Log in



Categories » ‘War’

The New Wave Of Violent Protests Is Exactly What The Elite – Want Here’s Why

February 23rd, 2017 by

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3131-the-new-wave-of-violent-protests-is-exactly-what-the-elite-want-heres-why

WARThis article was written by Chase Rachels and originally published at The Free Thought Project

Over the past 18 months, there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of riots conducted by the extreme left.  Their ranks are comprised of self-described anti-fascists,  anarcho-communists, radical 3rd wave feminists, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and other social justice warriors (SJWs).  They have attained great notoriety through their willingness to employ violence/intimidation, vandalize/loot private property, and engage in the very same behavior they accuse their ideological opponents of perpetrating.  Tragically, innocent and non-interested bystanders often get caught in the cross hairs whilst they throw their violent temper tantrums.  To add further cause for concern, these otherwise marginal groups are coalescing under the banner of “intersectionality” thereby effecting a swelling of their ranks, temerity, and menace.

However, as Professor Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto recently published a study confirming “extreme protest tactics reduce popular support for social movements.” Violent and destructive protests render peaceful protestors inept and guilty by association. The following summarizes the results of the study in greater detail:

“Social movements are critical agents of change that vary greatly in both tactics and popular support. Prior work shows that extreme protest tactics – actions that are highly counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful to others, including inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property – are effective for gaining publicity. However, we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement. Though this effect obtained in tests of popular responses to extreme tactics used by animal rights, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests (Studies 1-3), we found that self-identified political activists were willing to use extreme tactics because they believed them to be effective for recruiting popular support (Studies 4a & 4b). The activist’s dilemma – wherein tactics that raise awareness also tend to reduce popular support – highlights a key challenge faced by social movements struggling to affect progressive change.”

To further illustrate the nature of such protests/riots a brief outline and analysis of the more notable examples will be provided in the following sections.

Berkeley Students Racist Barricade

In late October of 2016, a number of angry Berkeley SJWs barricaded a key bridge on campus to physically bar any white people from crossing.   The objective of the protest was to secure more segregated spaces for people of color a.k.a. “spaces of color”.  Any white person who attempted to breach the barricade was violently denied.  The group also saw fit to post faux eviction notices on a private bookstore with the threat that “community action will continue to escalate” lest they cede the location to the student protesters for the purpose of transforming it into a “space of color.”  Though obvious, it is worth explicitly recognizing the utter hypocrisy of this allegedly “anti-racist” group employing violence and threats against others based merely on the color of their skin for the sake of securing racially segregated spaces.

Berkeley Anti-Milo Riot

Riots erupted on February 1st, 2017 at the University of California at Berkeley over the arrival of the conservative celebrity and self-described “dangerous faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. So-called anti-fascists and other SJWs were inciting mass violence, vandalism, and hysteria in order to prevent the gay interracial loving Jewish foreigner from peacefully expressing a political opinion that differs from their own. They firebombed the location where Milo’s event was to take place, pepper sprayed a female while being interviewed (and who was ironically offering words of respect to the non-violent protestors who showed up), burned Milo effigies, beat Milo supporters unconscious, and even violated neutral yet curious bystanders. It has repeatedly been made clear that as soon as a person of color, queer, woman, or Muslim expresses non-leftist/non-egalitarian views, the left will treat him/her with the same or even greater level of disdain and prejudice they accuse “right leaning” bogeymen of.

Yes, Yiannopoulos is a troll and says things to rile up the masses, but meeting free speech with violence only serves to empower your opposition.

Free speech was stomped on by the radical left at the birthplace of the free speech movement. The poorly named “anti-fascists” (a.k.a antifas) were the ones leading the violent charge to silence and censor the gay Jew. If the irony weren’t thick enough, the topic of Milo’s discussion was a critical examination of “cultural appropriation,” yet it seems the antifas took no issue with culturally appropriating the tactics of fascists and Nazis.

Presidential Inauguration Riots

On January 20, 2017, in Washington D.C. several hundred antifas, anarcho-communists, and other radical leftists came together to protest the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump.  To the dismay of peaceful protestors and Trump supporters alike, the radical leftist rioters quickly resorted to tactics of violence and vandalism.  Many were caught throwing bricks and blocks of concrete, breaking the windows of private businesses, violently clashing with and intimidating Trump supporters, setting cars on fire, and harassing defenseless trash cans. Before the day was done, over 200 rioters would be arrested.  One may rest assured that engaging in such public, juvenile, and violent behavior is the surest way to secure a second term for the controversial commander in chief.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) Riots

While most Black Lives Matter protests across the country remain entirely peaceful the majority of the time, some of them, often with the help of outside instigators devolve into utter chaos. Examples of this chaos happened in August and September of 2016, when violent BLM protests devolved and riots broke out in Milwaukee, WI and Charlotte, NC respectively. In Milwaukee, BLM rioters set fires to gas stations, auto parts stores, banks, and several other businesses.  There were also reports of rioters firing off guns, hurling bricks, and looting local grocery stores.

In Charlotte, BLM chaos erupted after a black police officer shot a black man. Rioters responded by shutting down an interstate and setting it ablaze, looting several private businesses, throwing rocks at random motorists, and even targeting white people for beat downs simply for being white. It’s fairly safe to say that if your cause is to diminish the ill effects that racism has on society and your community, then it’s probably best not to burn down local productive enterprises, hinder your community’s ability to travel safely, and beat down any white person you can find with extreme prejudice.

Women’s March

On January 21st, 2017 more than 2.5 million protestors participated in the worldwide “Women’s March” whose aim was to promote human, civil, and reproductive rights.  Unlike the other examples, this protest was largely absent the more injurious elements of violence and intimidation. However, many of the same themes were promoted and other off-putting tactics used thus a brief examination is warranted.

Perhaps the most paradoxical feature of the protest was the ubiquitous presence of both vagina attire (ranging from subtle vagina shaped/colored headwear to ostentatious full bodied vagina costumes) and anti-“islamophobia” themes.

It’s amusing to consider how the average Muslim, in his capacity as a Muslim, would be absolutely mortified upon encountering a woman dressed as a giant pubic hair infested vagina.  Such a costume must be the antithesis of the hijab.

Beyond this, of course, the majority of the march’s themes were anti-libertarian as they included support for anti-discrimination laws, tax-funded healthcare, and the subsidization of both contraceptives and abortion.  It should go without saying that all such measures entail both theft and private property violations.  Thus, to say this was a march for liberty would be a gross misnomer.  It was instead a march for entitlements funded at liberty’s expense.

Conclusion

If one is sincerely opposed to racism, sexism, and fascism then it may be best for him to refrain from engaging in racist, sexist, and fascist means to support his cause.  The fact these radical leftist factions utilize such means indicates a more sinister and subtle objective than the purported one of “social justice.” And unfortunately, any legitimate peaceful protests to stop injustice will be deemed illegitimate and the cause ignored as it will be immediately associated with violence. Aside from the societal damage created by such violence and intolerance, this divisive and obstinate environment plays right into the hands of those who want to keep you under control.

When objectively assessed, these violent protests are revealed as being among the most bigoted, hateful, and dangerous threats to the cause of liberty.

Comments 2

Irony
written by Zap , February 22, 2017

Leftist, progressives, feminist’s, LGBT, anarchist’s, Marxist’s etc all protesting in support of Islam with funding for the protest’s coming from Wall Street CFR Blue Team bag men and their NGO’s.
Endless layers of irony in this.
Absurdity beyond any parody.

Stupid self centered fools looking for attention
written by Olddog , February 22, 2017

At 76 years of age I conclude that it is way past time for the breakup of the nation that was never supposed to exist. Americans have been hoodwinked from the get go as the global powers that be have from before the beginning colluded to gain total control of natural resources and our money. They have empowered themselves to claim ownership of all Americans just like the days of slavery. All that has changed is Americans do not know that they were supposed to be sovereign State Nations. The good life that good jobs created was thought to be eternal and no preparations were made to guarantee a life of plenty. All this resulted in a massive intellectual decline as the good life led us into complacency. Now the Banking Cartels have us by the short hairs through promoting divisive civil theology and will soon create another civil war to further bankrupt everyone. It takes big money to give birth to a new form of governance and a universal comprehension of the only way to remain freemen. Let the scumbags riot all they want because the bankers will not reward them. They are just stupid self centered fools looking for attention. While digging they’re own graves.

WAR

Globalists Want To Destroy Conservative Principles But They Need Our Help

February 10th, 2017 by

http://alt-market.com/articles/3124-globalists-want-to-destroy-conservative-principles-but-they-need-our-help

CIVIL WAR

By Brandon Smith

For months now, long before the 2016 election, I have been warning about a specific social dynamic which is likely to lead to a form of civil war within the U.S.; namely, the reality that people on the left side of the political spectrum would become despondent at the inevitable loss of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and that they would react by becoming far more militant. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’, published November post-election, I stated:

“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.

When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.”

I believed at that time that the social-justice cult would lose mainstream influence but that the existing minority would resort to even more insidious tactics and greater violence to get what they want; and, the so-called “moderate left” would cheer them on.  As it turns out, I have been proven right so far.

Not that extreme Leftists have been averse to violence over the past year, but I think it is safe to say that the volume on the cultural Marxist machine has been turned up a notch. The riot at UC Berkeley over a scheduled speech by gay, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos is a perfect example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2TkEqnp-2w

Then, there was the raid by SJWs at NYU on a speech by conservative journalist and comedian Gavin McInnes, in which they shouted down all discussion with mindless chants until the event had to be canceled. This was, of course, after they had already physically attacked people outside the building, including McInnes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwA_0FKR9f4

The social justice mantra is changing. At first, it was predominately about forming mobs to “shame” target political opponents into silence. Now, it is about forming mobs to do what they call “punching Nazis.” Leftists are now often seen regurgitating the claim — “This is only the beginning…”

I agree, this IS only the beginning. The Left is driven not only by the ideology of cultural Marxism, but also a very specific activist strategy outlined in Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’. The very core of Alinsky’s method revolves around one important rule in particular: the ends justify the means.

This is the key ingredient of moral relativism, and when a movement is motivated by moral relativism, there is no limit to the depths they will sink to get their way. Activists adopting the “ends justify the means” mentality are not interested in being “right,” or wise, or rational or logical or factual; they ONLY care about “winning.” This is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.

It is important to note, however, that all of these protests and the increase in violence is not taking place in a vacuum. As many liberty analysts have noted, Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests. Is Trump really the only catalyst? Not quite. The mainstream media and globalists like George Soros have been very effective in agitating or outright paying protesters and provocateurs to generate zombie mobs of gullible Leftists to use as a billy club for harassing conservatives.

That said, I want liberty activists and analysts to ponder on this for a moment — to what end is this being done? Why is Soros so interested in fomenting leftist rage? Is it designed to overthrow Trump? To initiate mob action and frighten conservatives into silence? Or do the globalists have a greater and more important goal in mind?

I have been writing often on the idea of 4th Generation Warfare the past month, and I think my readers are now well versed in the concept of the “three-steps-ahead” style of tactics, as well as the concept of manipulating an opponent to destroy himself, rather than fighting him directly. These are not new methods, the globalists have merely taken them to the next level.

But how do 4th Gen warfare tactics apply to the current Right vs. Left scenario in the U.S.? Well, everything is not as obvious as it seems.

As I outlined in-depth in my article Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement, globalists and the leftist media have been, in a strange way, quietly cheering for Trump, but only as a tool for absorbing the liberty movement (what they still call the “Tea Party”). This glee is made rather evident in an article published by Bloomberg in August titled The Tea Party Meets Its Maker.

There is a point I have been trying to make for most of the year that I think has been consistently missed by many in the liberty movement. That point being that the greatest danger to conservatives is NOT militant Leftists, but how we RESPOND to militant Leftists. That is to say, I believe the globalists are using the Left as a cattle prod to enrage conservatives and lure us into abandoning our principles in the name of defeating Marxists.

Consider this; the argument among most liberty analysts has been that the numerous anti-Constitutional programs put in place by the Obama administration in the past eights years would eventually be used by the political Left and the globalists as weapons to subdue and destroy conservatives and patriot groups. While Obama certainly tested the waters of tyranny over and over again, up to and including using executive orders to assassinate American citizens without trial, it is clear that those extensive powers afforded to the White House are no longer in the hands of the left; they are in the hands of Trump.

Obama even signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law AFTER Trump had already won the White House. Trump has now inherited this power as well, which seems to give government the authority to harass or even silence news sources they deem “fake news.” While many liberty activists cried foul and warned of a “coup” designed to shut down alternative news sites and thwart Trump’s inauguration, I warned that there was a much more dangerous scenario in play.

What will conservatives do in the face of the leftist mob funded by globalists and growing ever more vicious? Well, what do the globalists expect us to do? I think they expect us to look at all the government powers we once admonished as unConstitutional and say “hey, maybe these laws and executive orders are not so bad after all…”

I think the globalists are handing us the incredible temptation of far reaching bureaucratic power, and they expect us to abuse that power, as almost anyone would.

As an alternative analyst I am privy to trends in the liberty movement and in conservative circles that might not be immediately obvious to casual readers. Already, I am witnessing calls among conservatives to abuse government power to defeat the Left. I have seen comments such as:

“Trump should use the NDAA to imprison these leftists indefinitely…”

“The only solution is to throw the leftists into FEMA camps…”

“Trump needs to shut down the leftist media…”

“Sometimes it is okay to bend the rules of the constitution if you have the right president…”

And comments like this are popping up everywhere in liberty media boards. Now, I recognize that some of this talk is being posted by paid disinformation agents and provocateurs, but, I have heard regular conservatives and patriots, people who are long time proponents of the Constitution, echo similar sentiments.

I often use the analogy of the “One Ring” from The Lord Of The Rings to describe big government power. I really can’t find a better fictional symbol. Anyone who comes into possession of the “one ring” is eventually corrupted by it. Many good people believe that its darker energy can be contained and directed for good purposes, but they, too, are ultimately undone by it. The only answer, the only solution, is to abandon the ring, or to destroy it.

Overt government power is very much the same; it corrupts any person or group that comes in contact with it. Every group thinks that if only THEY were in possession of government that they would do things differently. This is a delusion. No person or group is benevolent enough to handle this responsibility, and this includes conservatives. Many groups would commit egregious and heinous crimes to take government for themselves, or keep it for themselves, all the while so many Saurons (globalists) laugh and smack their lips as the masses battle over numerous rings of power.

As I have noted time and time again for the past several months, Trump is the perfect tool for scapegoating conservative movements for the economic crisis the elites have already engineered. But, this is only one part of the agenda. In the midst of chaos generated by financial calamity, the morals of an entire society can become “malleable”.  The most important target of the globalists is not only conservatives, but the conservative philosophy. They don’t just want to annihilate conservatives today, they want to annihilate conservatives for all time.

The globalists cannot accomplish this task without our help. They NEED us to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, much like the Left. They need us to turn into totalitarians. They need us to become the monster we claim we want to defeat. Only then can conservative principles be demonized for all time. Only then will history look back on us as a stain on the human record.

This is the globalist’s long game.

While Leftists are being encouraged to mutate into wild frothing packs of rabid dogs, conservatives will be encouraged either through temptation or manipulation to respond in kind. The Left’s propaganda train asserts that we are “fascists.” Obviously, we are the furthest thing from this. But, with enough violence and aggressive censorship on their part, we might end up saying “Okay, you want to see fascism, we’ll show you fascism!”

The social justice cult has no idea what they are being led into. The globalists are going to throw them to the wolves, and WE are the wolves.

It is important to note that the Left is also not the only instigator for conservatives to turn totalitarian. Islamic terrorism is always a perfect rationale for increased government intrusion in the name of safety. The worst part is, the threats from the Left and the threats from Islamic extremism are in most cases quite legitimate, and they seem to be working hand-in-hand more each day.

The progressive interference with steps towards more rational immigration policies and their steady defense of Sharia Law leads many conservatives to see them as one in the same enemy.  No foreigner is entitled to citizenship in the U.S., but leftists live in a fantasy world of open borders.  The left’s refusal to entertain reasonable and selective immigration will eventually push conservatives towards more drastic measures, which is the ultimate point.

Very few Americans like Communists, and very few Americans like Muslim zealotry; the justification for totalitarian measures to disrupt such threats is relatively easy for many people.

This is why I am going to make my next prediction of a major geopolitical event to close out this article — I believe there will be a large scale terrorist attack within the next three months, beyond the mob actions of the Left already in progress.

It will either be similar in scope to 9/11, or, it will be a succession of many smaller attacks occurring over the course of a few days to a couple of weeks. I believe that the current dispute over border controls and immigration denial will come immediately into play. Trump will blame Leftists for obstructing his efforts for secure immigration. Leftists and the media will blame Trump for “radicalizing” Muslims with his immigration policies, or perhaps even accuse him of staging the attacks himself. Trump will begin taking extraordinary measures beyond the Constitution to ensure immigration denial and the thwarting of the Left, and conservatives will applaud him for it.

Again, conservatives are being led by globalists into the temptations of power. The only way for us to fight back is to maintain our principles and refuse to support ANY government measure that is unConstitutional, even if it is to be used against our enemies. The only way that the heritage of liberty can be defeated is if the proponents and champions of liberty forsake it. We beat the globalists in the long run by standing by our ideals and fighting back within the bounds of the principles we hold dear. Dominance through government is never the answer.

 If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

 You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

WANTED:

One hundred million AMERICAN’S

capable of understanding the principals AMERICA was founded on and willing to join hands in a national resistance to CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Men and women who love their freedom more than their bondage who will circulate copies of the Constitution with the stipulation of a promise to read it and demand a Constitutional Government not under the control of the International Investment banking cartel. A second civil war will be the total end of freedom in this country. And that’s where this country is headed!

Contact olddog@anationbeguiled.com

FOR INSTRUCTIONS!

CIVIL WAR

Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG ! PART ONE

February 7th, 2017 by

 

— The “United States” is NOT the “united States of America”

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/everything-you-know-about-the-united-states-and-

its-laws-is-wrong-the-united-states-is-not-the-united-states-of-america/

PART ONE

 by JohnHenryHill

Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG !

 The “United States” is NOT the “United States of America”

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

April 26, 2013; Revised August 24, 2014

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” — Thomas Paine

If you wish to open and/or download this 106 page essay as a Microsoft WORD document, please click here:     The_US_Is_Not_the_USA__8-24-2014

 

Preface

Almost everything you think you know about the government of the United States of America (the Union) and its laws is WRONG. Not just a few things– but rather almost everything!

When the Union of the various states was formed, the American people were NOT illiterate peasants. They understood very well the meanings of the words and terms used in the Constitution; and they knew the difference between the Common Law, Equity (Contract) law and Admiralty law – which are the ONLY types of law allowed by the  Constitution. Indeed, the Founders and the people in general understood in such great detail the concepts on which the Union was to be founded that they put us to shame by our ignorance

The Importance of Definitions

In order to communicate more effectively many professions have developed specific vocabularies containing very precise definitions. The vocabulary in every-day English as used by the public changes greatly over relatively short periods of time. Conversely, in order to maintain precise meanings of words, the vocabulary of certain professions is very stable – words tend to retain their meanings over long periods of time. For example, in medicine the phrase “heart attack” is often used by the public. However, for a medical doctor the term “heart attack” means little – instead he would refer to a very specific cardiac event, such as a “myocardial infarction” (death of heart tissue due to insufficient blood and oxygen), an “arrythmia” (irregular heart beat caused by abnormal electrical conduction within the heart), a “ventricular fibrillation” (a specific type of arrythmia – called a “can-of-worms” electrical conduction phenomenon – in the lower-left pumping chamber of the heart which renders the pumping action completely ineffective), or some other specific term. Similarly, a very precise and stable vocabulary has developed for law and the legal profession – what some have called “legalese”. Indeed, in law many definitions have remained fairly static over centuries – and when a new term is used or a new meaning is given to an existing term or word, that term is usually explicitly defined within that new statute. The problems arise when the definitions of specialized terms used by a profession depart from the definitions used by the general public, so that the terms become misleading or totally inaccurate.

For example, the term “client” in ordinary English refers to a customer. However, in law a “client” is a man who is mentally incompetent to act on his own behalf in court. In ordinary English a “person” refers to a man, woman or child. In law, a “person” is defined as a legal fiction and a corporation. (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. by John Bouvier. Published 1856.) Likewise in law a “human being” is defined as a “monster”; a “citizen” is defined as an “officer or employee”; the word “must” means “may”; the word “including” is inclusive – meaning it means only the items following the word “include”; and even the term the “United States” has at least very different THREE legal definitions within the U.S. Code and Supreme Court decisions.

Examples:

1.) SHALL – The following court decisions leave no doubt about the legal meaning of “Shall”. “Shall” means MAY – thus, when a statute states that you SHALL do something, it is in truth stating that you MAY or MAY NOT do that something. You are NOT obligated to do it: the choice is yours!

