Noah Pozner is a very special boy because he has the distinction of dying twice — first at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012; then thousands of miles across the world at the Peshawar Army School shooting in Pakistan 2 years later on December 16, 2014.
Now, on the 3rd anniversary of Noah’s first death, his parents Leonard (Lenny) and Veronique have penned an article attacking not just all Sandy Hook skeptics, but James Tracy in particular.
Tracy is a tenured Associate Professor of Communication and Multimedia Studies at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) and the owner of Memory Hole Blog.
When in 2013 Tracy first expressed his skepticism about the official narrative on Sandy Hook, he put his career, professional reputation, as well as the safety of himself and his family in jeopardy:
View original post 581 more words
Posted in Uncategorized
If there has been a single family that has had more influence and done more damage to this country than the Rockefellers, I don’t know who it would be. In a U.S. State Department history of the founding of the United Nations is written:
“The delegations negotiated a role for regional organizations under the United Nations umbrella and outlined the powers of the office of the Secretary General, including the authority to refer conflicts to the Security Council.”
According to Nelson Rockefeller’s Senate biography, he was responsible for the inclusion of United Nations recognition of regional pacts inherent in which is the regional organization assigned to oversee the regional pact.
“He played a key role in hemispheric policy at the United Nations Conference held in San Francisco, developing consensus for regional pacts (such as the Rio Pact and NATO) within the UN’s framework.”
By now, most people should understand that U.S. trade policy was not intended to improve the economy of the United States – quite the opposite in fact. Trade policy was used to build a harmonized system of law in the U.S. corresponding to the body of international law that was being built. Concessions in trade agreements that caused entire industries to move out of the U.S. were designed to buy approval for the international law system under the United Nations. Every international agreement that was ratified by the U.S. Senate on issues to be decided under international law transferred U.S. sovereignty to international bodies. It also transferred governing and oversight domestically to the U.S. State Department because they are the agency that oversees and enforces international agreements.
In 1983 the Senate ratified a treaty with Mexico known as the La Paz Treaty (TIAS 10827) that created a geographically defined border region under the management of the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of the State Department because the State Department oversees and enforces international agreements. This treaty put that territory for the entire length of the border with Mexico under international law. In 1986, the U.S. added an annex to the La Paz Treaty concerning the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. They also negotiated and got a treaty with Canada on the same subject (TIAS 11099). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) included the 1983 La Paz Treaty and the 1986 Treaty with Canada as Annexes which means they were incorporated into the agreement in their entirety.
What this did was to put the entire North American continent under international law under the management of the State Department as the agency to oversee international agreements. The NAFTA agreement had to do with the economy and the two other treaties had to do with the environment. Since everything we do is within the definition of the environment, sovereignty over our lives was effectively transferred. (More info on this can be found here: Puppet Regime).
In 1994, the first of a series of summits was held to finalize the treason that has been in progress since 1945 with the creation of the United Nations. The objective of the summits was to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas which is really a euphemism for ‘common market’ which – following the pattern of the European Union would end with creation of the North American Union – a region under international law. What that means is the end of sovereignty of the United States as a nation-state with governing authority transferred to an unelected regional commission unseen and unknown to the American people.
The FTAA summits were:
1994 – Miami Summit of the Americas
1998 – Santiago, Chili Summit of the Americas
2001 – Quebec City, Canada Summit of the Americas
Of course the whole thing was managed by the U.S. Trade Representative’s office along with the State Department because anything having to do with international affairs falls under the purview of the State Department.
Succinctly, what they’ve done has been treason on the installment plan – putting the United States into a regional “governance” system under the United Nations system.
United Nations Regional Commissions
UN Reporters *flashing red signals and sirens – recalling Ted Turner and his billion donation
On December 14, 1960, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514:
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
A paper written by International Law Professor Edward McWhinney published on the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law provided background and analysis of this Declaration. The Declaration was put before the General Assembly rather than the Security Council so that the veto power of the permanent members was not applicable. In effect, this was a coup d’etat on the permanent members by the majority of member countries occurring as Professor McWhinney wrote, on “cultural and ideological terms”. Since the United Nations operates as an association under international law, the Declaration provided the opportunity to use the international courts and their armies of non-governmental, civil society organizations to begin breaking down the Westphalian nation-state system. In 1960, the Declaration was like a hairline crack in a sidewalk. Over time, the entire sidewalk will crumble away to dust and debris and that is exactly what is happening to the United States.
