents to establish their identity. France issued hundreds of thousands of E-Passports (biometric and RFID) to people who also used fraudulent breeder documents. Puerto Rico has issued tens of thousands of driver’s licenses to people who used fraudulent breeder documents. These are people that can travel around our country just as you and I can.

If you have not looked at our proposed solution, the State to State Identity Verification System provided earlier via a link, you should now. Our solution among other things provides for the authenticating of breeder documents and making sure a person is not using a breeder document of a deceased person. This is not as difficult as you may believe. It is based on numbering the documents and creating the software to know when the breeder document (e.g.. birth certificate, certificate of birth, Baptism record, etc.) is used to obtain a driver’s license or other valid issued ID. The system would also inform the DMV making the request if the breeder document was used to obtain another state ID from any other state. The bottom line is no two people could use the same breeder document or a fraudulent/counterfeit one. Perhaps best of all, our personal information does not need to go to DHS before we can buy, sell, work or travel.

You cannot reconcile a free society with a surveillance state!!!

Tennessee Department Of Transportation Wastes Money And Buys Self Driving Work Zone Trucks And Promotes Them In The Name Of Safety With Media.

Autonomous TMA Truck to Provide Insights to TDOT for Improving Work Zone Safety.

Source: Royal Truck & Equipment Inc.

Nov 05, 2019, 09:19 ET

COOPERSBURG, Pa., Nov. 5, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Royal Truck & Equipment Inc. announced today that it will support the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) in providing an autonomous truck mounted attenuator (ATMA) truck to the University of Tennessee Center for Transportation Research for a pilot demonstration. The pilot aims to test and evaluate the potential for an autonomous system to improve work zone safety across the state.

The first-of-its kind work zone vehicle was developed by Royal Truck & Equipment and Kratos Defense and has been successfully used by other DOTs over the past 2 years. TMA trucks are typically positioned behind road construction crews to protect workers from distracted or impaired drivers in the event of an impact. The self-driving ATMA truck takes safety to the next level by eliminating the need for a driver to sit behind the wheel of a truck that was literally designed to be hit.

“We’re very excited and honored to support TDOT and the University of Tennessee Center for Transportation Research in their efforts and research of autonomous work zone vehicles to help improve the safety of highway workers,” says Rob Roy, President of Royal Truck & Equipment.

The ATMA improves safety by:

Eliminating the need for a TMA driver, which keeps a would-be driver out of harm’s way

Providing protection to the lead vehicle by ensuring the TMA stays on course as opposed to human instinct for self-preservation that results in changing course to avoid impact

Avoiding the potential for a secondary impact to the lead vehicle by maintaining a proper buffer distance with precision and accuracy

The pilot will start with a live demonstration of the ATMA vehicle on November 4th and 5th from 8am to 4pm starting at I-840 in Dickson County and includes simulation of stop-and-go activities such as pothole patching, herbicide spraying, and roadside trash collection. Afterwards, the vehicle will make an appearance at TDOT’s 15th Annual Safety & Operations Conference in Franklin on November 6th. The last stop for the ATMA truck will be the Traffic Incident Management facility on November 7th and 8th.

About: Founded in 1982, Royal Truck & Equipment is the nation’s largest manufacturer of TMA and Safety Trucks. The company is committed to producing trucks that meet or exceed the strictest safety standards in the industry.

Visit for more information.

Theresa Delgado

Royal Truck & Equipment


SOURCE Royal Truck & Equipment Inc.

President Trump Kicks New World Order In The Teeth And Removes U.S. From The U.N. Communist Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump Superman

Trump Expected to Pull U.S. Out of Unconstitutional Paris Climate Agreement.


Written by Steve Byas

Monday, 04 November 2019

Considering that President Donald Trump has been quite vocal in his intentions to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate agreement (which had been accepted as binding on the United States by then-President Barack Obama), speculation has it that he will now do so. According to the terms of the 2016 agreement — reached November 4 of that year — a nation could not pull out during the first three years.