As against the government the word “shall” when used in statutes, is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, the U.S. Supreme Court

“Shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may” in order to avoid constitutional doubt. George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to “may” …. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 Atlantic 136

2.) AUTOMOBILE and MOTOR VEHICLE – There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle.

“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word automobile.’”; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

“Driver” is defined as a person operating a vehicle in commerce. (that is, being paid for doing so)

Transportation” is defined as the movement of goods or people in a vehicle engaged in commerce. (A “carrier” is defined as a business engaged in the movement of goods or people in commerce – that is, being paid to do so.)

“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or for hire. State and the federal governments have the authority to regulate commerce within their respective jurisdictions because any business (corporation) is a “creature of the state”.  Since a corporation is a “legal fiction” created by the state, that corporation’s use of public roads for financial gain may be regulated by the state via legislated statutes. (The legal concept of financial “gain”– often called simply “gain” – is important to understand, as it means profits derived from investments and/or from the labor of other people; it does NOT mean money earned by a man’s own labor) However, under the Common Law (still the primary law in America, superseding all statutes) and numerous Supreme Court rulings, a man traveling upon a public road in a private automobile who is NOT being paid for doing so is exercising his Common Law right to travel; and is NOT subject to any legislated acts (statutes) or any regulations derived therefrom – and therefore is NOT subject to speed limits, car registration, or any of the other regulations derived from legislated statutes (acts). In Common Law, legislated statutes (acts) are NOT Law; these statutes only gain the “force of law” upon the CONSENT of each  individual man. Under the Common Law a man  commits a crime ONLY if he injures another man or that man’s property (technically, in law a man’s rights and his body are considered his own property); or causes a “disturbance of the peace”. Under the Common Law a man has the unlimited right to enter into a contract or, conversely, to NOT enter into a contract..No contract forced upon a man is considered valid, but instead is considered null and void ab initio (from its beginning). The key factor is that a man may WAIVE some of his  rights under the Common Law by entering into a CONTRACT with another party for “consideration” – the mutual exchange of things of approximately equal value. A man’s rights under the Common Law are waived to the extent specified in that particular contract; and the ancient maxim under Commercial Law then applies: “The contract makes the law.” In short, this maxim means that the terms within the contract upon which two parties voluntary agreed become the Law on which disputes regarding that contract will be settled. Applying for and receiving a state-issued “Driver’s License” is such a contract – in which you voluntarily admit that you are a “driver” operating a “motor vehicle” engaged in commerce. Therefore, by obtaining a state-issued driver’s license, you voluntarily confirmed that you are a driver engaged in commerce and thereby submit yourself to the jurisdiction of the state’s statutes and regulations. Of course, even though you may possess a driver’s license (perhaps you are a taxi driver) you may not have been getting paid for transporting people when the police stopped you for “speeding”. However, because you have a “driver’s license”, the PRESUMPTION exists that you are engaged in commerce and therefore subject to statutes and their jurisdiction. And since you probably do NOT rebut this presumption to the court (in a written, sworn affidavit prior to going to court), this unrebutted presumption is accepted as a fact in law by the court. Two maxims of law apply here: “A presumption not rebutted becomes a fact in law.” And “He, who does not object, agrees.” But let us not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The United States v the United States of America

The Constitution was a commercial compact (a CONTRACT in the form of a TRUST) between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”   — Thomas Jefferson

The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution: common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.

Jurisdiction has many facets dealing with the various aspects and modalities of law and justice, i.e., Tort (Civil) law, Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law, Real Property law, Statute law, Criminal Law, and Constitutional law, to name a few of the fields of jurisprudence. The court must be sitting in the proper jurisdiction to render Justice. No court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Most local courts today sit in the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law utilizing the

Uniform Commercial Code as the authority for their moving.

1865 – 13th Amendmentpeople could volunteer into slavery by accepting federal benefits.

1868 – a privately owned, foreign (British) corporation called the “United States” was created and incorporated in Delaware.

1868 – The 14th Amendment defined a two new legal entities: a “citizen of the United States” and a ‘person’, both  subject to the federal government jurisdiction as “agents/officers” and/or “employees” of government. It then stated that no state could infringe or deprive any “U.S. citizen” or “person” of their “privileges and immunities” as U.S. citizens. Of great importance was the use of the terms “”privileges” and “immunities”, as opposed to “rights”. As “persons” or “citizens” (that is, agents or employees) of the private, foreign United States corporation, they had NO rights within that corporation. They possessed only privileges granted to them by that private, foreign corporation called the United States.

Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”

It defined a new legal entity: a “citizen of the United States” as 1.) a person naturalized or born within the United States  AND  2.) “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, that is, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Note that BOTH conditions must be fulfilled to be considered a “U.S. citizen”. Consequently, any man claiming the status of a “U.S. citizen” is affirming that he was born or naturalized in the United States AND that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the private corporation called the United States and its statutes and courts, thereby exercising his unlimited right to contract and voluntarily waiving his rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution.

1871 – the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 was passed by Congress, creating a municipal government as a privately owned corporation that took control of  D.C. In subsequent statutes in 1882 and later passed by Congress, the federal government became, in fact , the private, foreign corporation called the “United States” incorporated in 1868 and based in Washington, D.C. Further, in subsequent statutes the term “United States” meant ONLY the “District of Columbia”; NOT the various states of the Union under the Constitution.

1913 – the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.

1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the ‘Trading with the Enemies Act’. This applied only to Federal Citizens, aka, “U.S. citizens” as defined in the 14th Amendment

1933 – President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people, who were not lawfully required to relinquish it, and who then had no money with which to pay their debts. Since 1933, debts are never paid; they are simply “discharged”

March 9, 1933 – ownership (legal title) of all property is in the State; individual ‘ownership’ is only equitable (user) title. Use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.   (YIKES! Read that again.)

1933 – President Roosevelt signed HJR 192 June 5, 1933 passed by Congress– since the government had taken the gold, and the people had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for the people, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of currency, since any form and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do, they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason but also it protects the people from damages cause by the Feds.

1938 – The U.S. Supreme Court’s Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), decision made contracts the rule in the courts. This ruling voided the long-standing . Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 41 U. S. 18 (1842) No other law or court decisions prior to 1938 could be cited in future court cases. In effect, Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins made contracts [contract law or UCC-Admiralty Law; NOT the Common Law and the Constitution] the rule in the courts under the Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Act. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law, that is, the Common Law codified as statutes. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy, that is private commercial law created through contracts.

1946 – government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.

1965 – silver was removed as a means for paying debt, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the supreme law of the land concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Admiralty/Administrative and Civil (contract /commercial /corporate) Law, thereby removing the ‘innocent’ plea under the Common Law, thereby reversing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Securities replaced substance as collateral for debts; debt instruments with collateral, and accommodation parties could be used instead of money. The courts could uphold the security instruments which depended upon commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance.

1966 – The Federal Tax Lien Act: The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first section of  STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions.” Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. The word “person” is a fictional legal entity. A man (or woman) is real and not a legal fiction and therefore by definition is not a “person”.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS in the STATUTES DO NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES (legislated acts) !!!

Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

  1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …
  2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …
  3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …
  4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …
  5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …

Notice that only “persons” can commit these STATE legislature created crimes (called acts or statutes). A crime by definition is an offense committed against the “STATE.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is ONLY one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery or involuntary servitude. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th Amendment: (which defined the term “citizen of the United States”)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of great importance is that BOTH conditions must be met in order for a man to be a “citizen of the United States”: (1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]. If you were born in Vermont but never agreed by contract to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, then you can assert that you are a citizen of Vermont, but NOT a citizen of the United States. By doing so, you are NOT subject to any statutes (acts) passed by Congress or any Federal regulations. The “catch” is that when you walk into any court, that court makes the presumption that you are a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to that court’s jurisdiction. And under the Common Law, “a presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” – meaning that you must OBJECT in writing (and verbally, often many times) to their presumption and make them prove it, since any presumption challenged (objected to) by a man in a court must be proven by that court, as the “burden of proof” always falls upon the one making the claim. Further, you could assert that you are neither a citizen of any state nor a citizen of the United States – and both that state and the United States would have to prove otherwise.

You become a STATE created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as “person.” Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God’s Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office of a “person” — YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of “person.”

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of “person,” the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls.”

A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.” It literally means “the mask an actor wears.” The “person” or “persona” is NOT the real man or woman; rather it is an artificial representation;  a false image of the man or woman.

The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

 Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courtsmay hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Executive Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction also denotes the area over which the executive or legislative powers or laws of a government extend. Similarly, the term also denotes the territory over which a state exerts or claims sovereignty or power (sometimes known as territorial jurisdiction).

In private international law, a supranational organization (e.g. the European Union), a nation-state, or a province (i.e. a subnational “state”) in a federation (as can be found in Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States), may all exercise jurisdiction although the problem of forum shopping is growing.

The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

 “To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.” Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81.

“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.

 When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual.

The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.

“He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land [the Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 (1905)

We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another U.S. Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

“..Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier [corporation] in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

and…

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

and…

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of

 1938 – Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made contracts the rule in the courts – Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years, Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), which was a very similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Swift v Tyson was that in any case of this type, the Court would judge the case on Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. Further, since the Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins 1938 ruling, NO other law (or Supreme Court ruling) prior to 1938 can be cited in cases in court.

You must realise that the Court you are standing in is an Admiralty/Law Merchant Court under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which recognizes only two classes of entities, “Creditors” and “Debtors.”, dealing only in the terms and conditions of “Contractual Obligations.” It is NOT a Constitutional Court of proper jurisdiction to secure the Rights of Sovereign Citizens.

YOU MUST ESTABLISH THE PROPER JURISDICTION!

Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits of equity where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. [NOTE: ONLY a Common Law court can be a “court of record“ and thus a court of general jurisdiction.] In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of special or limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens. These controversies between states or between people from different states are called “jurisdictional diversity” cases and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!

First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

“The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.” (Note – of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

“Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy.” – 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

“Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.”

From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

“Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides………..use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power.”

The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that its use indicates that our Constitutional Republic no longer exists. Our system of law was changed without the public’s knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God’s Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. Formerly, you were able to own property (allodial title) and to do whatever you wished on that property, with no need for any licenses or to pay property taxes. Since 1933 people do NOT own their property, but rather possess “equitable title” which grants them the “right of use” of that property, but NOT true ownership. Thus, they are no longer the true owners, but are legally considered tenants on the land. If you still think you own your property, stop paying taxes – and soon thereafter, your home and property will be seized by the government under the “prize law” under Admiralty jurisdiction.

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership’ is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” – Senate Document No. 43, “Contracts payable in Gold” written in 1933.

By our allowing these military flags to fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you’ll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law: the Common Law (the “law of the land”), Equity Law (legislated acts; as statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws, etc.) and Admiralty Law (the “law of the sea”; “Law Merchant”; “Maritime-Admiralty Law”; the “Law of Commerce”; or “commercial law”). The familiar “Stars and Stripes” flag is NOT the official U.S. flag. Indeed, before World War 2, most public and private buildings within a state flew ONLY their state flag. Each state considered itself a “sovereign nation” with respect to the other states and with respect to the United States – and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this as a fact in law. Therefore, for a state-owned building to fly a U.S. flag would mean that it had surrendered its sovereignty and was now under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Only Federal buildings under civilian control, such as the Post Office, flew the “U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime”, most notable for its vertical stripes and its blue stars on a white field (background) This U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime (pictured immediately below) is the true official flag of the United States of America.

CURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONMost Americans are unaware of this fact; and those who are aware believe it to be meaningless. However, under U.S. and international Maritime law, the “Law of the Flag” (which is a legal concept first developed under Maritime-Admiralty Law) is still of major legal importance, since the flag you display signals the nation under whose legal jurisdiction you are governed, on land and, most importantly, on a ship at sea. Operating a ship at sea using an unauthorized flag (not registered with a particular nation) was a most serious offense; it was called a “false flag” or “false colors” or not showing your “true colors”. If a ship was caught flying a “false flag”, the ship and its cargo were subject to confiscation and its captain (and possibly even its crew) subject to the death penalty by an Admiralty court hearing issuing a “summary judgment” – no trial by jury. Only two issues were considered: the fact that the ship flew a “false flag” and whether the captain possessed the proper Certificate of Registration from that nation authorizing him to fly that flag. That ship and its captain (and often its crew) were thereby considered “outlaws”, meaning that they were “outside the law” and therefore had forfeited all their rights and legal protections under the law. So-called “pirates” were an example of such “outlaws”.

CURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONThe following is a legal definition of the term Law of the Flag.

“…The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it [that is, if he consents], there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law.” – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Don’t be misled by the fact they are talking about the sea, and presume that the “law of the flag” does not apply on land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come onto land. Next a court case:

“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all.” – Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

When you walk into a court and see this flag (with yellow fringe) you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king, the people are no longer sovereign. You’re probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait, there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here’s how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law governs contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that’s what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

“The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” – Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

“This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)   U.S. Supreme Court

And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state’s Constitution, said:

“Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.— Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review of AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” — Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution…” “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. …And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.” — Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

“I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” — Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let’s say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn’t. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

All district courts are admiralty courts,   see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” — Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American’s aren’t aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the Constitution does NOT apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, he will probably state that it is statutory law and he has “statutory jurisdiction”. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don’t exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing its procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!

The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder, etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It’s up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king’s government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don’t it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again, where is the injured party or parties? – There are NO injured parties and thus this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:

“Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power “to declare war,” “to raise and support armies,” “to provide and maintain a navy,” and to call forth the militia to “repel invasions.” Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that “the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion.” Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?…. Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads.” — Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

As mentioned above, on April 25, 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning the “Common Law” in the federal government. (ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; (1938))

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS.” (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; (1938) In short, in Erie RR v Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that henceforth within the United States, ALL crimes would be considered COMMERCIAL crimes – that is, subject to Contract Law (Commercial Law; Maritime-Admiralty); and NOT to the Common Law, thereby voiding the Constitution and all legal precedence since Colonial times. Further, under Commercial Law, rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution were OPTIONAL upon the courts (“privileges” that the court may or may not see fit to grant) – so a 12-person “trial by jury” under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution was no longer required. A judge could decide on his own whether to issue a “summary judgment” upon a defendant with no trial by jury; or he could decide to offer a defendant a “jury trial” (composed of as few jurors as the judge wished; thus NOT a true “trial by jury” of 12 people; or the judge could offer the defendant a “jury trial”, but any “verdict” of this jury was no longer lawfully binding on the judge, but instead was considered only an “advisory opinion” to the judge, which the judge could accept or reject as he wished. Thus, if a man was found “not guilty” by the jury in a “jury trial” under Commercial Law, the judge legally could ignore the jury’s verdict and declare that man “guilty”. To repeat, since the 1938 Erie RR v Tompkins case, ALL crimes and offences in the United States are considered to be “commercial crimes” in relation to the 1933 Bankruptcy Act of the United States and under which ALL U.S. citizens are considered “debtors” as surety for the debt owed by the U.S. government to foreign banks.

On May 18, 1951 during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC’s signature product. One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions). By 1968, the U.S. government, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands had enacted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) — the only exception being Louisiana. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, judges will often refer to it as “Statutory Jurisdiction”.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

Please read carefully the following definition regarding Social Security to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:

Contribution: Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of “contribution,” a tort-feasor [wrong doer] against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor [wrong doer] whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (Note – tort feasor means wrong doer; what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer’s share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. — (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy: In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did NOT affect citizens of the United States:

“Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.” [thus: the PEOPLE of America became the “alien enemy”]

Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:

“My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933

Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, and we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11 [bankruptcy]. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.” — Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1933

The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nation’s 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven. I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Remember Jesus said “money is the root of all evil” The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses. Read the following Congressional quotes:

“I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation–they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation–to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933

“That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933

What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our children’s fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People. Remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act? He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)

The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

“In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

“Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.”

Here is the legal phrase ”subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

“As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES (emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” – United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

“I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death….But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers.” – Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this, so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency….Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years [since 1917], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency….from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.” – Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following: In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you’ll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:

“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed.” – (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions: The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as:

One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. – 1 Kent 73.

He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; -1 B. & P.163.

Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king’s special favor, during time of war; – 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we’ve been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]

“The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as “alien enemy” within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship.” – Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

“Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an “alien enemy: within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder.” – Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374.

“By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy’ as if he were born there.” – Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not, it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress’ actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:

Letter of Marque: A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914.

Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:

“The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress “to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” — Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.

Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I’m not even talking about the obvious, which we have already covered, read the following:

“The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.” — Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.

How about Clinton’s new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.

“The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)”

How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how, under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:

“…And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers…” — (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395

While former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen was simultaneously the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States:

Submitted January 28

Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.” — Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.

At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee, I don’t know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust and interest to me, how about you? Also, Congress is the only one under the Constitution able to appropriate money.

How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Rubin sent hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to Mexico, without Congress’ approval. Secretary of Treasury Rubin previously had been president of the bank that made the loans to Mexico. Later, when he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, he had the Treasury Mexico’s interest on its debt to his bank with taxpayers money. Again, sounds like a conflict of interest (entrust) to me.

“Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be final.” — Section 7, Title 12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking

Do the issues I have brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you? I have not covered the main nexus, the money. I didn’t make up this information; it is the government’s own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries. I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.

In Which Court Do You Practice Law?

It is very important to appreciate the fact that District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are NOT the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”). The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional judicial courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are territorial tribunals that originate in

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Territory Clause); OR legislative (administrative) courts, that originate in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

 Paul Mitchell’s opening brief to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Gilbertson in

USA v. Gilbertson in District Courts of the United States, DCUS – Minneapolis #4-96-65” cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. Mitchell’s opening brief in

Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 02-15269 (especially in section 7d -7f) was even more extensive in scope.

Mitchell cites, for example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories only; not in the states. Thus the USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.

For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC.

foreign municipal corporation domiciled in Washington, D.C. called the “United States”

“… the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. … It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. … The United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a State.” in re Merriam’s Estate, 36 NE 505, 506 22.

The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

 The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

  • 39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the billlisting chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

28 U.S.C. 132 or otherwise. Compare 15 U.S.C. 1121 (still uncodified).

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutional

Article III DCUS inside those States.

 FROM: Opening Brief by Plaintiff Paul Mitchell in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 02-15269

7(d)      The abrogation clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) cannot retroactively amend federal statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”):

 This honorable Court of Appeals will please take formal judicial Notice of Appellant’s proper and timely challenge now filed in this appeal against 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), for violating the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the ex post facto prohibition.

See legislative history of 1988 amendments, Rep. Kastenmeier: “unwise and potentially unconstitutional”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “separation of powers” as follows:

… [A] power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency.

[Williams v. United States]

[289 U.S. 553, 580 (1933)]

However, the high Court in that case erred by defining “Party” in Article III to mean Plaintiff only. This definition contradicts the definition of “Party” as found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) (“Party” embraces both plaintiffs and defendants).

Accordingly, an FRCP amendment effective October 20, 1949, was strictly limited to those rules and could never have altered any existing federal statutes, whether retroactively or otherwise. See further discussion at 7(e) infra.

In particular, see Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 58 S.Ct. 543, 82 L.Ed. 748 (1938) (term “District Courts of the United States” in its historic and proper sense); Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, § 2(b) (“continuations of existing law”) and § 9 (“the jurisdiction of district courts of the United States”).

7(e)      The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., is vague and deceptive in several of its key provisions and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

By way of introduction, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the instant case, nor do any of the courts situated in any of the federal Territories or Possessions.

California is neither a United States Territory acquired under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (“4:3:2”), nor is it an enclave acquired under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (“1:8:17”) in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”).

It is clear from the original Statute at Large quoted above (60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39) that the DCUS is the only federal court with original jurisdiction competent to hear claims arising under the Lanham Act, when the venue is a judicial district of California (or any other State of the Union, for that matter). See 28 U.S.C. 84(b).

The DCUS and the USDC are decidedly not one and the same.

Appellant now supplies further conclusive proof.

The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., contains provisions deliberately written and implemented to foster the false and misleading conclusion that ‑‑ in all matters arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States ‑‑ these two courts are synonymous and identical in all respects whatsoever. See Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) and the Supremacy Clause in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Appellant honestly trembles at the mere thought of challenging a comprehensive revision, codification, and enactment of all laws that have governed the conduct of the federal courts in this great nation for 54 years.

However, a careful review of the relevant evidence, as found in various sections of Title 28, U.S.C., has rendered that challenge necessary and inevitable.

That careful review now follows:

It is now abundantly evident to Appellant, and Appellant hereby offers to prove, that:

(1)        the Article III DCUS inside the several States were never expressly abolished by Congress;

(2)        Congress knows how to abolish federal courts when it intends to do so; and,

(3)        the Act of June 25, 1948, attempted fraudulently to conceal the DCUS, and to create the false impressions that they had been re‑defined as, replaced by, and/or rendered synonymous with, the USDC.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 132, 451, 610.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are decidedly not favored. See U.S. v. United Continental Tuna, 425 U.S. 164, 168 (1976), for example.