Regionalism and privatization of government functions were marketed to the American people as being good economic policy and efficiency of government operations. Regionalism was promoted through what was falsely presented as trade agreements when all evidence indicates the real objective was to transfer economic sovereignty to unelected commissions under international law. The privatization of government functions using federal tax money to disempower the states and elected government officials has been used to transfer governing power to unelected groups of people creating a fourth column of operatives ready to aid and abet a fifth column occupation of the country in the final phase of de-colonization. Towards that goal, the U.S. State Department, acting as an agent of a foreign power in conspiracy with the networks of the fourth column is engaged in massive importation of tribal peoples hostile to western civilization and the Westphalian nation-state system who are the fifth column deceptively being described as “refugees”.
On September 25, 2026 President John F. Kennedy gave a speech at the United Nations calling for the complete disarmament of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Congress dutifully passed Public Law 87-297, “Arms Control and Disarmament Act”. The U.S. State Department released Memorandum 7277 explaining the United States introduced at the Sixteenth Assembly of the United Nations, a program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
It’s not a stretch to think that the logic of disarmament with legislation passed that close to the 1960 United Nations Declaration on De-Colonization was taken as a step towards the dismantling of the lawfully constituted American government. The military is the protection for the nation-state and the people of the nation. Disarmament removes that protection. The last line of defense is the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and that right of the people under our lawfully constituted government has been under attack for decades.
We, the majority of the American population have been at a disadvantage because we don’t have a common understanding of history. It’s time to remedy that and it’s absolutely imperative that we do.
By Sierra Rayne FOR CANADAFREEPRESS.COM
In the aftermath of the uproar caused by Donald Trump’s press release “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” the Pew Research Center released some truly astonishing polling data on the support among Muslims worldwide for Sharia law.
In the aftermath of the uproar caused by Donald Trump’s press release “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” the Pew Research Center released some truly astonishing polling data on the support among Muslims worldwide for Sharia law.
Everywhere we look around the globe, there are substantial—and generally dominant—percentages of Muslims who favor making Sharia the official law in their country.
Have a look at these numbers:
Posted in Government, Islamic Terrorism, Obama
A former Department of Homeland Security agent says that an investigation he was conducting into a fundamentalist Islamic group operating in the U.S. may have helped stop San Bernardino jihadi Syed Farook had the government not shut down his probe.
During an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly on Thursday, Philip Haney said that in 2012 as an agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center, he opened an investigation into a Sunni Islamic group called, Tablighi Jamaat, a subset of the fundamentalist Deobandi movement.
Posted in Government, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Politics, Violence
Yasir Qadhi (aka Abu Ammaar Yasir Kazi) is an American imam and college professor who is described by a 2011 New York Times Magazine essay as “one of the most influential conservative clerics in American Islam.”
In his sermon/lecture in the YouTube audio below, Qadhi begins by calling Christians “shirk” for being “polythesists” who believe in the Triune God (three persons in one God), instead of Islam’s “monotheist” god Allah.
Then Qadhi really steps up his verbal abuse. He says, since “there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah wuzza wuzza,” Christians are “by necessity and by definition … the most evil of all evils.” Like all “unbelievers” and “polytheists,” Christians are “filthy.” They are “najusa” (feces, urine) — “a filthy impure dirty substance.”
Qadhi declares that the prophet Mohammad — and by extension all Muslims — “has been commanded to do jihad.”
What is jihad?
Jihad “is a means to establish monotheism on the land.” The prophet had said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they” convert to Islam. But “if they don’t [convert to Islam,] their life and property are halal [free for the taking] for the Muslims.”
Posted in illegal aliens, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Political Correctness
AP
The legislation, which is being offered by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) as an amendment to a larger bill governing nuclear safety, would prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion.
The bill comes amid a fierce national debate about immigration to America, particularly for individuals coming from Muslim-majority nations. Critics of the Obama administration’s refugee plan, which would permit up to 10,000 Syrians into the country, maintain that there are not enough oversight measures in place to ensure that immigrants are not linked to terrorists or various terror organizations, such as the Islamic State.