Those three years are now up, and under the terms of the agreement, Trump can pull the United States out following a one year’s notice. Trump can start the process of withdrawal with a letter to the United Nations. Were Trump to invoke that part of the deal and withdraw today, the United States would exit the deal the day after the 2020 presidential election.

Not surprisingly, officials associated with the Obama administration are expressing opposition to any move by Trump to pull out of the deal.

For example, Andrew Light, a State Department climate negotiator, has said that were Trump to lose the 2020 election, the new president could simply get back in the deal in only 30 days. Light is now with the World Resources Institute.

Opposition to Trump leaving the Paris climate agreement also comes from academia. Jake Jacoby, an economist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was a co-founder of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, predicted that were the United States to leave the deal, it would discredit U.S. leadership, and lead to “shame.”

Another academic, Gregg Marland of Appalachian State University, said, “We’re the second biggest player. What happens to the game if we take our ball and go home?”

When asked what the U.S. government intends to do on the Paris deal, James Dewey, a spokesman with the State Department, said in an e-mail on Friday, “The U.S. position with respect to the Paris Agreement has not changed. The United States intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.”

What exactly is involved in the Paris agreement? It calls for those nations signing the agreement to develop increasingly ambitious anti-CO2 actions every five years, beginning in November 2020. Advocates of the deal argue that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, and that it has already caused weather extremes, melted ice across the world, and is expected to get worse. Among the problems these climate alarmists predict are a jump in world temperatures by several degrees, leading to a rise in sea levels of up to three feet.

Of course, all of these dire predictions are assertions that lack scientific proof.

But beyond the issue of alleged industrially-caused global climate change, the Paris deal raises certain constitutional questions that are simply not being asked by the mainstream media, most members of Congress, law-school professors, or even the Trump administration itself.

After all, presidents — including both Obama and Trump — took oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States. So did every member of Congress. The Constitution is quite explicit in giving the president of the United States the authority to make treaties with other nations, but it is just as explicit in requiring that any such treaty agreed to by the president be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before it is considered law in the United States.

Nothing of the sort was done with the Paris agreement. President Barack Obama simply agreed to its terms. Without the ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, then, it is not legally binding upon the United States. In other words, President Trump could withdraw from the agreement today, without any letter or even a tweet to the United Nations.

In fact, Trump could have withdrawn from the deal the day he took office in January 2017, because, since Obama had not gotten any ratification from the Senate on the deal, it was not a law in the United States, and neither he nor the U.S. government was bound by it.

With all the talk of impeachment over matters that are trivial in comparison, why is there so little concern about a president — Obama — entering into an agreement, on his own, without following the Constitution? For that matter, why has Trump either not already pulled out, or submitted the agreement to the Senate for ratification?

Has Congress, which has essentially surrendered its power to declare war to the president, now surrendered its role in the making of foreign policy to the president as well? Each member of Congress took an oath to the Constitution, which requires that the Senate agree to any presidential agreement with other nations if it is to be considered law.

Whether one agrees with the Iran Nuclear Deal, it also should have been submitted to the Senate for ratification.

Members of Congress have meekly given up their constitutional powers to the executive branch, an action that they had no legal right to take.

And the trade deals that the United States has entered into over the years clearly are what the framers of the Constitution would have considered treaties. If President Trump takes his oath to the Constitution seriously, then his USMCA should not be subject to a simple majority vote of each house of Congress, but should be sent to the Senate, where it would require a two-thirds vote to have any legal standing at all.

The Mexican government considers the USMCA a treaty. Why shouldn’t the United States?

This issue — following the Constitution’s checks and balances on treaties — is far more important than a stained blue dress, a third-rate burglary in the Watergate building, or the firing of a secretary of war. It is certainly of far greater importance than what Trump said in a phone call to the president of Ukraine. Yet, the mainstream media and members of Congress say little to nothing about whether a U.S. president can make law through a simple executive agreement.