As of this writing, Appellant has assembled an exhaustive list of all statutes in Title 28 that expressly mention either the USDC, the DCUS, or both. For the convenience and edification of all, Appellant now advises this honorable Court, and all interested parties, that the results of this research have been published at Internet URL’s:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.in.28usc.bold.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/usdc.in.28usc.bold.htm

In any Act of Congress, words importing the plural include the singular, and words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things. See 1 U.S.C. 1.

Therefore, the rules of statutory construction strictly bar intermingling of “United States District Courts” with “District Courts of the United States”. Confer also at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

On the other hand, the term “district courts” [sic] does embrace both the DCUS and the USDC, since there appears to be a hierarchical relationship between this term and the courts constituted by Chapter 5 of Title 28. See 28 U.S.C. 451.

This Court is respectfully requested to recognize, and to take formal judicial notice, that the ex post facto restriction in the U.S. Constitution (“1:9:3”) emphatically bars Congress from retroactively re-defining the meaning of “district courts of the United States” as that term was used in all federal legislation prior to June 25, 1948 A.D. See, in particular, the Lanham Act at

60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; other examples abound.

Appellant’s Immunity from ex post facto legislation is a fundamental Right. See the Privileges and Immunities Clause

(“4:2:1”). Federal copyright and trademark laws protect Appellant’s Rights uniformly in every State of the Union.

7(f)       The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

 The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

  • 39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the billlisting chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

28 U.S.C. 132 or otherwise. Compare 15 U.S.C. 1121 (still uncodified).

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutional Article III DCUS inside those States.

For example, see all predecessor statutes of 28 U.S.C. 132 for its territorial origins, i.e. § 641 of Title 48, U.S.C, 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions.

Think of it as a clear plastic overlay.

Also, see further discussion on this crucial point in

AUTHOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTESTING DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J. EHLERS, Page 6 of 10, lines 3‑27 inclusive (Docket #164), concluding:

Plaintiff has carefully reviewed the history of amendments to this latter statute [60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39], and believes He is legally correct to conclude that the federal court with original jurisdiction of Lanham Act claims has remained unchanged in California and is still the constitutional Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”), and not the legislative

Article IV United States District Court (“USDC”).

A rules amendment effective December 29, 1948, amended the title “Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States” to read “Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts” [underlines and bold added].

And, a rules amendment effective October 20, 1949, substituted the words “United States district courts” for the words “district courts of the United States” throughout the FRCP.

However, the exact scope of these substitutions was limited to the FRCP and could not have affected any federal statutes. See Notes to FRCP Rule 1.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise unaffected by these rule changes, and could not have been affected by these rule changes, notwithstanding the abrogation clause supra.

Moreover, repeals by implication are decidedly not favored by the courts. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987); 74 Am.Jur.2d 21-22 citing Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309 (1907) and U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213

(1902); Jackson v. Stinnett supra, 102 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 1996); also “Separation of Powers and Delegation of Authority to Cancel Statutes in the Line Item Veto Act and the Rules Enabling Act,” by Leslie M. Kelleher, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, Feb. 2000.

7(g)      In the opinions of recognized constitutional scholars, such as Justice Story, the Congress has affirmative obligations to create and to maintain constitutional district courts, proceeding in judicial mode.

The reasons for this proposition are simple, if not immediately obvious:

The original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is quite limited under Article III, as compared to its appellate jurisdiction unde

r Article III.

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Article III embraces matters that arise under the

Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States). See also the Arising Under Clause at

3:2:1 in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. 1331 supra.

Cases that arise under the Supremacy Clause, as mirrored by 3:2:1 and by 28 U.S.C. 1331, would need to originate first in an inferior constitutional court, before those cases could ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

The exact same argument can be extended to this Court’s appellate jurisdiction: specifically, civil litigation under the Lanham Act must first originate in an inferior constitutional court, before such a case could ever reach the Ninth Circuit on appeal! In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit must proceed in constitutional mode.

The conclusion is inescapable, therefore, that Congress must first create constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode, and then it must also perpetuate them, in order to satisfy Article III and the

Fifth Amendment.

To do otherwise would constitute a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which mandates due process of law (among other things). This mandate is also embodied in numerous provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a United States treaty rendered supreme Law by the Supremacy Clause. See Article 14 in that Covenant, for example.

The entire thrust of that Covenant is to guarantee independent, impartial and qualified judicial officers presiding upon courts of competent jurisdiction (and not Star Chambers, or other tribunals where summary proceedings are the norm, and where due process is not a fundamental Right (read “shall”) but a privilege granted at the discretion of those tribunals (read “may”)).

In pari materia, compare the language in Rules 201(c) and 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FREv”): the former is discretionary (“may”); the latter is mandatory (“shall”). Confer at “Fundamental right” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (analogous to “shall”).

(Incidentally, Appellant is protesting the Seventh Edition of Black’s, because it has conspicuously omitted any definition of the term “United States” ‑‑ a term which figures prominently throughout federal laws and throughout the U.S. Constitution!)

7(h)      Appellant therefore asserts a fundamental Right to due process of law, which necessarily mandates courts of competent jurisdiction in the first instance. Within the 50 States of the Union, these are the DCUS and only the DCUS.

The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional courts vested by law with competent jurisdiction over controversies arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to the federal district courts must be strictly construed [cites 5(c) supra].

Appellant argues that statutes granting appellate jurisdiction must be strictly construed as well.

See 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) in the context of interlocutory orders.

Inside the several States of the Union, the United States District Courts (“USDC”) are not constitutional courts vested by law with original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act. Confer at “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Sixth.

Inside the several States of the Union, the courts vested by law with competent, original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act are the DCUS.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to these courts have used language and terminology that enjoy a well established historic meaning. See Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (the term DCUS in its historic and proper sense). Confer at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Sixth.

Within California State, therefore, the DCUS is the only federal court with competent jurisdiction to originate the instant case.

7(i)       Federal municipal law cannot be usurped to switch the instant proceedings from constitutional mode to legislative mode.

The 50 States of the Union are not “United States Districts” [sic]; they are judicial districts! Federal municipal law does not operate, of its own force, inside those judicial districts. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 (the federal zone).

Even though the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are likewise judicial districts, federal municipal law can operate there because neither is a Union State. 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 119.

Nevertheless, federal municipal law is likewise bound by all pertinent restrictions in the U.S. Constitution, because the U.S. Constitution was expressly extended into D.C. in 1871, and into all federal Territories in 1873. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively (hereinafter “extension statutes”).

In this context, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled:

 “It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and even predates it.”  Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)

“A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience.” U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338] [(9th Cir. 1984)

Appellant alleges that the nomenclature “United States District” [sic], as found on the caption pages of all federal court orders today, is now being used to trigger legislative mode without adequate notice to litigants, in violation of the

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments (read “fraud”).

This dubious mechanism is called “silent judicial notice” [sic] ‑‑ surely a misnomer, if ever there was one. It would be entirely more accurate to call it “silent legislative notice”, since this practice is a deceptive device now rampant within legislative courts, and the DCUS are currently vacant.

But, has Congress been silent, or merely vague?

7(j)       The extension statutes are monumentally important, in light of highly successful efforts by the federal government, since the year 1866 A.D., to create an absolute legislative democracy within the several States of the Union.

The Guarantee Clause does not require the United States to guarantee a Republic Form of government to itself, but only to the 50 States.

Strictly speaking, Congress was free to create such a democracy, but only within the federal zone, and not within the State zone. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. The territorial reach of such a democracy is necessarily limited to the federal zone, and not beyond. See also the 1866 Civil Rights Act (an early example of federal municipal law) and IRC 3121(e).

Legally speaking, the population of federal citizens now “residing” within the several States of the Union is an absolute legislative democracy, by Congressional intent. Confer at “Federal citizenship” in Black’s Sixth.

Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45

(1885). In this context, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is correctly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acquiesced to this questionable legislative intent. Under the Downes Doctrine, the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States that are united by, and under, it. See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. This Doctrine is demonstrably specious, because it is contrary to Law.

Another deceptive device, perhaps?

The Downes Doctrine was later extended in the case of Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), in which the high Court ruled that the guaranties [sic] of the U.S. Constitution extend into the federal zone only as Congress makes those guaranties applicable ‑‑ by enacting federal statutes. Under this Doctrine, the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution would not extend into the federal zone without specific legislative action.

This latter presumption is conclusively rebutted by the extension statutes, however. Clearly, all guarantees in the U.S. Constitution have already been expressly extended into D.C. and into all federal Territories, without exception, effectively destroying the Downes Doctrine 30 years before the fact.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for violating the Law.

It would only compound the ubiquitous errors that have already been made under the Downes Doctrine to treat the States of the Union as federal Territories in any manner whatsoever, least of all by convening territorial courts inside those States.

In this context, therefore, legislative tribunals like the USDC are entirely out of place, and wholly lacking jurisdiction, to entertain any cases that arise under the Lanham Act when States of the Union are the “judicial districts” where the violations are alleged to have occurred.

For now, California is a judicial district, not a legislative district, and original jurisdiction over such cases is clearly vested in courts specifically created to exercise the judicial Power of the United States.

This latter phrase is controlling, because it introduces Article III and forms the basis for all Clauses that Article contains.

Accordingly, for all of the substantive reasons stated above, the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) still remain the only federal courts with original jurisdiction legally competent to hear cases arising under the Lanham Act, when violations of that Act are alleged to have occurred inside States of the Union and across State lines.

7(k)      Vagueness, once fully documented wherever it occurs, will be shown to conflict directly with the stated legislative intent of the Act of June 25, 1948.

The stated legislative intent of that Act is clear enough: “The provisions of title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, of the United States Code, set out in section 1 of this Act, … shall be construed as continuations of existing law …” [bold emphasis added].

Moreover, “No loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction, or prejudice to matters pending in any of such courts on the effective date of this Act shall result from its enactment.” [bold emphasis added]

See Miscellaneous Provisions, Act of June 25, 1948, C. 646, §§ 2 to 39, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, as amended.

In good faith, Appellant constructs these Miscellaneous Provisions to read: “No loss of Rights and no interruption of jurisdiction shall result from its enactment.”

What, then, is meant by the term “existing law”?

If Congress had intended to abolish the DCUS, they would (and they should) have said so. The period between 1789 A.D. and 1948 A.D. spans 159 years of judicial history! Hiding a herd of elephants under a rug would be easier than hiding the DCUS under a pretense.

To reiterate these all important points: Statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Repeals by implication (or magic carpets) are decidedly not favored. The law of jurisdiction is fundamental law. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law; without it, courts cannot proceed at all in any cause. Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., __ U.S. __ (1999), No. 98‑470, May 17, 1999 A.D.

In 1946 A.D., two years before the Act of June 25, 1948, the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on the several DCUS. These courts are Article III constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode. Inside the several States of the Union, the DCUS are the only federal courts with original jurisdiction to hear cases that arise under the Lanham Act.

This is the existing law!

The USDC are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislative mode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (the USDC is not a true United States court established under Article III!); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464

(1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516

(1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50

(1982).

To the extent that the Act of June 25, 1948, was written and enacted to justify or otherwise foster the notion that all violations of Congressional acts predating that year can now be prosecuted in the USDC ‑‑ a legislative court that was broadcasted from the federal Territories into the several (48) States on that date ‑‑ then that Act is demonstrably unconstitutional for at least four reasons:

(1)        it exhibits vagueness on this obviously important point;

 (2)        it violates the ex post facto prohibition;

 (3)        it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and elsewhere; and,

 (4)           it violates the well established principle that statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal courts must be strictly construed.

Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, summed it up nicely as follows:

In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name. While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]

[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]

[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

7(l)       There are essential facts in this case which were either too subtle, or too voluminous, for the Magistrate and Judge Shubb to appreciate fully; neither has read and understood the whole docket file. Appellant now highlights these essential facts, to ensure that they are not also overlooked by this honorable Court:

(1)        On August 2, 1998 A.D., certain Defendants defaulted in response to Appellant’s DEMANDS FOR AUTHORIZATION (Exhibit “K”), thus satisfying the 3-year statute of limitations in the Copyright Act. Others defaulted after that date.

(2)        The acts of removing Appellant’s README file, containing His SHAREWARE POLICY, were acts of fraudulent concealment (“active misconduct”) and false designation of origin that resulted in tolling all pertinent statutes of limitation.

(3)        Withholding the identities of subscribers suspected of infringing Appellant’s exclusive copyrights was also an act of fraudulent concealment, making it impossible for the district court to assess actual damages. See Exhibit “J”.

(4)        Withholding the computer activity logs of ISP’s, in response to valid SUBPOENA’s issued under

17 U.S.C. 512(h), was tantamount to further fraudulent concealment and probable cause for contempt of court, and sanctions.

(5)        Counterfeits of the subject book remain on the Internet to this day, e.g. at Internet domain 9X.TC, proving conclusively that the threat of continuing wrong is substantial, premeditated and malicious. See Taylor supra.

(6)           Further retaliations against Appellant, e.g. denial of service attacks on Appellant’s website, physical assault and breach of the contract to serve SUMMONSES, justify immediate relief in the form of preliminary injunctions during pendency of this action

(see RELIEF REQUESTED in the Initial COMPLAINT).

(7)        Appellant’s primary emphasis in preparing the Initial COMPLAINT was to organize the electronic evidence, to preserve it intact, and to make it readily accessible via the Internet and its most popular search engines, e.g. the View | Source option in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

(8)        Printing hard copies of electronic evidence, particularly files coded in HTML, results in hiding the underlying markup codes where crucial evidence of hyperlinks and associated domains is to be found.

(9)        Appellant’s hard copy files contain many additional documents which Appellant has not had time to enter and which should be entered into evidence in the district court, e.g. the written amnesty offers that were mailed to certain suspects in the summer of 1999 A.D.

(10)      The Lanham Act was enacted expressly to enforce treaties like the Declaration and the

Covenant: “The intent of this chapter is … to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.”

See 15 U.S.C. 1127, last paragraph (uncodified).

(11)      Appellant’s Common Law Rights are expressly reserved by the Seventh and Tenth Amendments, the terms of which Congress is barred from re-defining. Thus, to suggest that Congress has abolished common law copyrights necessarily results in infringing Rights guaranteed by those Amendments, in this case. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

(12)      To refer to any of the issues discussed above as “frivolous” is an obnoxious insult to Appellant. Matters that arise under the Supremacy Clause are never frivolous. Why would State and federal laws impose solemn oaths of office on all public officials, if the State and Federal Constitutions were frivolous? Reductio ad absurdum.

Do you have any other cases pending in this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

Have you filed any previous cases which have been decided by this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

For prisoners, did you exhaust all administrative remedies for each claim prior to filing your complaint in the district court?

Answer: (not applicable in this civil case)

The 4 United States: Which One Are We Talking About?

 Are you a Citizen, a National, a Resident Alien, or Non-Resident Alien

“United States” as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp

(1)     United States* or U.S.* (first meaning)

  The name of the sovereign Nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

 (2)     United States** or U.S.** (second meaning)

  The federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority.

 (3)United States-Corp or US-Corp as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp

 

(4)     United States*** or U.S.***

The collective name for the States united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America.

28 U.S.C. 1603(a)(3) states as follows:

(3)        which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c) and (d) of this title ….

Section 1332(d). The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

 Examples of Two Definitions

of the term “United States” in 26 U.S.C.

 First Definition

 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9):

(9)        United States. — The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

Second Definition

 26 U.S.C. 4612(a)(4)(A):

In general. — The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

[emphasis added]

The Supreme Court stated in Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellsey, 6 U.S. 445, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed 332, that the District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore, it is apparent that the meaning of the term “States” in the first definition above can only mean the territories and possessions belonging to the “United States”, because of the specific mention of the District of Columbia and the specific absence of the 50 States (inclusio unius est exclusio alterius). The District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution (see Hepburn supra). Therefore, the 50 States are specifically excluded from this first definition of the term “United States”.

Congress has no problem naming the “50 States” when it is legislating for them, so, in the second definition of the term “United States” above, Congress expressly mentions them, and there is no misunderstanding. If a statute in 26 U.S.C. does not have a special “word of art” definition for the term “United States”, then the First Definition of the term “United States” is always used (see above) because of the general nature of that term as defined by Congress.

When citizens or residents of the first “United States” are without the geographical area of this first “United States”, their “compensation for personal services actually rendered” is defined as “foreign earned income” in 26 U.S.C., Section 911(b) and 911(d)(2), as follows:

911(b) Foreign Earned Income. — …

(d)(2) Earned Income. —

(A)       In general. — The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.

A citizen or resident of the first “United States” does not pay a tax on his “compensation for personal services actually rendered” while residing outside of the first “United States”, because Congress has exempted all such compensation from taxation under 26 U.S.C., Section 911(a)(1), which reads as follows:

911(a) Exclusion from Gross Income. — … [T]here shall be excluded from the gross income of such individual, and exempt from taxation … (1) the foreign earned income of such individual ….

When residing without (outside) this “United States”, the citizen or resident of this “United States” pays no tax on “foreign earned income”, but is required to file a return, claiming the exemption (see IRS Form 2555).

26 C.F.R., Section 871-13(c) allows this citizen to abandon his citizenship or residence in the “United States” by residing elsewhere.

26 C.F.R., Section 1.911-2(g) defines the term “United States” as follows:

United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States. It includes the states4, [Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana Islands, etc.] the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States, the territorial waters of the United States, the air space over the United States, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law ….

None of the 50 united States comes under the sovereignty of the “United States”, and subsection (h) defines the 50 States united by the Constitution as “foreign countries”:

Foreign country. The term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.

[26 C.F.R. 1.911-2(h)]

All of the 50 States are foreign with respect to each other and are under the sovereignty of their respective Legislatures, except where a power has been expressly delegated to Congress. The Citizens of each Union State are foreigners and aliens with respect to another Union State, unless they establish a residence therein under the laws of that Union State. Otherwise, they are nonresident aliens with respect to all the other Union States.

The regulations at 26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1(a) state, in pertinent part:

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

26 U.S.C., Section 1 imposes a tax on “taxable income” as follows, in pertinent part:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of … every married individual … who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013 ….

The regulations promulgated to explain 26 U.S.C., Section 1 are found in 26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1, and state in pertinent part:

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

And, for declarations made under the penalties of perjury, the statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746 separately defines declarations made WITHIN and WITHOUT the “United States” as follows:

If executed WITHOUT the United States: I declare … under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.”

“If executed WITHIN the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare … that the foregoing is true and correct.”

A democracy that recognizes only manmade laws perforce obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right. A Ticket to Liberty, by Lori Jacques, November 1990 edition, page 146

[emphasis added]

In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas: the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a jury verdict of “guilty”, for example, no law can be enforced and no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual terms, as found in the written U.S. Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.

Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, “No fiction can make a natural born subject.” Milvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows:

As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United States**, the meaning is clear that state citizens are not subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United States**. Furthermore, there is not the slightest intimation in the Constitution which created the “United States” as a political entity that the “United States” is sovereign over its creators.

A Ticket to Liberty by Lori Jacques, Nov. 1990, p. 32]

Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you will find a very large body of legal literature which cites another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States**, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States** and of the State wherein they reside.

[United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]

[emphasis added]

A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The citizens it defines are second class citizens because the “c” is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines. Note how the amendment defines “citizens of the United States**” and “citizens of the State wherein they reside”! It is just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) which promulgates Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Can it be that this amendment had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other means? Yes, it most certainly did. IRC section 1 is the section which imposes income taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a “citizen” as follows:

Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

Notice the use of the term “its jurisdiction”. This leaves no doubt that the “United States**” is a singular entity in this context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead with the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“? Is this another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge.

Not only did this so-called “amendment” fail to specify which meaning of the term “United States” was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15,641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. “I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment’s “adoption” in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).

A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled into computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not “CA”). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail (use the foreign address format found in USPS Publication 221 instead).

Richard McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** . A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is a subject of Congress.

The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which simply cannot be taxed, because governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever.

The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and federal citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the “void for vagueness” doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:

We have in our political system a government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States** and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter-House Cases

 [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

[emphasis added]

The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following:

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36]

[21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

[emphasis added]

 

A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro v. Jordan, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:

That there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]

[affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)]

[emphasis added]

The Slaughter House Cases are quite important to the issue of citizenship, but the pivotal case on the subject is the famous Dred Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil War. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote one of the longest decisions in the entire history of American jurisprudence. In arriving at their understanding of the precise meaning of Citizenship, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, the high Court left no stone unturned in their search for relevant law:

We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself: we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word “citizen” and the word “people.”

 [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

In the fundamental law, the notion of a “citizen of the United States” simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States”:

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.

 [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

[emphasis added]

This decision has never been overturned!

What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term “Citizen of the United States” as used in the original U.S. Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification for the federal offices of Senator, Representative and President.

No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5).

If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible to be a Senator for nine years after its adoption.

Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald’s electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”), explains away the problem very simply as follows:

The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of “one of the United States***,” and this is doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else.

 [Studies in Constitutional Law:]

[A Treatise on American Citizenship]

[by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]

[emphasis added]

This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for “representatives” to serve in the general assembly for the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance reads as follows:

… Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States*** three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; ….

[Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]

[The Confederate Congress]

[emphasis added]

Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for the Respondent filed in the case of People v. De La Guerra, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional qualifications for the federal offices of President and Representative:

As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Indeed, this was the same exact understanding that was reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott. There, the high Court clearly reinforced the sovereign status of Citizens of the several States. The sovereigns are the Union State Citizens, i.e. the Citizens of the States United:

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

Thus, the phrase “Citizen of the United States” as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase “Citizen of one of the United States***”, i.e., a Union State Citizen. This simple explanation will help to cut through the mountain of propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. Federal citizens were not even contemplated as such when the organic U.S. Constitution was first drafted. For authority, see the case of Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), as quoted in the Preface.

With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case “c” in the clauses which describe the qualifications for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to confuse everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th Amendment. This is another crucial facet of the federal tax fraud.

There is a very big difference between the two statuses, not the least of which is the big difference in their respective liabilities for the income tax.

 Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a “citizen of the United States”, whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest exercise of a State’s sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens:

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens.

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

[emphasis added]

This right is reserved to each of the 50 States by the Tenth Amendment.

In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully recites some of the other relevant court authorities, all of which ultimately trace back to the Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision:

Indeed, just as one may be a “citizen of the United States” and not a citizen of a State; so one apparently may be a citizen of a State but not of the United States. On July 21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431; a headnote in which tells us: “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ….” At page 434, Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling in which the court said this: “Under our complex system of government, there may be a citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the term

[Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139]

[emphasis added]

Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is not a Citizen of any one of the 50 States. In People v. De La Guerra quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the alleged ratification of the so‑called 14th Amendment:

[Please see next page.]

I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Using language that was much more succinct, author Luella Gettys, Ph.D. and “Sometime Carnegie Fellow in International Law” at the University of Chicago, explained it quite nicely this way:

… [A]s long as the territories are not admitted to statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.

[The Law of Citizenship in the United States]

[Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]

This clear distinction between the Union States and the territories is endorsed officially by the U.S. Supreme Court. Using language very similar to that of the California Supreme Court in the De La Guerra case, the high Court explained the distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the adoption of the so-called 14th amendment:

The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. … The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.  

[Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]

[italics in original, emphasis added]

The political rights of the federal zone’s citizens are “franchises” which they hold as “privileges” at the discretion of the Congress of the United States**. Indeed, the doctrine declared earlier in the National Bank case leaves no doubt that Congress is the municipal authority for the territories:

All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**. They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations. The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.

[First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]

[emphasis added]

This knowledge can be extremely valuable. In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment and related constitutional law when he made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation, of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court:

The Accused Common-Law Citizen [Defendant] hereby places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a “citizen of the United States**” under the so-called 14th Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled to perform to the regulatory Vehicle Codes which are civil in nature, and challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

You might be wondering why someone would go to so much trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not just pay the fine and get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the fundamental and supreme Law of our Land, the Constitution for the United States of America. Sovereign State Citizens have learned to assert their fundamental rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago. The interpretation of the Constitution is directly influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law:

There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]

[emphasis added]

Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to travel. “Driving”, on the other hand, is defined in State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers for hire. “Passengers” are those who pay a “driver” to be chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways, even though the highways belong to the People. The land on which they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the People. Provided that you are not engaged in any “privileged” or regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish within the 50 States. Those States are real parties to the U.S. Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.

Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. (“Unalienable” rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your automobile outright, without any lawful requirement that you “register” it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal “interest” which they obtained in your car, by making it appear as if you were required to register the car when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don’t believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer’s statement of origin (“MSO”) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited for traveling without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.

If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”) and Internet website. There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to “download” text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text “compression” program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which “decompresses” the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file “14AMREC.ZIP” contains the documentation which proves that the so‑called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his work (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-9882). His website is at Internet domain

http://www.state-citizen.org .

As you peruse through McDonald’s numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation. Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

Under the Constitutions, “… we the People” did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers “delegated” do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority because the “LAW” is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another individual. This is where the concept of a corpus delicti comes from to prove a “crime” or a civil damage.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America is to be one of the Sovereign People, “a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people” [see 19 How. 404]. According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, the People are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely revealing that there is no definition of “United States” as such in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of the “United States of America”, where the delegation of sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else:

The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a question that in its own nature is insoluble. Between equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire. The people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the states and the United States**, and they have a natural right to determine what was given to one party and what to the other. … It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience.

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]

defining “United States of America”

People as Sovereigns

The Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America does not specifically define the word “People.” Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

END OF PART ONE

FOR PART TWO GO HERE: http://wp.me/p1jN4X-1Oi

CURRUPTION

THE BEST PRESIDENTS I’VE KNOWN, AND OLDDOG’S REPLY

January 15th, 2017 by

by George Roof, Chief Master Sergeant (Retired), US Air Force

Taxidermist in Magnolia, Delaware (born in Lexington, SC)

 Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a president more than many of you can imagine.  I enlisted with LBJ and saw just what a Democrat clusterflock was all about. I went to Vietnam and saw how we were constantly and incessantly bombarded with micromanagement from Washington that got thousands of military people killed.  I wonder sometimes if I’ll get to heaven, but if I go to hell, I’m sure I’ll still be a few hundred floors above those bastards Robert McNamara, LBJ, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and yes, even the “hero”, John McCain.

After Johnson “abdicated” rather than having his ass waxed, I lived through Nixon who was hawkish but allowed the generals (and there WERE a few real generals back then versus now) run the show.  He was so out of touch that he never knew North Vietnam was about to surrender when the Paris Accord was presented.  Only God could help us after Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy Peanuts who’d been funded by Saudi money. The military was turned into Section 8 and even the White House suffered the austerity.

Then the light began to shine and Ronald Reagan swept into the fray. He not only loved the country and the military, they loved him back.  Esprit d’corps was off the scale during his presidency. The Liberals were slowly turning into socialists, however, and about this time all the draft dodgers of the 1960’s who’d been given amnesty by Jimmy Peanuts were turning out college graduates with degrees in socialism.

Bush 1 was an enigma from the CIA and though he never did much either way, he NEVER DID MUCH EITHER WAY.

Welcome to Bill Clinton. Clinton spent most of his two terms wagging the dog and creating the Oral Office, sending a bomber to blow up Quaddafi’s tent and killing a goat or two, while allowing the UN to set up the infamous Black Hawk Down situation.  He made history by becoming only the second president to be impeached.

I actually felt sorry for Bush 2. He was doomed to infamy from the start. He thought most of America was still the ‘rah rah’ patriots of WWII when they were simply socialists waiting to feed him to the sharks. 

Then there came the Manchurian Candidate with a faked (OK Democrats, let’s say “of questionable origin” to assuage your PC brains) birth certificate, who’d gotten a free ride through college under a foreign student exemption, and whose college records and complete life history had been sealed. (We know more about Thomas Jefferson’s bastard children than we do about Obama, Michelle, OR their two kids.) From his inaugural address, he slandered America and within days had begun to encourage dissension of the races as well as slandering police who “acted stupidly.”  That was mild to the crap that would come in doubling the national debt from what had been built by ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED, feeding us bullspit about how Muslims built this country, and nationalizing American industries. Fueled by George Soros’ money and using the Air Force fleet as his personal charters, he appointed malcontents and traitors into positions of authority.  He trashed the Constitution by installing “czars” (interesting he chose a title like that) to bypass Congressional authority. By that time, Congress was completely corrupt on both sides of the aisle.  No one had balls to impeach this charlatan. 

Mysteriously, the lone outspoken conservative Supreme Court Justice suddenly dies in his sleep at an Obama pal’s hunting lodge and the Supreme Court is evenly split.  Finally, Congress shows some balls and rejects Obama’s nomination. The Libtards aren’t worried because the fix is in.  Soros has paid demonstrators to cause turmoil at all the Republican gatherings, Obama concedes that illegal aliens should vote as they won’t be prosecuted, and Soros-manufactured voting machines are caught switching votes in certain precincts. Hillary has cheated her way to the nomination and her lies are completely ignored by the brainwashed minions of sycophants who follow her. 

 But a shocking thing happened on the way to the forum.  Middle America had had enough and although the pollsters and the pipers tried to convince them not even to bother to vote, they were fed up with the denizens of the swamp.  It was time.  Florida was designated a “swing” state ignoring that all those old retirees living in St. Petersburg, and the fed up Cuban Americans of Miami weren’t interested in their platform.  Ohio and Pennsylvania, where coal production was blacklisted and where Obama had ridiculed them for “clinging to their Bibles and their guns,” lay awaiting this supposed “landslide” Hillary vote and creamed it.

The Socialist world of the Democratic Party disintegrated. An American who expressed unbridled love of country and respect for police, firemen, and military steamrolled across the heartland and the liberals realized their scheme was trashed.  A CONSTITUTIONALIST would be nominated to the Supreme Court and if the hag who’d claimed to retire if Trump were elected would actually leave, the Supreme Court would have a massive majority of CONSTITUTIONALISTS for the next 40-50 years.

Now, the same party who’d ridiculed Trump on his comments about the election being rigged, started screaming that the election was rigged. They even advocated having the election repeated. They created mobs that burned and pillaged, stopped traffic, threatened murder, battery and rape of Trump supporters, and became the anarchists that the socialist dream thrives upon. They run like castrated pigs for safe zones and use diaper pins as their national symbol.

This is exactly what happens when political correctness takes over, and participation trophies are awarded to everyone.  They can’t conceive how disgusting and subservient they have become.  Donald Trump may NOT be the best person for the job, but he’s such a welcome respite from the candy-assed wimps who’ve been running the swamp that it’s refreshing to see.  At the very least, Donald Trump derailed the Socialist train and bought us precious time.  If he only does half of what he’s promised, we’ll still be legions ahead of where Obama has dragged us.  Already countries who held us in contempt are lining up to be found in the favor of America.

So, for you liberal lurkers and you half-assed fence-sitters, kiss off.  You had your big hurrah and now your party is over.  For you staunch Republicans in office, don’t gloat so much yourselves.  You’ve been put on notice by the American people that we’re fed up with ALL YOU BASTARDS, and if you don’t start putting America first, you do so at your own peril.  You might want to buy a copy of George McGovern’s autobiography and see how shocking and humbling it can be for a professional politician to have to try to find legitimate work once he falls from grace.  This election was pure, unadulterated AMERICAN.  Hillary got beaten and AMERICA WON THE ELECTION.  You can claim he’s not “your president” all you want, but unless you forfeit your American citizenship, YES HE IS!  Go cry a river some place they need water.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS ON

PATRIOTISM

It is not my intention to denigrate Mr. Roof; however there are certain subjects that everyone reading the above article must understand.

# 1 is, Patriotism, (as in “a proud supporter or defender of His/her country and it’s way of life” has been used by the International Investment Banking Cartel to control the emotions of billions of people, to their detriment, and the worlds grave yards PROVE IT!

 There is no possible justification for continuous wars between Nations. They only profit the Bankers, politicians and those who build, distribute, and sell munitions and related products. WAR IS A RACKET, and it turns men into killers, destroys families, and worst of all, it promotes a mind set in young men that destroys their compassion for other people, and it begins on television, the public and privet mind control school system, all kinds of media, the military and is relevant in every countries mind set. It has turned humanity into monsters. I’ve been there folks, and killing other people becomes an addiction just like narcotics.  The better you are at it, the more you want to continue doing it. It is a method of stroking your self-esteem. In short, war destroys human beings ability to prioritize their emotions and responsibilities to humanity. It justifies being sub-human. It is a tool the Bankers use to totally control the world, and the more we participate, the richer and more powerful they get; until we accept our total loss of humanity and freedom and accept their every command. THAT’S THE COST OF PATRIOTISM!

 And it has been going on since the beginning of humanity.

And that’s not the worst part: because our confused minds begin to justify it as a means of getting even, like my dreams of solwy dragging Obuma and the Bankers over a gravel road until there is nothing left but the chain. Are you beginning to understand the horror of having been self hypnotized by your own rage or pursuit of glory? Our mind is our only chance of protecting the things we love, and we cannot afford to let other people decide what we should be because; when we, through ignorance, accept the things we have been taught to accept as normal, self hypnosis transfers the blame to us.

Even though my Lord and my God has said “Thou Shalt Not Kill” I have already changed that into; “I will kill anyone who tries to kill my loved ones or myself”, which is all the proof needed to deny my Lord as being infallible. What have we become if we accept human law over the Lord God almighty? Do you see the conundrum we face? This is the result of following the Bankers design of humanity over Gods. They have made us what we are by manipulating everything in our world, and claim to own us!

They have changed the definition of common words like “person” and “citizen”, and the kind of law we must obey was changed from common law to “international law” and that is only a minuscule amount of things that they have used to control us and steal our freedom to have a lawful Government. They make their own law, and hold us responsible, when we had no idea what they were doing, or how they did it. We were lied to from the cradle and accepted it as normal because it was all we knew, so once again I say “protecting our mind from accepting lies is paramount to recovering our humanity and freedom to govern ourselves”.

There remains no excuse for anyone to follow the status quo when the information is available for us to regain our humanity, our government and our education system. You can begin by reading

You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback)

by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

May the Lord God Almighty, the Holy Lord of Glory forgive us and help us return to His Rule!

 # 2! Now, you might be wondering why Mr. Roof is so upset over the machinations of our elected government. Well first off we did not elect them; the Banking Cartel appointed them for us because they know better than us how to gain complete control over the only commodity that has the power to control our lives. MONEY is the method they have always used and has been proven to be the ultimate weapon against humans. Along with our mind manipulation they use our greed for commodities to control us and all of the governments of the world.

 And soon, they are going to solidify and modify the expense of doing that by eliminating our access to any currency but digits in their controlled banks. This effectively bankrupts all of humanity. Then, they will have the power to control everything on earth, and there will be no turning back with their own world military to enforce their control. Face it America, we have been screwed!!!

All of the pleasures of life will then be at the pleasure of the Banking Cartel. Can you comprehend the number of people who will be murdered to enforce this incomprehensible destruction of life on earth, as they solidify their control over everything needed to service the selected and obedient few who remain to serve them? Is your ignorance of their plans so low that this sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory? Well you only think what they have enabled you to think!

All remaining human beings will toe the line in perfect obedience when the Bankers control their food and warmth, where they come and go, and how often. Those of you who only see the good in humanity are in for a lesson you will not forget. Then you will be exterminated. That is the result of not having the intelligence to know “Something is wrong here” and doing the research to find out what it is!

All they had to do to accomplish this, is to do it in increments slow enough to not frighten people, and keep them focused on the remaining pleasures in life. Which by the way, is not all that inspiring if you have some of your mind left. I do not mean to appear to be more intelligent than anyone else but I was and remain aware that something is wrong here, so I looked for the reason. The next step was to try and awaken as many people as I could before the shit hits the fan. And, believe me it will when everyone has no money with any value.

# 3! Now we must confront the divide and conquer method that has helped the Bankers create chaos among us, and who among you is free of prejudices? Who among all of us has not looked down our nose at this or that ethnicity? As hard as I try not to, I would be a liar if I did not admit to being prejudice because it has been a part of humanity from the get go, and the Bankers have used it to completely divide America into a bunch of ignorant squabbling fools.

The media industry has been their most successful weapon in dividing us and many other human infallibilities have been controlled to their advantage. Can we not see the advantage it gives them to hate one another while they escape our wrath? Make no mistake about it, hate is a powerful tool when it is advantageous to them, and keeping us at each others throats is much better that attacking them. The media industry has been the most successful tool in the Bankers toolbox because they own it lock stock and barrel. Only six corporations control what we are feeding our minds by watching and reading their surreptitious lies.

Consider what we could accomplish if we were all pulling in the same direction instead of kicking and scratching each others eyes out; not to mention creating unforgivable wounds in our minds. Who among us is free of this horrible waste of power to reconstruct our country?

So Mr. Roof, don’t be so hard on the sons of bitches who call themselves your elected representatives, as they are only following orders, like any loyal military man is expected to do.

Warm Regards.

Olddog

surreptitious lies

https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/the-breakup-of-the-united-states-is-inevitable/

January 10th, 2017 by

www.arkansasfreedom.com

PEACE

By Joe McCutchen

January 9, 2017

Does anyone really know the mindset of President-Elect Donald Trump? January 21, 2017 the neutral pendulum will begin to swing right or left. Citizens should be keenly aware of nuances, meaningless statements; political positions that regularly come forth from his mouth, as well as the super large issues he will be instantly confronted with. The importance is simply that the new president will hold more collective power in all the political arenas on that date than any man in the history of the world. Which way and how far will the pendulum swing?

The American government, on a perpetual basis,  needs soldiers and lots of them to continue their unconstitutional, preemptive murdering and destructive psychotic pursuits.

President Elect Donald J. Trump, who I voted for with certain caveats, has reiterated multiple times that:

  1. S. must greatly strengthen nuclear capabilities
  2. Retrofit the existing S. military                     
  3. Furthermore: Increase the numbers & scope of the S. military top down.  These statements (positions) and their implementation have the capacity to destroy mankind.

Question: why the necessity for the above? Who is today’s U.S. enemy du jour? Not one foreign national government has shown an inclination for war since 1945.

The current U.S. military is the largest and best equipped in the history of the world, yet President Elect Trump wants to rebuild & build on those numbers.  At least 5 countries have a nuclear capability that could destroy the globe 10X over in minutes, namely the U.S., U.K., China, Israel, & Russia.  There are others. Of the 5, who presents the greatest threat to precipitate a nuclear Armageddon—in my mind, the U.S. and/or Israel.

Should President Elect Trump proceed on the psychotic misadventures for global destruction i.e. arms race, as opposed to pursuing a vigorous global peace initiative, laissez faire capitalism, and as one of the Founders stated…”no foreign entanglements”, we shall pay dearly in blood & treasure.  There is an excellent chance that civilization could be wiped off the face of the earth, e.g. the U.S. forcing China & Russia into a nuclear global conflict, now occurring—U.S. military along Russian borders & naval forces in the South China Sea.   These two nations will not be bullied.

Bush I & II engaged this nation into 15 years of continual murdering and destruction, aided by Barack Obama with no end in sight.  The RNC (Republican National Committee) and its sitting Senators & Representatives are warmongers of the highest order and no doubt inherited their DNA from the butcher of butchers, President Abraham Lincoln, e.g. Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and in AR. neophyte war-activist Sen. Tom Cotton, & indolent Sen. John Boozman who acts only on command from the RNC to pull the levers for war, otherwise his 15 year legislative presence has been a blank slate & a disgrace.

If President Elect Trump is successful in the macro enlargement and retrofitting of the U.S. military, what are his plans for utilizing this behemoth? The U.S. currently has a military presence in 130 countries! Again, I ask why?  None of these countries have shown one iota of interest in any manner to engage the U.S. militarily, while at the same time the U.S. has meddled, destroyed, & murdered millions of innocent citizens around the globe, e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Ukraine, Turkey, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela, & Russia (posting NATO troops on the borders of countries contiguous with Russia—e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey,  a U.S. naval armada in the South China Sea, and a recent deployment of tanks in Eastern Germany. ) Who is the aggressor?

I ask again, what does Mr. Trump plan to do with his proposal to metastasize the U.S. military?  Are the troops going to languish in their barracks sitting on their bunks polishing their brass and rearranging their foot lockers? Certainly not, it is a formula for global destruction/hegemony, the only logical conclusion with which one can arrive, with another massive buildup of troops & material.     Armies are assembled to destroy countries, kill, and torture, remove individual freedoms & institute multiple methods of captivity ending in slavery. The U.S. military is not assembled for peaceful engagements. (Accompanied by a national debt of $20 TRILLION & GROWING)

To the point.  Paul Wolfowitz, dual Israeli/U.S. citizen, heavily involved in Bush II’s criminal adventures & author of the Wolfowitz Doctrine—“WE SHALL HAVE NO RIVALS”, and using the doctrine simply means, as he states,  “ETERNAL WAR FOR ETERNAL PEACE” resulting in an insane equation for the pursuit of U.S. global dominance with the obvious need for massive numbers of young Americans, i.e. cannon fodder, to satisfy the dreams & goals of elitists, bankers, military/industrial/surveillance complex, and of course in the mid-east to do the fighting & funding for Israeli Jews.

All Americans during the last 4 decades have been recipients of daily fuselages of indoctrination, propagandizing, conditioning, and directives, to institute emotional behaviors that is  producing an overweening emotional admiration for war and the military, and at the same time citizens hardly realizing our republic has been embroiled in a continuing 15 year war that engages in super criminal acts.