The bill, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, would express Congress’ sense that “the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”
The legislation is a direct amendment to current U.S. laws already on the books.
Congressional critics of the legislation warn that the amendment would facilitate an unprecedented right to immigration that has never existed under U.S. law.
“The amendment is intended to be a response to Trump’s statement and thus the category of immigration at the heart of it is clearly immigration from the Muslim world,” said a congressional source apprised of the legislation.
“This amendment will establish the progressive goal of creating a right to global migration, their solution to global income inequality,” the source said. “This is not simply a slippery slope. This is ripping open Pandora’s box. If you can establish that we have no right to consider religious beliefs, then you could help establish we have no right to consider a candidate’s age, skill, income, or country of origin.”
If passed, the new rule would burden the U.S. immigration system and prevent authorities from normal background checks meant to ensure individuals are not tied to terrorists or other type of criminal enterprises, the source said.
“It would could lead to rules saying you can’t discriminate against foreign single mothers, or unemployed elderly seniors, or members of religious cults. And if religion cannot be considered, then of course you cannot favor say Australian immigration over Middle East immigration since religion is, of course, a factor in that decision,” the congressional source explained. “It would mean you could not favor a Christian Syrian priest over a fundamentalist Muslim cleric, and that if you denied the cleric you’d be paving the road to them having standing to sue for entry from a foreign country.”
The legislation would further mean that a “radical Imam could demand the right for a tourist visa to deliver a speech, or that a member of a pagan cult could demand that they be given a foreign worker visa to take an American job,” according to the source.
The legislation essentially extends the U.S. Constitution to inhabitants from other countries, which has never been done before, the source said.
‘The Constitution, by definition, is a document that protects the rights of the American people – to extend it to the citizens of foreign countries living in those foreign countries is to turn the Constitution from a document that protects Americans into one that renders them utterly defenseless,” the source said. “Congress can decide who to admit, and who not to admit, and on what grounds – our founding documents confer on no alien the right of entry to the United States and to travel down this road is to challenge the very idea that immigration is supposed to serve the American interest and no other.”
While some politicians, including President Barack Obama, have maintained that a “religious test” for immigrants is unconstitutional, this has not legally been the case in American history.
Studies by the Pew research firm has found that the majority of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, 99 and 91 percent respectively, support a strict interpretation of Islam known as Sharia.
Under U.S. law, the president already has the authority to halt all immigration to the United States for national security reasons.
The Obama administration is slated to grant at least 660,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim majority nations in the next five years, according to statistics issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
Andrew Rios, 4, took the antipsychotic Risperdal when he was 18 months old to treat severe aggression. Credit Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times 
When Andrew screamed in his sleep and seemed to interact with people and objects that were not there, his frightened mother researched Risperdal and discovered that the drug was not approved, and had never even been studied, in children anywhere near as young as Andrew.
“It was just ‘Take this, no big deal,’ like they were Tic Tacs,” said Genesis Rios, a mother of five in Rancho Dominguez, Calif. “He was just a baby.”
Cases like that of Andrew Rios, in which children age 2 or younger are prescribed psychiatric medications to address alarmingly violent or withdrawn behavior, are rising rapidly, data shows. Many doctors worry that these drugs, designed for adults and only warily accepted for certain school-age youngsters, are being used to treat children still in cribs despite no published research into their effectiveness and potential health risks for children so young.
Angela Davis, a speech-language pathologist, working with Andrew at home in Rancho Dominguez, Calif. Credit Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times
Almost 20,000 prescriptions for risperidone (commonly known as Risperdal), quetiapine (Seroquel) and other antipsychotic medications were written in 2014 for children 2 and younger, a 50 percent jump from 13,000 just one year before, according to the prescription data company IMS Health. Prescriptions for the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) rose 23 percent in one year for that age group, to about 83,000.
The company’s data does not indicate how many children received these prescriptions (many children receive several prescriptions a year), but previous studies suggest that the number is at least 10,000. IMS Health researched the data at the request of The New York Times.