The above methods are being used at every public event (free & paid) at public institutions (public schools, universities & entertainment venues) & always with an accompanying display of force: enormous flags, cannons, fireworks, military presence, flyovers, music—highly successful maudlin spectacles which produce the desired enlistments, none of which should be a part of private citizen’s entertainment & academic interests, nor should citizens be subjected to a bellicose environment at any time.

Therefore: who will you say is violating the cannons of civility? Put another way, who do you believe deserves the title of “global enemy”?

The whole of America, mainly due to ignorance, is betraying the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers, resulting in the U.S. becoming a belligerent historical wasteland.

Painfully said, the courageous U.S. fighting force is bringing our republic down by creating chaos & fear at home & abroad, not “KEEPING US SAFE” as the general officers, politicians & media bloviate daily. The U.S. has become the global enemy and unless these young people realize they are subsidizing their own demise in unconstitutional, preemptive wars and the criminal activities of American governments we will never arise from the filth and vermin to which this & past American governments have brought us.

The courageous American military are not heroes, they are tools used by elitists who foolhardily pursue their hegemonic ambitions.  Some solutions for the neutralization of our despotic federal government are akin to simple syrup—simple. 

 Redeploy all American troops back to the confines of the USA, use the redeployed troops to lockdown all our national borders—land, sea, & air; use a substantial number of the remaining redeployed to build a wall contiguous with Mexico. Discharge all military personnel who do not provide active rolls in positively serving our nation; remove all illegal foreign nationals from roles in our military. Deport all illegals and those residing here on expired visas. The redeployment will also provide for a sleek, effective fighting force and relieve U.S. taxpayers from paying billions of dollars on foolish military excursions. If the numbers remaining are sufficiently great they should be directed to rebuilding our infrastructure.  And finally, there should be instituted a 5 year moratorium on all immigration, giving our nation a chance to acculturate/assimilate the hundreds of ethnic groups who reside here legally.

Citizens, you do understand that politicians & bureaucrats are not going to resolve on their own the multiple crises we taxpayers are enduring—they created them all for their own enrichment. The coup de gras to complete the above tenants for saving our Constitutional Republic; all incumbents must be given the boot promptly, removing any chance of reenacting conscription, among other repugnant things.

Speaking of heroes, 3 individuals stand out, Edward Snowden fled to Russia, Bradley Manning federal prison, & Julian Assange house arrest Ecuadorian Embassy. They have given their all to alert/educate Americans to the magnitude of the criminal cabal located in DC—the federal government.  President Elect Donald Trump, in my view, should pardon these 3 men and award with appropriate medals of honor—they may just have saved our nation.

Joe McCutchen

www.arkansasfreedom.com 

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

There are numerous writers on the internet who display skill and intelligence that make the newspaper journalist look like high-school dropouts, but none I have read has put into print a more comprehensible, intelligent and common sense solution than what you have just read. Thank you Joe! The only thing lacking is a comprehensive plan to ignite the brains of hundreds of millions of people in America TO SUPPORT IT. Americans absolutely must stop wasting their time on frivolous entertainment, and gain the courage to abandon the social stigma against participation in political conversations. If your friends and family abandon you for having the courage to speak up, consider it an advantage and keep on trying to get people involved. You have lost nothing when idiots denounce you. WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!

PEACE

2016 The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Year.

December 28th, 2016 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/2016_the_terrible_horrible_no_good_very_bad_year

9-6-2016 8-35-41 PM

  By John W. Whitehead
December 27, 2016

“What’s past is prologue.” ― William Shakespeare, The Tempest

What a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year this has been.

Endless wars. Toxic politics. Violence. Hunger. Police shootings. Mass shootings. Economic downturns. Political circuses. Senseless tragedies. Loss. Heartache. Intolerance. Prejudice. Hatred. Apathy. Meanness. Cruelty. Poverty. Inhumanity. Greed.

Here’s just a small sampling of what we’ve suffered through in 2016.

After three years of increasingly toxic politics, the ruling oligarchy won and “we the people” lost. The FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s emails ended with a whimper, rather than a bang. FBI director James Comey declared Clinton’s use of a private email server to be careless rather than criminal. Bernie Sanders sparked a movement only to turn into a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election. Donald Trump won the White House while the American people lost any hope of ending the corporate elite’s grip on the government.

The government declared war on so-called “fake news” while continuing to peddle its own brand of propaganda. President Obama quietly re-upped the National Defense Authorization Act, including a provision that establishes a government agency to purportedly counter propaganda and disinformation.

More people died at the hands of the police. Shootings of unarmed citizens (especially African-Americans) by police claimed more lives than previously estimated, reinforcing concerns about police misconduct and the use of excessive force. Police in Baton Rouge shot Alton Sterling. Police in St. Paul shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop. Ohio police shot 13-year-old Tyre King after the boy pulls out a BB gun. Wisconsin was locked down after protests erupt over a police shooting of a fleeing man. Oklahoma police shot and killed Terence Crutcher during a traffic stop while the man’s hands were raised in the air. North Carolina police killed Keith Lamont Scott, spurring two nights of violent protests. San Diego police killed Alfred Olango after he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket. Los Angeles police shot Carnell Snell Jr. after he fled a vehicle with a paper license plate.

We lost some bright stars this year. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia’s death left the court deadlocked and his successor up for grabs. Joining the ranks of the notable deceased were Muhammad Ali, David Bowie, Fidel Castro, Leonard Cohen, Carrie Fisher, John Glenn, Merle Haggard, Harper Lee, George Michael, Prince, Nancy Reagan, Janet Reno, Elie Wiesel, and Gene Wilder.

Diseases claimed more lives. The deadly Zika virus spread outwards from Latin America and into the U.S.

The rich got richer. The Panama Papers leak pulled back the curtain on schemes by the wealthy to hide their funds in shell companies.

Free speech was dealt one knock-out punch after another. First Amendment activities were pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship varied widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

The debate over equality took many forms. African-Americans boycotted the Oscars over the absence of nominations for people of color, while the Treasury Department announced its decision to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. North Carolina’s debate over transgender bathrooms ignited a nationwide fury. Meanwhile, the U.S. military opened its doors to transgender individuals. A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed a Texas law that counts everyone, not just eligible voters, in determining legislative districts. The nation’s highest court also upheld affirmative action, while declaring a Texas law on abortion clinics to be an unnecessary burden on women.

Environmental concerns were downplayed in favor of corporate interests. Flint, Michigan’s contaminated water was declared a state and federal emergency, while thousands protested the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline and its impact on water sources.

Technology rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. The Justice Department battled Apple in court over access to its customers’ locked, encrypted iPhones. Microsoft sued the U.S. government over its access to customers’ emails and files without their knowledge. Yahoo confirmed that over half a billion user accounts had been hacked. Police departments across the country continued to use Stingray devices to collect cellphone data in real time, often without a warrant. A six-hour system shutdown resulted in hundreds of Delta flights being cancelled and thousands of people stranded.

Police became even more militarized and weaponized. Despite concerns about the government’s steady transformation of local police into a standing military army, local police agencies continued to acquire weaponry, training and equipment suited for the battlefield. In North Dakota, for instance, police were authorized to acquire and use armed drones. Likewise, the use of SWAT teams for routine policing tasks has increased the danger for police and citizens alike.

Children were hurt. A 17-year-old endangered silverback gorilla was shot preemptively after a 3-year-old child climbed into its zoo enclosure. In Disney World, an alligator snatched a 2-year-old boy off one of the resort’s man-made beaches. A school bus crash in Tennessee killed five children. And police resource officers made schools less safe, with students being arrested, tasered and severely disciplined for minor infractions.

Computers asserted their superiority over their human counterparts, who were easily controlled by bread and circuses. Google’s artificial intelligence program, AlphaGo, defeated its human opponent in a DeepMind Challenge Match. Pokemon Go took the world by storm and turned users into mindless entertainment zombies.

Terrorism took many forms. Brussels was locked down in the wake of terrorist attacks that killed dozens and wounded hundreds. A shootout between a gunman and police wrought havoc on a gay nightclub in Orlando. Terrorists armed with explosives and guns opened fire in Istanbul Airport. A trucker drives into a crowd of revelers on Bastille Day in France. Acts of suspected terrorism take place throughout Germany, including attacks using axes, knives and machetes. Japan undergoes a mass killing when a man armed with a knife targets disabled patients at a care facility. Syria continued to be ravaged by bomb strikes, terrorism and international conflict.

Science crossed into new frontiers. Doctors announced the birth of the first healthy three-parent baby created with DNA from three separate people. Elon Musk outlined his plan to populate Mars.

Tragedies abounded. An Amtrak train derailed outside of Philadelphia. A commuter train crashed through a barrier in New Jersey. Floods in Texas killed nine soldiers stationed at Fort Hood. Heatwaves swept the southwest, fueling wildfires. Flash floods and heavy rain devastated parts of Maryland and Louisiana.

The nanny state went into overdrive. Philadelphia gave the green light to a tax on sugary drinks. The FDA issued guidelines to urge food manufacturers and chain restaurants to reduce salt use.

The government waged a war on cash. Not content to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud Americans by way of wasteful pork barrel legislation, asset forfeiture schemes, and costly stimulus packages, the government and its corporate partners in crime came up with a new scheme to not only scam taxpayers out of what’s left of their paychecks but also make us foot the bill. The government’s war on cash is a concerted campaign to do away with large bills such as $20s, $50s, $100s and shift consumers towards a digital mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient.

The Deep State reared its ugly head. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government is the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our so-called representatives. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics. These are the key players that drive the shadow government. They are the hidden face of the American police state that has continued past Election Day.

The U.S. military industrial complex—aided by the Obama administration—armed the world while padding its own pockets. According to the Center for International Policy, President Obama has brokered more arms deals than any administration since World War II. For instance, the U.S. agreed to provide Israel with $38 billion in military aid over the next ten years, in exchange for Israel committing to buy U.S. weapons.

Now that’s not to say that 2016 didn’t have its high points, as well, but it’s awfully hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel right now.

Frequently, I receive emails from people urging me to leave the country before the “hammer falls.” However, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there is nowhere in the world to escape from the injustice of tyrants, bullies and petty dictators. As Ronald Reagan recognized back in 1964, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

Let’s not take the mistakes of 2016 into a new year with us. The election is over. The oligarchs remain in power. The police state is marching forward, more powerful than ever. All signs point to business as usual. The game continues to be rigged.

The lesson for those of us in the American police state is simply this: if there is to be any hope for freedom in 2017, it rests with “we the people” engaging in local, grassroots activism that transforms our communities and our government from the ground up.

Let’s get started.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

All you need to know on how to transform America is available at http://www.annavonreitz.com/ and in her book: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

 ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOME READING!

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

Cousin Bubba Call Out to All Serious Historical Researchers

December 14th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/12/cousin-bubba-call-out-to-all-serious.html

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM

By Anna Von Rietz

Cousin Bubba — Call Out to Serious Historical Researchers

Yes, I have groups of serious historical researchers working with me from all over the world now, and that’s great— but this morning we are all being called upon to consider a question of such gravity that it requires asking for even more help from more people, indeed, for everyone on the planet to get involved to whatever extent is practical.

Here is what has surfaced over the past few years of prodding and poking at the BEAST— the Belgian Electronic Asset System.  To begin getting a handle on this, read the following reprint of a Lexology news blurb from three and a half years ago:

________________________________

Belgium June 6 2013

On Thursday 30 May, the Belgian Parliament approved the overhaul of the Belgian legislation on security interests in movable assets

Under the new legislation, an electronic National Pledge Register will be established so that a pledge on movable assets (tangible as well as intangible) could be created by a mere agreement of the parties without dispossession of the assets. Important are further, amongst others, the simplification of the enforcement rules (enforcement without prior court authorization), the facilitation of a pledge over a fluctuating pool of assets or a universality of assets and the possibility to create pledges in the name of a security trustee to the benefit of third parties as beneficiaries.

The final text can be found here. The law will enter into force through publication of a Royal Decree, and ultimately on 1 December 2014.

An assessment of the law’s impact on financing transactions will be provided upon publication of the Royal Decree in the Belgian State Gazette.

__________________________________

So what are these people talking about?  Pledges? “Without dispossession of assets”?  Moveable assets?

They are talking about you and your supposed “pledge” of all you are and have and own to the “government of the United States of America” as well as the same supposed “pledges” made by the Belgian people in support of their government.  It’s the same system.  It’s the same thing.  Without all the euphemisms, it all adds up to the same thing: feudalism.

Modern feudalism.  And you are the serfs.

According to the perpetrators of this “voluntary” enslavement— you agreed to this status, knowingly and willingly, and pledged yourself, your labor, your land, your good name, your copyrights and patents and everything else “material and immaterial” to the benefit of your friendly local government services corporation in exchange for the Nanny State providing you with whatever level of “services and benefits” it is convenient for your Masters to provide.

Let’s look at some legal definitions—

Look up the word “pledge”— originally the act of a serf pledging his allegiance to a king or local robber baron in exchange for protection.  That is what you have supposedly engaged in— pledging.

And then recall the endless reiteration of “The Pledge of Allegiance” with a more jaundiced eye: “I pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America…..and to the Republic for which it stands…..”

So what is a “flag” actually?  It is a symbol standing for a nation in international admiralty, like a visual logo or icon or trademark used to identify ships in commerce and war.   So you are pledging—giving yourself to an icon?  Really?  

And who or what or which “United States of America” owns the icon at this point? 

The bankrupted and long defunct religious non-profit corporation calling itself “The United States of America” or the similarly bankrupted commercial corporation calling itself “the United States of America” or the United States of America (Minor)— a consortium of territorial Insular States plus the District of Columbia (calling itself the “State of New Columbia”) or the United States of America (Major)—a consortium of fifty-seven (57) incorporated “states of states” acting as an international commercial conglomerate? 

When the cat is away, the mice will play—- and boy, howdy, have they ever played fast and loose with your good name and your property interests!

Before we go onward, let’s ask another salient question about “The Pledge of Allegiance”—- since when did the Republic ever need any other organization to “stand for” or “represent” it?  Hmm?

Answer—- when the same rats responsible for this whole situation fraudulently involved the Republic in bankruptcy proceedings that had nothing to do with the Republic, and falsely claimed that the American people and their actual states of the Union were responsible for the debts of the perpetrators.  That placed the Republic in the clutches of the bankruptcy Trustees— the “US Trustees” and the “Custodian of Alien Property” took control and title to you and all your assets.

Look up the definition of “moveable assets”.   You are a moveable asset.  So is your house.  Your car. Everything you own and the title to everything you have.  All “moveable assets”.

Fascinating. 

And how did they do this?

Via a process of “hypothecation”— look that one up.  Basically, it’s another name for institutionalized fraud.  On the basis of whatever proof they can contrive, they can claim that they have permission to sign you up as a “surety” —- read that, “collateral” backing their debts, and they can do it as the Belgian article says, “without dispossession of the asset”.

Imagine this situation: Reckless Cousin Bubba needs a car loan.  Fast Freddie needs to make a car sale.  But nobody in their right mind would give Cousin Bubba a car loan….. so what happens?

Cousin Bubba offers you and your good name and your assets as collateral for a car loan to Fast Freddie.  Fast Freddie readily agrees and very quietly, without you knowing it at all, he “hypothecates” a debt against your name and estate—- places a lien and “title” on it—-and sells Cousin Bubba a car, backed by your supposed promise to pay if Cousin Bubba defaults.

Now just replace the name “Cousin Bubba” with “Government of the United States” — whatever those five words really stand for—- and “Fast Freddie” with Bank of England or whatever other bank applies—-and ask yourself, “What can go wrong?”

Well, having already purchased a car on your credit, Fast Freddie is anxious to sell Bubba a house, too— and Bubba is eager to have a place of his own, so they just “hypothecate” another “loan” to Bubba for a house…. And then, of course, he needs new appliances and landscaping, a pool, a motor home, an F-35 fighter jet….

And it is all getting stacked up against you and your credit and you are never told a word about any of this.  Not a word.

Pretty soon, Cousin Bubba (represented by the members of the United States Congress) is panting from the effort of keeping up with all those loan payments.  He can’t even keep up with the interest owed on all those loans….. that’s what the Grace Commission reported to Ronald Reagan about “US Government debt” back in the 1980s.

So having maxxed out your credit and having given up a “title” on everything you own including the value of your labor over the course of your lifetime, what else does Bubba do?

Oh, he “volunteers” your unborn children into slavery and “hypothecates” debt against the value of everything they will ever inherit and all they will produce and the value of their labor, too. 

But in the end, Maggie Thatcher proves correct—- thirty years down the track, Cousin Bubba can’t borrow any more.  He has finally “run out of other people’s money” and Fast Freddie is so glutted he figures he doesn’t need any more sales.

So what is the key to this situation for you and for me?  It’s called the “Alien Masterfile Account” and “Alien Birth Certificate” —- also an account. 

This account is very peculiar, because instead of using numbers, it uses your name written in “American Sign Language” (otherwise known as “Glossa”— look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition) —- to create a “sign” that appears to be your name only written in all capital letters: JOHN HENRY DOE.

It’s an “alien” account because you aren’t really a “United States Citizen” nor are you a “citizen of the United States”. Both these political statuses translate as either — “federal corporation employee obligated to obey and serve the government” or as “slaved owned by government”.   As an American state national, you are “alien” with respect to the federal government and the federal corporation(s), including the “federated” State of State franchises.  So they routinely call you an “alien” in your own country.

Look up Title 26, the old IRS Code—- and what do you see referred to constantly?  “Non-resident aliens”.  That’s you, folks, in the language of fraud known as “Federalese”.

And where is the nexus of all this chicanery, falsehood, and fraud?   It’s the “PCT”—- the Public Charitable Trust, set up by Congress for the welfare relief of poor black plantation slaves displaced by the Civil War. 

Supposedly, you knowingly and willingly “pledged” away your land and your labor and everything you are and own, including the copyright to your given name, in order to receive “benefits” from the Public Charitable Trust and have your estate “insured” — with the nearest government corporation “State of State” franchise named as your beneficiary, of course.

And where are the records of all this crappola kept for Fast Freddie’s convenience?  Well, in the BEAST catalog system, of course, and locally, on our shores, by the Depository Trust Corporation (DTC and DTTC). 

If you aren’t boiling mad, if you aren’t beside yourself, if you aren’t ready to stand up and do something about this situation, then, Good Joe, you certainly ought to be.  I am.  But following my dictum of “Keep Calm and Get Even”— what I want you all to address your attention toward is this question: was there ever a Declaration of War at the onset of the American Civil War (aka War of Secession) and if so, who or what made it?

No corporation on Earth has the right to declare war.  The most they can do is declare a police action and pretend its war. 

I very much suspect that no actual, factual, lawful Declaration of War starting the American Civil War was ever made by any properly empowered government, just as no actual, factual Peace Treaty ending the Civil War exists.  I very much suspect that all that has gone on here has been purely criminal and private in nature, a matter of “warring” commercial corporations—- gangs of thieves overrunning everything—- the transplanted Dutch East India commercial corporation versus the British East India commercial corporation, for example—- just feeding off the people and assets of this country like two giant bloated tape worms, neither one of which have any honest claims or any right to be here.

Call it “Fast Freddie” and “Fast Eddie”—- the “United States of America” and the “United States” standing for the “Federal Reserve System” and the “International Monetary Fund” —- both dishonest, both benefiting from what I shall term “Modern Commercial Feudalism” and all feeding off the fraudulent practice of “hypothecation of debt” against innocent and uninformed people who have been deliberately misled and systematically lied to and defrauded.

And the same “system” has been extrapolated worldwide— Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, India….

I postulate that there was never any actual “war between the states”— only a “war” between two foreign commercial corporations in the business of providing “governmental services”. 

Okay, researchers nationwide— got your motors running?

I know that there is no Peace Treaty officially ending the American Civil War.

See if you can find me a valid Declaration of War starting it?

And ask me, why is this important? 

Well, folks, if there was no valid Declaration of War starting the American Civil War and no valid Peace Treaty ending it, then literally— there was never such a war according to any agreed upon definition of what “war” is.

Every action undertaken by any of these governmental services corporations since then, including the vicious fraud schemes involving “pledging” and “hypothecation” and “liens on titles”— which is all identity theft and theft of credit and surreptitious enslavement of “moveable assets”—- is nothing more or less than vast and entrenched international crime.  It is owed no political solution. It is owed nothing but determined worldwide prosecution. 

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

How Americas Cities May Explode In Violence

December 12th, 2016 by

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/bracken-when-the-music-stops-how-americas-cities-may-explode-in-violence/

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I have been saving this article since 12 09 03 for the event I saw coming that would surely trigger a mass uprising in American Cities. The event I predicted is the loss of currency and total reliance on digital credits, or in truth (TOTAL PURCHING CONTROL) BY OUR GOVERNMENT. Remember this as long as you live! When you are unable to buy and sell with cash, you are totally at the mercy of your government. They can starve you of everything you need to survive with the flick of a switch. And for you stupid government lovers, the less inhibited, infuriated government dependents will show no mercy. You will be on your own and if you trust the military to help you, just remember, they are afraid of everyone in that scenario.  Just raising your voice will get you shot.  Everyone will be in survival mode and this has been proven time after time. SO! If you do not raise holy hell with the Banking Cartel and the government, they will steal your life by stealing your money. You mean nothing to them, as they consider you as the scum of the earth, and are only loyal to The International Investment Banking Cartel. They have tried for generations to bury us with debt, and every kind of statutes (LAWS) so we would be too intimidated to fight back, but nothing can help you if there is no access to hard cash. Tell your representatives you will shit on their families graves if they outlaw cash. And if anyone tries to take your weapons away, take em out!

12-12-2016-11-26-09-am

Illustration: Bracken’s CW2 Cube

By Matt Bracken:

In response to recent articles in mainstream military journals discussing the use of the U.S. Army to quell insurrections on American soil, I offer an alternate vision of the future. Instead of a small town in the South as the flash point, picture instead a score of U.S. cities in the thrall of riots greater than those experienced in Los Angeles in 1965 (Watts), multiple cities in 1968 (MLK assassination), and Los Angeles again in 1992 (Rodney King). New Yorkers can imagine the 1977 blackout looting or the 1991 Crown Heights disturbance. In fact, the proximate spark of the next round of major riots in America could be any from a long list cribbed from our history.

We have seen them all before, and we shall see them all again as history rhymes along regardless of the century or the generation of humankind nominally in control of events. But the next time we are visited by widespread, large-scale urban riots, a dangerous new escalation may be triggered by a fresh vulnerability: It’s estimated that the average American home has less than two weeks of food on hand. In poor minority areas, it may be much less. What if a cascading economic crisis, even a temporary one, leads to millions of EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards flashing nothing but ERROR? This could also be the result of deliberate sabotage by hackers, or other technical system failures. Alternatively, the government might pump endless digits into the cards in a hopeless attempt to outpace future hyperinflation. The government can order the supermarkets to honor the cards, and it can even set price controls, but history’s verdict is clear: If suppliers are paid only with worthless scrip or blinking digits, the food will stop.

STEP ONE: FLASH MOB LOOTING

In my scenario, the initial riots begin spontaneously across affected urban areas, as SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) and other government welfare recipients learn that their EBT cards no longer function. This sudden revelation will cause widespread anger, which will quickly lead to the flash-mob looting of local supermarkets and other businesses. The media will initially portray these “food riots” as at least partly justifiable. Sadly, millions of Americans have been made largely, or even entirely, dependent on government wealth transfer payments to put food on their tables.

A new social contract has been created, where bread and circuses buy a measure of peace in our minority-populated urban zones. In the era of ubiquitous big-screen cable television, the internet and smart phones, the circus part of the equation is never in doubt as long as the electricity flows. But the bread is highly problematic. Food must be delivered the old-fashioned way: physically. Any disruption in the normal functioning of the EBT system will lead to food riots with a speed that is astonishing. This will inevitably happen when our unsustainable, debt-fueled binge party finally stops, and the music is over. Now that the delivery of free or heavily subsidized food is perceived by tens of millions of Americans to be a basic human right, the cutoff of “their” food money will cause an immediate explosion of rage. When the hunger begins to bite, supermarkets, shops and restaurants will be looted, and initially the media will not condemn the looting. Unfortunately, this initial violence will only be the start of a dangerous escalation.

The ransacked supermarkets, convenience stores, ATMs and gas stations will not be restocked during this period due to the precarious security situation. A single truck loaded with food or gasoline would be perceived to be a Fort Knox on wheels and subject to immediate attack unless heavily protected by powerfully armed security forces, but such forces will not be available during this chaotic period. Under those conditions, resupply to the urban areas cannot and will not take place. The downward spiral of social and economic dysfunction will therefore both accelerate and spread from city to city. These delays, in turn, will lead to more riots with the constant underlying demand that hungry people be fed, one way or another.

Catch-22, anyone? When these demands do not bring the desired outcome, the participants will ratchet up the violence, hoping to force action by the feckless state and national governments.

The “food riots” will be a grass-roots movement of the moment born out of hunger and desperation. It will not be dependent upon leaders or an underlying organization, although they could certainly add to the sauce. Existing cell phone technology provides all the organization a flash mob needs. Most of the mobs will consist of minority urban youths, termed MUYs in the rest of this essay. Which minority doesn’t matter; each urban locale will come with its own unique multi-ethnic dynamic.

Some locales will divide upon religious or political lines, but they will not be the dominant factors contributing to conflict. In the American context, the divisions will primarily have an ethnic or racial context, largely because that makes it easy to sort out the sides at a safe distance. No need to check religious or political affiliation at a hundred yards when The Other is of a different color.

We Americans are all about doing things the easy way, so, sadly, visible racial and ethnic features will form the predominant lines of division.

Would that it were not so, but reality is reality, even when it’s is a bitch.

Especially then.

NEXT STEP: FLASH MOB RIOTS

In order to highlight their grievances and escalate their demands for an immediate resumption of government benefits, the MUY flash mobs will next move their activities to the borders of their ethnic enclaves. They will concentrate on major intersections and highway interchanges where non-MUY suburban commuters must make daily passage to and from what forms of employment still exist. People making a living will still be using those roads to get to where they earn their daily bread.

The results of these clashes will frequently resemble the intersection of Florence and Normandie during the Rodney King riots in 1992, where Reginald Denny was pulled out of his truck’s cab and beaten nearly to death with a cinder block. If you don’t remember it, watch it on Youtube. Then imagine that scene with the mob-making accelerant of texting and other social media technology added to stoke the fires. Instead of a few dozen thugs terrorizing the ambushed intersections, in minutes there will be hundreds.

Rioters will throw debris such as shopping carts and trash cans into the intersection, causing the more timid drivers to pause. The mobs will swarm the lines of trapped cars once they have stopped. Traffic will be forced into gridlock for blocks in all directions. Drivers and passengers of the wrong ethnic persuasions will be pulled from their vehicles to be beaten, robbed, and in some cases raped and/or killed. It will be hyper-violent and overtly racial mob behavior, on a massive and undeniable basis.

Some of those trapped in their cars will try to drive out of the area, inevitably knocking down MUY pedestrians and being trapped by even more outraged MUYs. The commuters will be dragged out of their cars and kicked or beaten to death. Other suburban commuters will try to shoot their way out of the lines of stopped cars, and they will meet the same grim fate once they run out of bullets and room to escape.

The mob will be armed with everything from knives, clubs and pistols to AK-47s. A bloodbath will result. These unlucky drivers and their passengers will suffer horribly, and some of their deaths will be captured on traffic web cameras. Later, these terrible scenes will be released or leaked by sympathetic government insiders and shown by the alternative media, which continue to expand as the traditional media become increasingly irrelevant.

Implausible, you insist?

This grim tableau is my analysis of age-old human behavior patterns, adding flash mobs and 2012 levels of racial anger to the old recipe. Early-teenage MUYs today are frequently playing “The Knockout Game” on full bellies, just for kicks, and proudly uploading the videos. They and their older peers can be expected to do far worse when hunger and the fear of starvation enter their physical, mental, and emotional equations. The blame for their hunger will be turned outward against the greater society, and will be vented at first hand against any non-MUY who falls into their grasp while they are in the thrall of mob hysteria. These episodes of mass psychology we will refer to as “flash mob riots”, “wilding”, or some other new name.

THE OFFICIAL POLICE RESPONSE TO FLASH MOB RIOTS

To gear up for even a single “Florence and Normandie on steroids” flash mob street riot, city police departments will require an hour or longer to stage their SWAT teams and riot squads in position to react. Ordinary patrol cars in small numbers will not venture anywhere near such roiling masses of hysterical rioters, not even to perform rescues. Those citizens trapped in their cars cannot expect timely assistance from local or state authorities.

Even in the first days of widespread riots, when the police forces are well rested, it might take several hours to mount a response sufficient to quell the disturbance and restore order to even one major street intersection riot. In the meantime, scores of innocent commuters will have been attacked, with many of them injured or killed and left at the scene. It will be a law enforcement nightmare to quell the disturbance, mop up lingering rioters, restore security, and bring medical attention to the living and get medical examiners to the dead. And each jurisdiction will face potentially dozens of such scenes, thanks to the ability for MUYs to cross-communicate at will using their wireless devices.

The far more difficult challenge for the police is that by the time they are suited in riot gear, armed and geared up to sweep the intersection, it will probably be empty of rioters. The police, with their major riot squad reaction times measured in hours, will be fighting flash mobs that materialize, cause mayhem, and evaporate in only fractions of hours. This rapid cycle time is a clear lesson taken from massive riots by immigrant French Muslim MUYs in their own religious enclaves and bordering areas.

The American flash mob riot will exist almost entirely inside the law enforcement OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop. In other words, the rioters will have a much quicker reaction time than the police. Until fairly recently, superior police communications meant that they could use their radio networks as a force multiplier. With their networking advantage and cohesive reactions both within a department and among cooperating local agencies, police could act as shepherds guiding or dispersing a wayward stampeding flock.

Today, the mob has the greater advantage, immediately spreading word of every police preparation by text and Tweet, even in advance of the police movement. Attempts by the authorities to stop the flash mobs by blocking and jamming wireless transmissions will have limited success.

It is at this point that the situation spirals out of control.

The enraged mobs in urban America will soon recognize that their spontaneous street riots cannot be stopped by the police, and then they will grow truly fearsome. For the police, it will be a losing game of Whack-a-Mole, with riots breaking out and dispersing at a speed they cannot hope to match. The violence will spread to previously unaffected cities as an awareness of law enforcement impotence is spread by television and social media. After a few days, the police forces will be exhausted and demoralized. As the violence intensifies and spreads, and in the absence of any viable security arrangements, supermarkets and other stores will not be restocked, leaving the MUYs even more desperate and angry than before. The increasing desperation born of worsening hunger will refuel the escalating spiral of violence.

Nor will violent conflict be only between the inhabitants of the urban areas and the suburbs. The international record of conflict in tri-ethnic cities is grim, making the old bi-racial dichotomy formerly seen in America seem stable by comparison. In tri-ethnic cities the perceived balance of power is constantly shifting, with each side in turn feeling outnumbered and outmuscled. Temporary truces, betrayals and new alliances follow in rapid succession, removing any lingering sense of social cohesion.

The former Yugoslavia, with its Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim divisions, comes starkly to mind. The Lebanese Civil War between the Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze raged across Beirut (at one time known as “The Paris of the Middle East”) for fifteen brutal years. Once a city turns on itself and becomes a runaway engine of self-destruction, it can be difficult to impossible to switch off the process and return to normal pre-conflict life. It’s not inconceivable that the United States could produce a dozen Sarajevos or Beiruts, primarily across racial instead of religious divides.

Vehicle traffic by non-minority suburban commuters through adjoining minority areas will virtually halt, wrecking what is left of the local economy. Businesses will not open because employees will not be able to travel to work safely. Businesses in minority areas, needless to say, will be looted. “Gentrified” enclaves of affluent suburbanites within or near the urban zones will suffer repeated attacks, until their inhabitants flee.

Radically disaffected minorities will hold critical infrastructure corridors through their areas hostage against the greater society. Highways, railroad tracks, pipe and power lines will all be under constant threat, or may be cut in planned or unplanned acts of raging against “the system.” As long as security in the urban areas cannot be restored, these corridors will be under threat. Even airports will not be immune. Many of them have been absorbed into urban areas, and aircraft will come under sporadic fire while taking off and landing.

In the absence of fresh targets of value blundering into their areas, and still out of food, MUYs will begin to forage beyond their desolated home neighborhoods and into suburban borderlands. “Safe” supermarkets and other stores will be robbed in brazen commando-like gang attacks. Carjackings and home invasions will proliferate madly. As I have discussed in my essay “The Civil War Two Cube,” so-called “transitional” and mixed-ethnic areas will suffer the worst violence. These neighborhoods will become utterly chaotic killing zones, with little or no help coming from the overstretched police, who will be trying to rest up for their next shift on riot squad duty, if they have not already deserted their posts to take care of their own families.

THE SUBURBAN ARMED VIGILANTE RESPONSE

In the absence of an effective official police response to the exploding levels of violence, suburbanites will first hastily form self-defense forces to guard their neighborhoods—especially ones located near ethnic borders. These ubiquitous neighborhood armed defense teams will often have a deep and talented bench from which to select members, and they will not lack for volunteers.

Since 9-11, hundreds of thousands of young men (and more than a few women) have acquired graduate-level educations in various aspects of urban warfare. In the Middle East these troops were frequently tasked with restoring order to urban areas exploding in internecine strife. Today these former military men and women understand better than anyone the life-or-death difference between being armed and organized versus unarmed and disorganized.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of veterans currently own rifles strikingly similar to those they carried in the armed forces, lacking only the full-automatic selector switch. Their brothers, sisters, parents, friends, and neighbors who did not serve in the military are often just as familiar with the weapons, if not the tactics. Today the AR-pattern rifle (the semi-automatic civilian version of the familiar full-auto-capable M-16 or M-4) is the most popular model of rifle in America, with millions sold in the past decade. Virtually all of them produced in the past decade have abandoned the old M-16’s signature “carrying handle” rear iron sight for a standardized sight mounting rail, meaning that virtually every AR sold today can be easily equipped with an efficient optical sight. Firing the high-velocity 5.56×45 mm cartridge and mounted with a four-power tactical sight, a typical AR rifle can shoot two-inch groups at one hundred yards when fired from a steady bench rest. That translates to shooting eight- to ten-inch groups at four hundred yards.

Four hundred yards is a long walk. Pace it off on a straight road, and observe how tiny somebody appears at that distance. Yet a typical AR rifle, like those currently owned by millions of American citizens, can hit a man-sized target at that range very easily, given a stable firing platform and a moderate level of shooting ability.

And there are a far greater number of scoped bolt-action hunting rifles in private hands in the United States. Keep this number in mind: based on deer stamps sold, approximately twenty million Americans venture into the woods every fall armed with such rifles, fully intending to shoot and kill a two-hundred-pound mammal. Millions of these scoped bolt-action deer rifles are quite capable of hitting a man-sized target at ranges out to and even beyond a thousand yards, or nearly three-fifths of a mile. In that context, the 500-yard effective range of the average semi-auto AR-pattern rifle is not at all remarkable.

So, we have millions of men and women with military training, owning rifles similar to the ones they used in combat operations overseas from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Many of these Soldiers and Marines have special operations training. They are former warriors with experience at conducting irregular warfare and counter-terrorism operations in dangerous urban environments. They are the opposite of unthinking robots: their greatest military talent is looking outside the box for new solutions. They always seek to “over-match” their enemies, using their own advantages as force multipliers while diminishing or concealing their weaknesses. These military veterans are also ready, willing and able to pass on their experience and training to interested students in their civilian circles.

Let’s return to our hypothetical Florence and Normandie intersection, but this time with hundreds of rioters per city block, instead of mere dozens. Among the mobs are thugs armed with pistols and perhaps even AK-47s equipped with standard iron sights, and except in rare cases, these rifles have never been “zeroed in” on a target range. In other words, past a medium distance of fifty to a hundred yards, these MUY shooters will have little idea where their fired bullets will strike—nor will they care. Typically, most of the rioters armed with a pistol, shotgun or an iron-sighted rifle could not hit a mailbox at a hundred yards unless by luck. Inside that distance, any non-MUY could be at immediate risk of brutal death at the hands of an enraged mob, but beyond that range, the mob will pose much less danger.

Taking this imbalance in effective ranges of the firearms most likely to be available to both sides, certain tactical responses are sure to arise, and ranking near the top will be the one described next.

THE SNIPER AMBUSH: THE NEW TACTIC OF CHOICE

The sniper ambush will predictably be used as a counter to rampaging mobs armed only with short- to medium-range weapons. This extremely deadly trick was developed by our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking advantage of the significant effective range and firepower of our scoped 5.56mm rifles. Tactics such as the sniper ambush may not be seen early in the civil disorder, but they will surely arise after a steady progression of atrocities attributed to rampaging MUYs.

Street intersection flash mob riots will not be the only type of violence exploding during periods of civil disorder. As mentioned earlier, the number and ferocity of home invasions will skyrocket, and they will be very hard to defend against. Neighborhood self-defense forces will be able to protect a group of homes if they are located on cul-de-sacs or in defensible subdivisions with limited entrances, turning them overnight into fortified gated communities. Individual homes and apartment buildings located in open grid-pattern neighborhoods with outside access from many directions will be much more difficult to defend, and the home invasions will continue.

Carjacking and other forms of armed robbery will proliferate to previously unimagined levels, leading to a total loss of confidence in the government’s ability to provide security across all social lines. Stray bullets striking pedestrians or penetrating houses will take a frightening toll, even in areas previously considered to be safe. The police will be exhausted by constant riot-squad duty, and will not even respond to reports of mere individual acts of violent criminality. They will simply be overwhelmed, and will be forced to triage their responses. The wealthy, powerful and politically well-connected will demand the lion’s share of remaining police resources, further diminishing the safety of average Americans.

In that context, neighborhood self-defense forces will form the nucleus of the armed vigilante direct action groups which will spring up next in the progression. Suburban anger will continue to build against the MUYs, who are perceived to be the originators of the home invasions and gang-level armed looting raids. Survivors of street ambushes, carjackings and home invasions will tell blood-curdling tales and show horrific scars.

The neighborhood defense teams will evolve into proactive suburban armed vigilante groups (SAVs) out of a desire to preemptively take the violence to their perceived enemies, instead of passively waiting for the next home invasion or carjacking. The SAV teams will consist of the more aggressive and gung-ho members of the self-defense forces, who met and compared notes. Often they will be young men with recent combat experience in the armed forces, who will apply their military training to the new situation. Major intersections and highway interchanges where ambush riots have previously occurred will be among the SAV targets. The SAV reaction times will be measured in minutes, compared to the hours required by major police department SWAT teams and riot squads.

A SAMPLE SNIPER AMBUSH SCENARIO

When word is received that a flash mob is forming at one of their pre-reconnoitered intersections or highway interchanges, the SAV team will assemble. Sometimes cooperating police will pass tactical intel to their civilian friends on the outside. Some clever individuals will have exploited their technical know-how and military experience to build real-time intel collection tools, such as private UAVs. Police will have access to urban security camera footage showing MUYs moving barricade materials into position—a normal prerequisite to a flash mob riot intended to stop traffic. Tip-offs to the vigilantes will be common, and where the networks are still functioning, citizens may still be able to access some video feeds. Sometimes, police will even join the SAV teams, incognito and off-duty, blurring the teams into so-called “death squads.”

The operation I will describe (and it’s only one of dozens that will be tried) uses two ordinary pickup trucks and eight fighters. Two riflemen are lying prone in the back of each truck, facing rearward, with removable canvas covers concealing their presence. Their semi-automatic, scoped rifles are supported at their front ends on bipods for very accurate shooting. A row of protective sandbags a foot high is between them and the raised tailgate.

In the cab are a driver and a spotter in the passenger seat who also serves as the vehicle’s 360-degree security. The two trucks don’t ever appear on the same stretch of road, but coordinate their movements using one-word brevity codes over small FRS walkie-talkie radios. Each truck has a series of predetermined elevated locations where the intersection in question will lie between 200 and 500 yards away. Each truck is totally nondescript and forgettable, the only detail perhaps being the non-MUY ethnicity of the suburbanite driver and spotter driving relatively near to a riot in progress.

By the time the two SAV pickup trucks arrive at their firing positions on different streets and oriented ninety degrees to one another, the flash mob riot is in full swing. A hundred or more of the rampaging youths are posturing and throwing debris into traffic in order to intimidate some cars into stopping. The riflemen in the backs of the pickups are waiting for this moment and know what to expect, trusting their spotters and drivers to give them a good firing lane. The spotters in each truck issue a code word on their radios when they are in final position. The tailgates are swung down, and the leader among the riflemen initiates the firing. All-around security is provided by the driver and spotter.

Lying prone and using their bipods for support, the shooters have five to ten degrees of pan or traverse across the entire intersection. Individual rioters are clearly visible in the shooters’ magnified optical scopes. Each of the four snipers has a plan to shoot from the outside of the mob toward the middle, driving participants into a panicked mass. The left-side shooters start on the left side and work to the middle, engaging targets with rapid fire, about one aimed shot per two seconds. Since the two trucks are set at ninety degrees to one another, very complete coverage will be obtained, even among and between the stopped vehicles.

The result is a turkey shoot. One magazine of thirty aimed shots per rifle is expended in under a minute, a coded cease-fire is called on the walkie-talkies, and the trucks drive away at the speed limit. The canvas covering the truck beds contains the shooters’ spent brass. If the trucks are attacked from medium or close range, the canvas can be thrown back and the two snipers with their semi-automatic rifles or carbines will add their firepower to that of the driver and spotter.