The data did not indicate the condition for which these prescriptions were written. Doctors are generally free to prescribe any medication for any purpose they see fit, so some drugs can occasionally be used in unproven and debatable ways. But the volume and rapid rise in psychotropics such as antipsychotics and antidepressants in children 2 and younger suggest a trend.
In interviews, a dozen experts in child psychiatry and neurology said that they had never heard of a child younger than 3 receiving such medication, and struggled to explain it. They presumed that parents and doctors, probably desperate and well meaning, were trying to alleviate thrashing temper tantrums — the kind that get children kicked out of day care — or an overly depressed disposition, like being strikingly inhibited, nonverbal or lethargic.
“People are doing their very best with the tools available to them,” said Dr. Mary Margaret Gleason, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Tulane University School of Medicine. “There’s a sense of desperation with families of children who are suffering, and the tool that most providers have is the prescription pad.”
But Dr. Gleason said that children with ages measured in months had brains whose neurological inner workings were developing too rapidly, and in still unknown ways, to risk using medications that can profoundly influence that growth. She said the medications had never been subject to formal clinical trials in infants and toddlers largely because of those dangers.
“There are not studies,” Dr. Gleason said, “and I’m not pushing for them.”
Dr. Martin Drell, former president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said he was “hard-pressed to figure out what the rationale would be” for the prescriptions. Similarly taken aback, some experts wondered if the medicine was never actually consumed by the child, or if it was issued in the name of a child covered by Medicaid but in fact taken by an ill parent who was uninsured.
“But where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” Dr. Drell said. “For the protection of kids, we should evaluate this. We should identify who these cases are. Maybe it’s not 10,000, but I’ll be unhappy if it’s even in the hundreds.”
Most experts suspected that the trend of medicating younger and younger children for suspected psychiatric disorders was trickling down to very young children. Last year, a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that health care providers had given a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to at least 10,000 children age 2 or 3 and then prescribed medications such as Adderall outside American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.
“I think you simply cannot make anything close to a diagnosis of these types of disorders in children of that age,” said Dr. Ed Tronick, a professor of developmental and brain sciences at the University of Massachusetts Boston. “There’s this very narrow range of what people think the prototype child should look like. Deviations from that lead them to seek out interventions like these. I think it’s just nuts.”
Prozac is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for depression in children 8 and older and for obsessive compulsive disorder in those age 7 and older. Most antipsychotics, which treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are indicated only for children 10 and older. Risperdal is approved for children as young as 5, but only for irritability associated with autism.
Some other psychiatric medications, such as the antianxiety drugs Valium or Klonopin, are widely accepted to control intractable seizures in the very young. Although their effects on the young brain remain unknown, stopping a child’s seizure warrants their occasional one-time use, said Dr. Amy R. Brooks-Kayal, the head of pediatric neurology at Children’s Hospital Colorado and president of the American Epilepsy Society.
Antidepressants and antipsychotic medications, however, have no established use in young people beyond tempering chronically disruptive behavior, experts maintained, suggesting that the drugs were probably used for that purpose.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Academy of Neurology have no guidelines or position statements regarding use of antidepressants and antipsychotics in children younger than 3.
Finding specific examples of such children taking the drugs can be difficult, because of family privacy concerns or because the practice remains controversial. IMS Health records but does not release the names of prescribing physicians.
Mrs. Rios said that after Andrew began taking the epilepsy medication felbamate, he became strikingly erratic and aggressive: He pushed his siblings down and destroyed toys. She said that Andrew’s neurologist, at Children’s Hospital of Orange County, Dr. Lily Tran, then prescribed Risperdal, medication that can temper severe mood swings in older children.
Andrew took the medication for four months before his mother decided it was causing harmful side effects — behavior he had never shown before — and took him off it. “Everything became worse,” Mrs. Rios said.
Dr. Tran declined an interview request.
The use of Risperdal for children has been hotly debated among child psychiatrists, with some experts — many financially backed by the pharmaceutical industry — citing positive effects among suffering young people, and others criticizing their use as shortsighted responses to complex problems.
“There are behavioral ways of working with the problems rather than medication,” said Dr. Tronick, who runs a program that teaches health care providers to assist families with troubled children. “What is generating such fear and anger and withdrawal in the child? What is frustrating or causing stress in the parent? These are the things that have to be explored. But that takes time and money.”