Back at the intersection, complete panic breaks out among the rioters as a great number of bullets have landed in human flesh. Over a score have been killed outright, and many more scream in pain for medical attention they will not receive in time. The sniper ambush stops the flash mob cold in its tracks as the uninjured flee in terror, leaving their erstwhile comrades back on the ground bleeding. The commuters trapped in their vehicles may have an opportunity to escape.

This type of sniper ambush and a hundred variations on the theme will finally accomplish what the police could not: put an end to mobs of violent rioters making the cities through-streets and highways impassible killing zones. Would-be rioters will soon understand it to be suicidal to cluster in easily visible groups and engage in mob violence, as the immediate response could come at any time in the form of aimed fire from hundreds of yards away. Even one rifleman with a scoped semi-auto can break up a medium-sized riot.

Many citizens will take to carrying rifles and carbines in their vehicles, along with their pistols, so that if their cars are trapped in an ambush they will have a chance to fight their way out. If their vehicle is stopped outside the immediate area of the flash mob, they will be able to direct accurate fire at the rioters from a few hundred yards away. Inside the fatal hundred-yard radius, unlucky suburbanite drivers and passengers pulled from their cars will still be brutally violated, but the occurrences of large mob-driven street ambushes will be much less frequent once long-range retaliation becomes a frequent expectation.

THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO VIGILANTISM

Where they will be unable to respond swiftly or effectively to the outbreaks of street riots by MUY flash mobs, the police and federal agents will respond vigorously to the deadly but smaller vigilante attacks. These sniper ambushes and other SAV attacks will be called acts of domestic terrorism and mass murder by government officials and the mainstream media. A nearly seamless web of urban and suburban street cameras will reveal some of the SAV teams by their vehicles, facial recognition programs, and other technical means. Some early arrests will be made, but the vigilantes will adapt to increasing law enforcement pressure against them by becoming cleverer about their camouflage, most often using stolen cars and false uniforms and masks during their direct-action missions. Observe Mexico today for ideas on how this type of dirty war is fought.

Eventually, the U.S. Army itself might be called upon to put out all the social firestorms in our cities, restore order and security, pacify the angry masses, feed the starving millions, get vital infrastructure operating again, and do it all at once in a dozen American Beiruts, Sarajevos and Mogadishus.

Good luck to them, I say.

A few hundred “Active IRA” tied down thousands of British troops in one corner of a small island for decades. The same ratios have served the Taliban well over the past decade while fighting against the combined might of NATO. Set aside for a moment the angry starving millions trapped in the urban areas, and the dire security issues arising thereof. Just to consider the official reaction to vigilantism separately, it’s unlikely that any conceivable combinations of local and state police, federal law enforcement, National Guard or active-duty Army actions could neutralize or eliminate tens of thousands of former special operations troops intent on providing their own form of security. Millions of Americans are already far better armed and trained than a few hundred IRA or Taliban ever were. And the police and Army would not be operating from secure fire bases, their families living in total safety thousands of miles away in a secure rear area. In this scenario, there is no rear area, and every family member, anywhere, would be at perpetual risk of reprisal actions by any of the warring sides.

In this hyper-dangerous environment, new laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in vehicles would be ignored as the illegitimate diktat of dictatorship, just when the Second Amendment is needed more than ever. Police or military conducting searches for firearms at checkpoints would themselves become targets of vigilante snipers. Serving on anti-firearms duty would be seen as nothing but pure treason by millions of Americans who took the oath to defend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Politicians who did not act in the security interest of their local constituents as a result of political correctness or other reasons would also be targeted.

A festering race war with police and the military in the middle taking fire from both sides could last for many years, turning many American cities into a living hell. Remember history: when the British Army landed in Northern Ireland in 1969, they were greeted with flowers and applause from the Catholics. The Tommys were welcomed as peacekeepers who would protect them from Protestant violence. That soon changed. Likewise with our tragic misadventure in Lebanon back in 1982 and 1983. Well-intended referees often find themselves taking fire from all sides. It’s as predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise. Why would it be any different when the U.S. Army is sent to Los Angeles, Chicago or Philadelphia to break apart warring ethnic factions?

For a long time after these events, it will be impossible for the warring ethnic groups to live together or even to mingle peacefully. Too much rage and hatred will have been built up on all sides of our many American multi-ethnic fault lines. The new wounds will be raw and painful for many years to come, as they were in the South for long after the Civil War. The fracturing of the urban areas, divided by no-man’s-lands, will also hinder economic redevelopment for many years because the critical infrastructure corridors will remain insecure.

Eventually, high concrete “Peace Walls” like those in Belfast, Northern Ireland, will be installed where the different ethnic groups live in close proximity. That is, if recovery to sane and civilized norms of behavior are ever regained in our lifetimes and we don’t slide into a new Dark Age, a stern and permanent tyranny, warlordism, anarchy, or any other dire outcome.

Dark Ages can last for centuries, after sinking civilizations in a vicious, downward vortex. “When the music’s over, turn out the lights,” to quote Jim Morrison of The Doors. Sometimes the lights stay out for a long time. Sometimes civilization itself is lost. Millions of EBT cards flashing zeroes might be the signal event of a terrible transformation.

It is a frightening thing to crystallize the possible outbreak of mass starvation and racial warfare into words, so that the mind is forced to confront agonizingly painful scenarios. It is much easier to avert one’s eyes and mind from the ugliness with politically correct Kumbaya bromides. In this grim essay, I am describing a brutal situation of ethnic civil war not differing much from the worst scenes from recent history in Rwanda, South Africa, Mexico, Bosnia, Iraq, and many other places that have experienced varying types and degrees of societal collapse. We all deplore the conditions that might drive us toward such a hellish outcome, and we should work unceasingly to return America to the path of true brotherhood, peace and prosperity. Race hustlers of every stripe should be condemned.

Most of us wish we could turn back the calendar to Norman Rockwell’s America. But we cannot, for that America is water long over the dam and gone from our sight, if not from our memories. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If that is true, judging by current and even accelerating cultural shifts, we might already have passed the point of no return.

The prudent American will trim his sails accordingly.

Matt Bracken is the author of “When The Music Stops” and other essays in The Bracken Anthology, the Enemies Foreign And Domestic trilogy, and his latest novel, Castigo Cay.

Editor’s Note – 0900 EDT 14 SEPT 2012: Per Matt’s request, the second paragraph has been edited slightly to reflect the more probable government actions regarding EBT cards.

Editor’s Note – 0210 EDT 16 SEPT 2012: I have taken the liberty of taking Matt’s note below, originally posted at the end of “Coup”, and placing it here so that new readers would learn of that related essay.

Author’s Note: This essay and last week’s “What I Saw At The Coup” were both written in response to the article published on July 25, 2012 in the semi-official Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future.”

My twin essays represent starkly different “visions of the future” that would-be tyrants, their hopeful henchmen and other self-deluded nimrods may want to consider, before ordering the U.S. military or federal agencies to suppress Americans.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

This Is How War Begins

November 19th, 2016 by

http://charleseisenstein.net/this-is-how-war-begins/

11-19-2016-8-46-11-am

 By Charles Eisenstein

“Their stupidity is amusing.”

“Stopping Trump is essential. Anyone who says otherwise is either foolish or blinded by privilege.”

“People should get hated for voting for Johnson because he is a moron.”

“Are Trump supporters too dumb to know they’re dumb?”

“Hillbots have complete inability to do anything except parrot their hero Shillary’s endless lies”

“Anyone who votes for Killary has already been drugged and taken the stupid pill.”

“They will never change.”

“Disgusting, twisted human beings.”

Anyone who reads Facebook or pretty much any political website is sure to see comments like these that dehumanize not only the opposing candidate, but the candidate’s supporters too. This polarization and vitriol, unprecedented in my lifetime, has me more concerned than the prospect of an evil candidate winning. It is as if what is really going on here is a preparation for civil war.

Dehumanization is a predecessor of war. When you see your opponents as subhuman in their morals, conscience, or intelligence, then you will have to defeat them by force. Moral or rational persuasion won’t do it. That is what the above-quoted comments imply.

The dehumanization runs top to bottom, from the headlines in major news outlets to the comments on Facebook and Twitter. Photos of political candidates chosen to provoke contempt, statements taken deliberately out of context… the no-holds-barred tactics of war. Both sides feature the most outrageous comments made by partisans of the other side, seeking to indict all of them through guilt by association. Similar to the atrocity stories used to whip up war hysteria among a pacifist public before World War One, these reports polarize the electorate and sow paranoia and distrust.

If you read only one side, you don’t know that the other side expresses the same outraged grievances as yours does. Most of my readers are probably familiar with articles about gun-toting “poll watchers” sent by Trump operatives to intimidate voters. But unless you read right-wing media, you won’t be aware of its earnest, indignant articles about agents provocateur from the Clinton camp seeking to sow violence at Trump rallies. Each side claims the other exaggerates and misconstrues. Each side is constructing a reality in which the other is hideous.

Reading right-wing and left-wing news sites side by side, one gets the impression that reality has diverged into two. I read both, in order to understand the sickness that has infected my country. Headline news in one camp is totally absent from the other. It isn’t just the interpretation of the news that is different – the two sides don’t even agree on fundamental facts. Here’s how one Facebook commentator, Amelia Bagwell, describes the experience of reading a conservative friend’s news feed: “News agencies I have never heard of with bold headlines of’Breaking News’ announcing HRC’s pending arrest. Trump is second to none in morality, decency and honor…loves Jesus…and is a perfect example of a godly family man. If the same stories are reported, they are akin to reading two different languages. We are divided not just ideologically, but at a core level of raw information.”

Such a gulf of perception inflamed by hatred presents a very dangerous situation.

I will not venture an opinion on whether the candidates themselves are hideous. We live in a system that encourages and rewards corrupt and even psychopathic behavior. What I do know, though, is that the vast majority of ordinary people are not the cartoonish caricatures of human beings that political rhetoric has made them out to be. They have an experience of life, a history, a convergence of circumstances that has brought them to their opinions. Just like you.

Statements like those quoted above create a climate for extreme measures. Take them seriously, and you have to conclude that there are an awful lot of people out there who just need to be locked up, medicated, forcibly re-educated, or maybe shot. They are reprehensible, appalling… they are deplorable.

Once the name-calling starts it is self-perpetuating, since anyone who says that you are a deplorable person will seem to you deplorable themselves. How could they be so wrong about you? How could they not see your deep humanity, the good reasons you have for voting the way you do, your sincere attempts to make the world a better place? They seem just hateful.

And so, the body politic tilts further and further into extreme polarization. This will not end well, no matter which side wins.

Dehumanizing narratives are never the truth. The truth can only be sourced from the sincere question, “What is it like to be you?” That is called compassion, and it invites skills of listening, dialog, and communicating without violence or judgement. Now there may be times when such skills fail and there is no choice but to fight. Failure is guaranteed, though, when the surrounding narrative casts the opponent as evil, twisted, disgusting, or deplorable. In that case, war is the likely result.

Can we please stop creating conditions for war? Can we please stop demonizing those who disagree with us? Can we stop the cheap and degrading psychoanalyzing of our opponents? These tactics might seem to succeed in the short term – one side or another will win – but in the end we have only strengthened the climate of hate and the mentality of war.

What can you do about it? I suggest the following: see to it that you imbue everything that you post to social media, every comment, every reply, with a spirit of compassion and respect. Do not let your pain erupt forth as an implicit call to hatred. Do not beat the drums of war.

Look, I’m all for hope and optimism. But it’s important to stay rational. These problems aren’t going away.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Hope and Optimism are for dreamers! Reality has proven that Homo Sapiens are incapable of harmonious relationships. The only sure thing in this life is it will end.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST

November 17th, 2016 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=581

 

By Michael Gaddy

“The value of history is, indeed, not scientific but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it enables us to control, not society, but ourselves — a much more important thing; it prepares us to live more humanely in the present and to meet rather than to foretell the future.” ~ Carl Becker, 1873-1945 (All emphasis is the author’s throughout)

If a person or a political entities goal is to create a strong centralized government which operates basically as an oligarchy, it will become necessary to disguise those intentions. The best disguise for an oligarchy is to clothe that form of government with the costume of a democracy. But, in order to have the masses actually believe they are involved in their own governance, any comprehensive study of history must be perverted or abandoned altogether.

For any government to transform from a government operating with the consent of the governed to a tyrannical and oppressive government directed and controlled by the powerful few, two elements must be created and developed within the governed populace. These elements, though different in composition, must be complimentary in nature.

First of all, a tyrannical government needs a totally compliant majority within the masses who, no matter what atrocities the government commits, will be rationalized away much as a battered wife defends and denies the acts of an abusive spouse. The oppressive government can take a majority of what these people earn and give it to others who refuse to work; shoot unarmed mothers in the face; shoot 14-year-old sons in the back; incinerate young children and adults in their church and lie about it; provide explosives to so-called terrorists which were subsequently used to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993: withhold evidence in the investigation of an assassinated president, a civil rights leader, two presidential candidates; evidence in the case of TWA-800; withhold evidence in the OKC bombing; constantly monitor all forms of communication involving its citizens without the whisper of probable cause and other various assortments of violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights while the country’s borders are wide open, offering unfettered access to our families by the relatives of those whose countries we have invaded immorally and unconstitutionally, killing hundreds of thousands in the process.

While the above indictments of our government’s tyrannical actions barely scratch the surface of what has taken place in the past few decades, the paradoxical actions of the masses defies all logic. A majority will question domestic actions of their government which destroys the concept of consent of the governed, yet overwhelmingly support that same government when it lies for justification to go to war. Somehow a government that steals your money destroys your God-given rights and refuses to protect the states from invasion must be totally supported when it prevaricates about the reasons for putting our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers in harm’s way when they illegally and immorally occupy the country of others and kill any who resist. Government’s very existence requires those who blindly follow the dictates of that government to be perceived and celebrated as heroes to the ignorant but compliant masses.

Then, of course, there is the second element that guarantees a despotic government continued support and blind allegiance to its agenda. This is the enforcement arm of that government which usually takes the form of a standing army— something our founders feared more than foreign invaders and the police at all levels. When a government steps outside its legal mandates it must possess the ability to rule by force instead of consent. Laws formulated to destroy rather than protect the Natural Law and concomitant restrictions on those who govern requires the threat of violence and coercion while Natural/Common Law is accepted by most and does not require the standing armies and militarized police forces of today.

To gain broad acceptance among the historically ignorant, members of the enforcement arm of the government must be viewed as “heroes” for their dedication to protecting the freedoms of the masses. The fact the very opposite is occurring; the government is being protected by this enforcement arm and not the people’s rights is lost on the idolaters of unrestrained power, willing dupes and the historically challenged.

Would there ever have been an America if folks like Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others would have decided to “support the troops” instead of demanding their God-given rights from a government acting not at all unlike the one we have now? Would they have supported the forces and called them heroes that shot down a child and several others at what we refer to as the Boston Massacre because the enforcers were “just doing their jobs” or would we justify the killings because the government’s enforcers thought the mob was armed and didn’t show their hands on command?

A study of history reveals that somehow the government of the few is able to “rally the masses” to their agenda as they go about mass murder, private property destruction and genocide against those with the audacity to challenge their actions. Statements throughout history reveal a basic theme of demonization of many who just want to be left alone or as the Declaration of Independence states “assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.” I can assure you the enforcement arm of our present government will be unleashed on any individual or group that attempts to assume “their separate and equal station” just as they have on many occasions in our country’s history.

Let’s look at the similarity of the words of those deployed against those who just wanted to be left alone to determine their own destiny instead of kowtowing to tyrannical rule. Of course, all of the government’s assets, including a bought and paid for media must be employed to demonize those who would resist the will of the government aggressor.

From our Second War for Independence, known to the great unwashed as the Civil War:

“Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” (This continues to this day.)

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources” 

“Government of the United States” has the “right” to “take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . We will take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property . . .” (can you see here the possible origins of thought of those who now populate and wear the uniform of the BLM, Oregon State Police, FBI, and USFS?)

“…the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed…” Union General William Tecumseh Sherman

Sherman’s wife Ellen wrote of her wish for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”

Then this same philosophy was turned on the American Indian who stood in the way of “progress.” Well, in reality, not progress so much as lining the pockets of the controllers of the oligarchy. Time spent studying the book “Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow” by Dee Brown will illuminate your path to the history in that regard.

“It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made.”  ~ Union General John Pope, 1862

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women, and children” ~ Union General William Tecumseh Sherman

“The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” Union General Sherman to Union General Sheridan.

Now, let us look at our government’s current villain de jour: Muslim extremists.

 “You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them, you do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows.” ~ Lt. Colonel Peters on FOX News

How Shermanesque of the good Colonel? Would he object to those he seeks to exterminate having the same thoughts about him and his family? Are these “terrorists” he speaks of his personal enemies or just the current enemy of the government he blindly supports? Perhaps he believes taking away all our freedoms at home would prevent future attacks perpetrated against us “because we are free.”

“We need to kill them. We need to kill them, the radical Muslim terrorists hell-bent on killing us. You’re in danger. I’m in danger. We’re at war and this is not going to stop.” ~FOX News’ Jeanine Pirro

Well, I’m no theologian, but I suspect Jesus would tell that god-fearing, red-blooded American Sniper, ‘well done, my good and faithful servant, for dispatching another godless jihadist to the lake of fire.’ But then again, I’m no theologian.” FOX News’ Todd Starnes

Does anyone see a pattern here? How very convenient is historical amnesia or just historical ignorance when it comes to supporting the enforcement arm of our tyrannical and oppressive government as it goes about its daily task of robbing the people, destroying their rights and property and by threat, coercion, or willful ignorance demanding allegiance thereto?

Would Colonel Peters, Ms. Pirro or Mr. Starnes dare comment on the fact our government has provided billions of our tax dollars to these “Muslim terrorists” and “godless jihadists” for decades and continues to do so even now? We could begin with the 500 million provided to these forces back in 1978 by the CIA, the funding for ISIS and al Qaeda, or the fact we supported these very same forces in Kosovo. Has FOX News forgotten their own reporter spoke with Senator John McCain on his support for arming ISIS in 2013? Have they forgotten McCain’s proud moment displaying his picture made with these “terrorists” (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Muhammad Noor) on his “secret trip” to visit and support them (ISIS) on Memorial Day in 2013?

11-17-2016-9-34-04-am

Ignorance of history and moral decay is destroying our country. How convenient is it to forget that our country provided funding to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? How many millions of innocent lives are these three responsible for? Did our dollars contribute in any way to their wanton acts of genocide? Did our dollars buy the guns or the bullets?

This continued ignorance and blind patriotism directed toward the enforcement arm of our tyrannical government serves only to accelerate our loss of Liberty and eventual enslavement: spiritual, mental, economical and physical.

It might be time to look backward in order to better understand moving forward.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

Stay Alert America; The Worst Is Yet to Come

November 15th, 2016 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/stay_alert_america_the_worst_is_yet_to_come

7-18-2016 10-39-53 AM

By John W. Whitehead

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—Philosopher George Santayana

Stay alert, America.

This is not the time to drop our guards, even for a moment.

Nothing has changed since the election to alter the immediate and very real dangers of roadside strip searches, government surveillance, biometric databases, citizens being treated like terrorists, imprisonments for criticizing the government, national ID cards, SWAT team raids, censorship, forcible blood draws and DNA extractions, private prisons, weaponized drones, red light cameras, tasers, active shooter drills, police misconduct and government corruption.

Time alone will tell whether those who put their hopes in a political savior will find that trust rewarded or betrayed.

Personally, I’m not holding my breath.

I’ve been down this road before.

I’ve studied history.

I know what comes next.

It’s early days yet, but President-elect Trump—like his predecessors—has already begun to dial back many of the campaign promises that pledged to reform a broken system of government.

The candidate who railed against big government and vowed to “drain the swamp” of lobbyists and special interest donors has already given lobbyists, corporate donors and members of the governmental elite starring roles in his new administration.

America, you’ve been played.

This is what happens when you play politics with matters of life, death and liberty.

You lose every time.

Unfortunately, in this instance, we all lose because of the deluded hypocrisy of the Left and the Right, both of which sanctioned the expansion of the police state as long as it was their party at the helm.

For the past eight years, the Left—stridently outspoken and adversarial while George W. Bush was president—has been unusually quiet about things like torture, endless wars, drone strikes, executive orders, government overreach and fascism.

As Glenn Greenwald points out for The Washington Post:

Beginning in his first month in office and continuing through today, Obama not only continued many of the most extreme executive-power policies he once condemned, but in many cases strengthened and extended them. His administration detained terrorism suspects without due process, proposed new frameworks to keep them locked up without trial, targeted thousands of individuals (including a U.S. citizen) for execution by drone, invoked secrecy doctrines to shield torture and eavesdropping programs from judicial review, and covertly expanded the nation’s mass electronic surveillance…

Liberals vehemently denounced these abuses during the Bush presidency… But after Obama took office, many liberals often tolerated — and even praised — his aggressive assertions of executive authority. It is hard to overstate how complete the Democrats’ about-face on these questions was once their own leader controlled the levers of power… After just three years of the Obama presidency, liberals sanctioned a system that allowed the president to imprison people without any trial or an ounce of due process.