Many experts say that the rise in the use of all psychotropics in children of all ages derives from the scarcity of child psychiatrists — only 8,350 practice in the United States, many of them with long waiting lists and higher cost than a family’s established pediatrician. Those pediatricians receive little training in child psychiatry but are then asked to practice it.
I get suspicious when source URL’s are missing. So I went in search of Chapter 2, Section 212 of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), noted above. That act, in total, can be found here - http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html . This is the official US Government website on immigration and citizenship.
First, after clicking on Section 212, do a search for “unconstitutional”; you will find what I did; the word does not exist in the section; the first clue that something might be amiss. Next, do a word search for “violence”. You will find one instance of the word; that instance is quoted, verbatim, below. As section 212 is quite lengthy, I’ve only quoted the relevant part here. I invite you to go look at the whole section, at the URL above.
Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182] ….
(3) Security and related grounds.-
(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-
(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other unlawful activity, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible.
Please note, this does not say “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means”; it says “force, violence, or other unlawful means”. Big difference. One refers to the U.S. Constitution; the other refers to law – which can be changed on the whim of Congress. It can also be ignored by any who are authorized to enforce the law. We have seen that in the illegal alien invasion of the United States since before the turn of the century.
Next, I went to http://uscode.house.gov/ which is the US Code website. Once there, I input 8 under “Title” and 1182 under “Section”. 8 USC §1182 came up; I verified the language above as correct.
On the above webpage - http://uscode.house.gov/ - you can also search for words – “Search the United States Code”. I did so, and found one section, in 8 USC, that uses the words “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means”. That is found in 8 USC §1424. I have bolded each instance of the use of the words or phrase. If I am reading this correctly – I don’t pretend to be an attorney – this section could not be used to stop Muslims from coming to the U.S. or being given U.S. citizenship.
What people need to remember is that it is not what the law states, but how that law is interpreted by the court, that matters. What you think that law says, and what the court interprets the law as saying, can be miles apart.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) of this Act, no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-
(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or
(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt, unless such alien establishes that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time he became a member of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist-front organization; or
(3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organization or paid for by the funds of such organization; or
(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or
(5) who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or
(6) who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in subparagraph (5) of this subsection.
(b) The provisions of this section or of any other section of this chapter shall not be construed as declaring that any of the organizations referred to in this section or in any other section of this chapter do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.
(c ) The provisions of this section shall be applicable to any applicant for naturalization who at any time within a period of ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for naturalization or after such filing and before taking the final oath of citizenship is, or has been found to be within any of the classes enumerated within this section, notwithstanding that at the time the application is filed he may not be included within such classes.
(d) Any person who is within any of the classes described in subsection (a) solely because of past membership in, or past affiliation with, a party or organization may be naturalized without regard to the provisions of subsection (c) if such person establishes that such membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or occurred and terminated prior to the attainment by such alien of the age of sixteen years, or that such membership or affiliation is or was by operation of law, or was for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and where necessary for such purposes.
(e) A person may be naturalized under this subchapter without regard to the prohibitions in subsections (a)(2) and (c) of this section if the person-
(1) is otherwise eligible for naturalization;
(2) is within the class described in subsection (a)(2) solely because of past membership in, or past affiliation with, a party or organization described in that subsection;
(3) does not fall within any other of the classes described in that subsection; and
(4) is determined by the Director of Central Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense when Department of Defense activities are relevant to the determination, and with the concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to have made a contribution to the national security or to the national intelligence mission of the United States.
( June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, §313, 66 Stat. 240 ; Pub. L. 100–525, §9(u), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2621 ; Pub. L. 101–649, title IV, §407(c)(1), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5041 ; Pub. L. 102–232, title III, §309(b)(13), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1759 ; Pub. L. 103–416, title II, §219(v), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4318 ; Pub. L. 106–120, title III, §306, Dec. 3, 1999, 113 Stat. 1612 ; Pub. L. 108–177, title III, §373, Dec. 13, 2003, 117 Stat. 2628 .)
Cathy
chulai1968
Truth Prevailing
Publius Huldah
Freedom Rider
kathleen
Christian Zionist
radioroger2015
revaustinmiles
Steve