Suddenly, with Trump in the White House for the next four years, it’s all fair game again.

As The Federalist declares with a tongue-in-cheek approach, “Dissent, executive restraint, gridlock, you name it. Now that Donald Trump will be president, stuff that used to be treason is suddenly cool again.”

Yet as Greenwald makes clear, if Trump is about to inherit vast presidential powers, he has the Democrats to thank for them.

A military empire that polices the globe. Secret courts, secret wars and secret budgets. Unconstitutional mass surveillance. Unchecked presidential power. Indefinite detention. Executive signing statements.

These are just a small sampling of the abusive powers that have been used liberally by Obama and will be used again and again by future presidents.

After all, presidents are just puppets on a string, made to dance to the tune of the powers-that-be. And the powers-that-be want war. They want totalitarianism. They want a monied oligarchy to run the show. They want bureaucracy and sprawl and government leaders that march in lockstep with their dictates. Most of all, they want a gullible, distracted, easily led populace that can be manipulated, maneuvered and made to fear whatever phantom menace the government chooses to make the bogeyman of the month.

Unless Trump does another about-face, rest assured that the policies of a Trump Administration will be no different from an Obama Administration or a Bush Administration, at least not where it really counts.

For that matter, a Clinton Administration would have been no different.

In other words, Democrats by any other name would be Republicans, and vice versa.

This is the terrible power of the shadow government: to maintain the status quo, no matter which candidate gets elected.

War will continue. Surveillance will continue. Drone killings will continue. Police shootings will continue. Highway robbery meted out by government officials will continue. Corrupt government will continue. Profit-driven prisons will continue. Censorship and persecution of anyone who criticizes the government will continue. The militarization of the police will continue. The government’s efforts to label dissidents as extremists and terrorists will continue.

In such a climate, the police state will thrive.

The more things change, the more they will stay the same.

We’ve been stuck in this political Groundhog’s Day for so long that minor deviations appear to be major developments while obscuring the fact that we’re stuck on repeat, unable to see the forest for the trees.

This is what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.

It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.

Diamond’s concerns are environmental in nature, but they are no less relevant to our understanding of how a once-free nation could willingly bind itself with the chains of dictatorship.

Writing about Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, Diamond explains, “In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”

His answer: “I suspect that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper.”

Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.

To quote Joni Mitchell, they paved over paradise to put up a parking lot.

In Easter Island’s case, as Diamond speculates:

The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference.

Sound painfully familiar yet?

Substitute Easter Island’s trees for America’s republic and the trees being decimated for our freedoms, and the arrow hits the mark.

Diamond observes, “Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.”

We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. They don’t teach freedom in the schools. Few Americans know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if they have no rights at all. They don’t care, that is, until it happens to them—at which point it’s almost too late.

This is how the police state wins. This is how tyranny rises. This is how freedom falls.

A thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother. But they add up.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.

It’s taken us 200 short years to destroy the freedoms our founders worked so hard to secure, and it’s happened with barely a whimper of protest from “we the people.”

So when I read about demonstrations breaking out in cities across the country and thousands taking to the streets to protest the threat of fascism from a Trump presidency, I have to wonder where were the concerns when access to Obama came easily to any special interest groups and donors willing and able to pay the admissions price?

When I see celebrities threatening to leave the country in droves, I have to ask myself, where was the outcry when the government’s efforts to transform local police into extensions of the military went into overdrive under the Obama administration?

When my newsfeed is overflowing with people wishing they could keep the Obamas in office because they are so cool, I shake my head in disgust over this “cool” president’s use of targeted drone strikes to assassinate American citizens without any due process.

When legal think tanks are threatening lawsuits over the possibility of Trump muzzling free expression, I can’t help but wonder where the outrage was over the Obama administration’s demonizing and criminalization of those who criticized the government.

And when commentators who previously dismissed as fear-mongering and hateful any comparison of the government’s tactics to Nazi Germany are suddenly comparing Trump to Hitler, I have to wonder if perhaps we’ve been living in different countries all along, because none of this is new.

Indeed, if we’re repeating history, the worst is yet to come.

This commentary is also

available at www.rutherford.org.

ABOUT JOHN WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Click here to read more of John Whitehead’s commentaries.

PUBLICATION GUIDELINES AND REPRINT PERMISSION

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

Big Government and little people

November 13th, 2016 by

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

By Olddog

 Will you believers in Democracy ever get it through your head that we are not a Democracy, or even a Republic? The Banking Cartel took care of that when they suckered us into becoming a Corporation, with them as the Major Stockholders; so they own you and everything you think you own.

They could care less if you are unhappy with the status quo that is slowly disintegrating freedom of everything, and they fully intend to milk this country for every last penny, while you piss and moan.

If you should get out of hand and make demands they will kill or incarcerate you faster that a speeding bullet. They don’t have any compassion for us and could care less if we don’t like it.

You folks that think Trump is a shinning knight who will stop the demo-rats dead in their tracks just because the electors did as they were told, have forgotten your history.

Tyranny is guaranteed as long as the Cartel has control of the currencies governments need to function, and politician’s lust after.

REMEMBER THIS? Give me control of a Nations Currency and I care not who makes their laws. {Mayer Amschel Rothschild}

That’s the way it has been from the get go, and until every person in America knows what is going on, and is infuriated enough to act, that’s the way it will remain. Why do you insist on believing a lie when even the totally ignorant at least know that SOMETHING, IS WRONG!

Now I do not pretend to know everything, but my natural instinct led me to do some research, and the evidence is exactly what is happening. You do not have to be a book worm scholar to add two and two.

What is really hard to accept is, there are many who know what happened and yet they still participate in the system that is destroying them. I mean some very smart people, not your average citizen stuck in front of their electronic brain destruction machine.

There is only one way out of this shit hole system, and that is a universal understanding of the problem. If you don’t believe me, look around the globe and see the same thing happening everywhere. Governments world wide are tyrants, and the sheep keep their heads down where the grass grows, while the wolves sneak up on them.

Does it not seem stupid to try and change a wolf into a pussy cat?

They are the scum of the earth, and have no concern for us, or anyone else, so why listen to their lies?

Trump will be no different as soon as he has a sit down with his bosses and they inform him that his family only exists as long as he obeys their instructions! Not to mention how easily they got rid of the Kennedy’s, and a host of other trouble makers.

Their objective is to bankrupt every country on earth and graciously offer us a new universal monetary system, and by then most of us will be toast, as civil war breaks out in every Nation and there is nowhere safe to hide. That is what you are going to get from your hero politicians, just what you deserve; in their mind!

So while you keep looking for a world wide cure that does not inconvenience you, they are twenty steps ahead.

Me a Pragmatist? (a philosophical view that a theory or concept should be evaluated in terms of how it works and its consequences as the standard for action and thought.) Not hardly, because I’m not that smart, but you don’t have to be that smart to know when someone has stuck it where the sun don’t shine.

Quit trying to resuscitate a dead horse, and get busy learning the history of governments and banking. And I do not mean your friendly and ignorant local bankers. International investment bankers are a horse of a different color, and they don’t ride worth a crap.

I forgive all you numb-sculls who think I should be reported to homeland in-security, just so you can stay comfortably ignorant.

God Bless the Helpless,

Olddog

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

Something big is underway on all fronts: “Within the next few weeks the future of the united states will be decided”

November 7th, 2016 by

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/something-big-is-underway-on-all-fronts-within-the-next-few-weeks-the-future-of-the-united-states-will-be-decided_11022016

11-6-2016-11-02-33-am

Congress gave the green light to send weapons and munitions to Ukraine; the “holdup” is due to Obama not wanting to jeopardize the election of Hillary Clinton

By Jeremiah Johnson

As of this writing, the increased U.S. troop presence in Eastern Europe includes a battalion-sized element of American troops being emplaced in the Suwalki Gap, Polish territory that borders Lithuania in a 60-mile stretch of corridor.  The Russian Defense Ministry announced that 600 Russian and Belarussian airborne troops conducted training exercises in Brest, on the Belorussian-Polish border only a few miles from where the U.S. forces are deploying in Poland.  This on the heels of Britain deploying 800 men, tanks, and jets to Estonia, along with pledges of Challenger 2 tanks, APC’s (Armored Personnel Carriers), and drones.  Two companies of French and Danish Soldiers will join the British in the deployment to Estonia.

For the first time since 1945, Norway has violated its treaty with Russia (then the Soviet Union) not to station foreign troops on its soil.  A company of U.S. Marines will soon be stationed for a 6-month deployment in Norway.  The situation is heating up in Ukraine, according to a report on fort-russ.com entitled Ukraine Moves Massive Force up to Lugansk Frontline, published October 28, 2016The report reveals the Ukrainian Army is deploying 3,500 soldiers and 200 armored vehicles of the 15th Motorized Infantry Brigade to Krasny Oktyabr in the district of Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine.  For the first time in history, Romanian airspace is being patrolled by the RAF (Royal Air Force) of Britain.

In addition, the Ukrainian National Guard is deploying a tactical company equipped with 82 mm mortars and AGS-17 auto grenade launchers, along with APC’s and missile launchers.  A separate reconnaissance battalion named the “Night Shades,” a nationalist volunteer battalion will be deploying to Lugansk as well.  No doubt they will receive a “warm” reception, as the fighting has been ongoing in the region for more than two years.  The area is a severe flashpoint, as the separatists are ethnic Russians of Ukrainian nationality who wish to secede in the manner that Crimea did…Russia annexed them after the popular vote to leave Ukraine.  Now (since December 2015) the Congress gave the green light to send weapons and munitions to Ukraine; the “holdup” is due to Obama not wanting to jeopardize the election of Hillary Clinton, as the Russians have stated weapons to Ukraine means war with the U.S. and NATO.

Meanwhile the Varshankya-class stealth subs are deploying into the Black Sea as the Russian fleet is moving toward Syria.  The Russian and Syrian armies continue to bomb and attack the al-Nusra/Jabhat Fatah ash-Sham fighters emplaced in the city of Aleppo.  The mainstream media, meanwhile, is faltering in its attempt to create a “sacred U.S.-coalition crusade” to “free the city of Mosul,” as the offensive is not working quite as planned.  There are also reports that the U.S. government has plans to “navigate” Islamic terrorists from Mosul into Syria, to cause more problems for Assad and the Russians; the mainstream media is notoriously silent on the collateral damages being caused by the U.S.-led Mosul attacks, in which U.S. aircraft are supporting with bombing missions.

Let’s be clear on this: The U.S. is beefing up conventional forces of American troops into Eastern Europe and convincing NATO countries to augment these deployments with soldiers and equipment.  The Russians have been responding with opposing counter-deployments to offset the U.S.-NATO movements.  The aggressive stance is being taken by the U.S.-NATO-IMF hegemony in its military buildup in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, the very “backyard” of Russia.

The bottom line: the stage is being set to start WWIII on the slightest provocation.

The domestic perspective yields that just a few weeks after the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) transfer from U.S. control to (basically) the UN on October 1, 2016, the U.S. has had a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack from hackers on October 21, 2016 affecting the east and west coast of the U.S. as well as Texas and part of Europe.  Just one week before, on October 13, 2016 Obama signed an Executive Order for Space Weather anomalies just “in case” some “space weather anomaly” were to cripple the power grid and electrical infrastructure of the United States.

Something even worse that happened may really tie into this.

Last week it was reported by the U.S. Army that Major General John Rossi had committed suicide.  Rossi had been slated to take over as the Commander of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and the Army Forces Strategic Command.  General Rossi was about to complete 33 years of service and was only 55 years old.  He was “found” at Redstone Arsenal, and the Army just ruled it a suicide.  The Daily Mail on dailymail.co.uk reported that a U.S. government official told USA Today: “It seemed that Rossi was overwhelmed by his responsibilities” as a potential reason for his suicide.

The problem is, he committed suicide on July 31, 2016…and it’s taken two months for the Army to rule it as being a suicide?

With the command assignment, Rossi would have been privy to every procedure and protocol to defend the United States against an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) attack or an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack or event.  He would know everything from the “top” down: that is, the Commander-in-Chief (Obama) would have to foster a one-on-one relationship with the man who would hold the key post to defending against a foreign missile attack.

Maybe this time the missile would not have been foreign, or if it was?  It may not have been the leader of a foreign country to direct it against the United States.

It is almost impossible to believe that a Major General of the United States Army just receiving a top command post, a 55-year-old soldier…a general officer…with 33 years of service, a wife, and a loving family would “off” himself because of being “overwhelmed by responsibility.”  Men such as Rossi (the highest-ranking member of the military to do such a thing) do not shirk responsibility: they meet it, head on.  The whole thing stinks of a purge, in the manner that the entire military of the United States has been purged of hundreds of senior General Staff officers, Admiralty, and Senior Noncommissioned Officers…replaced by “yes” men over the course of Obama’s term.

The whole thing stinks of an assassination: no suicide note, no real press coverage, and nothing from his friends, family, or fellow soldiers.  This occurs, and then Obama signs his Executive Order to “protect” us from the dreaded space anomaly that will take down our infrastructure.  Could this have possibly been a suicide?  Think of all of the heartache and grief his family is going through with his loss.  What about the benefits and retirement that his family would lose with such an act?  If he really committed suicide, then it was probably because he found out about something so heinous, so vile that would occur to the U.S. that he couldn’t live with it and probably couldn’t stop it.

Bottom line: Was he terminated when he wouldn’t go along with a false flag EMP-plan conceived by Obama to take down our grid, cripple our response time, and set the stage for martial law and the suspension of all rights under the Constitution of the United States?

As I have mentioned in the past, I repeat once again:

The next war will be initiated by an EMP device detonated above the continental United States followed by a limited nuclear exchange and then conventional warfare.

I never said that it wouldn’t be Obama who initiated the EMP device, and in all probability if he doesn’t initiate it…he’ll either provoke it, allow it, or request it.  We haven’t even mentioned the voting (early voting) taking place where fraud is occurring in Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, and Florida, among others.  The illusion of the vote: the joke of the year, but the joke is on us.

And Obama is the joker, setting the stage for the transfer of power.  That transfer is not going to occur with the losing candidate (in either case) going gently into that good night.  The stage is set for a war to begin.  The stage is set for a false flag operation to take down our grid.  The stage is set to steal the election for Clinton or declare it null and void.  Within the next few weeks, the future of the United States will be decided…with or without the consent of the governed.

Via SHTF PLan

Featured Image: Sergio Vassio Photography/Flickr

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

Related:

The Threat Is Real And Imminent: The Next World War Will Be Initiated By A First Strike Utilizing An EMP Weapon

The United States Is Pre-Positioning “Enemy Assets” In Preparation For A Rigged Election

A Foreshadowing Of Things To Come: “This Cyberattack Was Initiated By The U.S. Government… A Beta Test Done In Preparation For A False Flag”

Unrest and Martial Law? Leaked Military Drill Anticipates “No Rule of Law” After Election Results

WAR IS A RACKET!

HUMAN LIFE HAS NO VALUE TO THE BANKING CARTEL!

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

OLD JACK HINSON AN ACCIDENTAL TERRORIST: SPECIAL REPORT

October 19th, 2016 by

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Well folks I turned 76 today (10 19 40) and have finally found my kindred spirit. If I could wake up tomorrow with Mike’s brain I would consider it the same as waking up in heaven. Men such as him should be our Nations leaders, but I guess they are too few and far between. You would do well to emulate him. Although I do not have his intelligence, memory recall, and a host of other abilities, I do have his conclusions. Such as, all men should be willing to die for their freedom from tyranny, and have the ability to recognize it when forced upon him. There is no other way to live a happy life and be a productive citizen. Both of which is something we all should have the opportunity to pursue. If men with morals and intelligence like his were common, there would be no wars, no hunger, no tyranny, no financially destitute,  and all people without his ability would have their needs met from an economy that produced enough employment for everyone. If you doubt my words, compare his articles to any past and especially the present CEO of America INC. Does it not bother you that you are owned, and controlled by some far off Investment Banker who you have never known? Does it not embarrass you to tears to have obtained your present age and have never know these facts, when they have been available from the get go? Are you not humiliated beyond imagination to have been beguiled your entire life into worshiping a non existing government which made you complicit in all this mess. Do you even understand what I am telling you this very moment? In case you are waking up or just pissed off enough by my words that you want to see for your self if it’s all true? You can do that right here!

You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

Buy it and compare it to what you have witnessed, AND IF YOU THINK YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN READ MIKE’S ARTICLE BELOW!


 OLD JACK HINSON AN ACCIDENTAL TERRORIST

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=548

By Michael Gaddy

What is the point of no return? What could possibly happen to an individual that would cause them to abandon all sense of order and seek instead violent and deadly revenge against another human being or group of people, many of whom are personally unknown to the perpetrator(s) of violence? Is this human action a devotion to some fanatical practice of religion or simply a reaction to violent stimuli?

If religious fanaticism is the answer, is it possible such religious fervor exhibited in the acts of the “terrorist” creates in its opponent an overwhelming desire to abandon their professed religion? If we are truly fighting a war against radical Islam, is it OK to abandon the tenets of Christianity, a faith professed by the great majority of the so-called conservatives who support the perpetual war for peace paradigm of our government? If that has actually occurred, have the radical terrorists not already won the war? What else could constitute acceptance of the deaths of hundreds of thousands; many of them civilians, to prosecute wars we know are based on lies hatched in the halls of our own government and nurtured to maturity by a state-owned and controlled media?

This past week I read an email written by a professed man of the cloth writing in support of one of his military heroes who is credited with killing several hundred of our “enemy” as a sniper. His statement was “we can only imagine how many soldier’s lives were saved by this man’s actions.” Unwittingly, this preacher struck at the very core of the issue. To support the actions of a government we personally claim to abhor when it comes to our individual liberty, imaginations must be employed in order to salve our collective conscience as we go about supporting wars perpetrated on government lies, deception and propaganda.

It has been stated facts are the basis for rational thought, therefore supporting wars based on official government prevarication that creates more terrorists than it eliminates requires irrational thought and/or a very healthy imagination. Supporting these wars that make slaves of us and our posterity could only qualify as some form of mental illness. Could this be the exhibition of the Stockholm syndrome on a national scale with the government as kidnapper and the citizens the kidnaped?

Only a people suffering from such an affliction could believe that a people who lose those they love such as those killed in drone strikes on wedding parties could ever embrace the tenets of our government or our faith. It is really hard to accept a “democracy” when the promoters of that form of government killed your family and blew up your country.

Over 70% of the people who died so far in Iraq as the result of our war were civilians. What kind of hate and desire for revenge resides in the relatives of those civilians? Where in our religious beliefs is there any justification for such mass genocide? We euphemistically refer to these deaths as “collateral damage,” while the people in Iraq referred to them as family, friends, and neighbors.

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,” rings rather hollow, does it not?

The history of America contains similar stories and reactions to the violence of war inflicted on the innocent.

John W. (Old Jack) Hinson just wanted to be left alone. As a farmer in Tennessee, he cared nothing for the war between the North and the South and even opposed secession. He just wanted to get on with his life, enjoy his family and farm his land.

At some point in time, the area around the Hinson farm was occupied by Union forces. Occupation by armed forces in any area is not unlike occupying someone’s home by force. It just doesn’t sit well. The occupiers don’t want to be there and the occupied resent their presence. Perfect ingredients for an act of violence.

Somehow, Hinson’s two teenage sons came to be at odds with the Union soldiers. The reports of the day indicate the soldiers accused the two boys of being bushwhackers. Subsequently, the soldiers killed the two boys, beheaded them and placed their heads on poles near the entrance to their father’s farm. I’m sure the man of the cloth previously mentioned above would defend such action claiming he could only imagine how many Union soldiers lives were saved by this heinous act. After all, were these Union soldiers not wearing the uniform of the same military that now occupies much of the Middle East?

Obviously, Old Jack Hinson was traumatized by the death and beheading of his two sons. His hatred and desire for revenge led him to have a special long-range rifle constructed and he then set out to avenge the death of his sons by becoming a sniper, directing his assaults on the occupying army that had taken the lives of his sons. According to available records, at no time did Hinson engage civilians in his quest for revenge. His preference gravitated to Union officers in uniform.

I’m absolutely positive the US government and Union forces saw Old Jack Hinson as a “terrorist” or “insurgent” as he went about summarily killing more than one hundred Union soldiers and was also credited with single-handedly capturing a Union transport ship. Union Infantry and Cavalry forces and a specially equipped marine task force tried in vain to locate and eliminate Old Jack Hinson, who by all records always operated alone and was able to elude all Union forces for the duration of the war, even though he was near 60 years old at the time.

Occupying forces wearing the uniform of the United States military have created hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in the wars being prosecuted in the Middle East. If only a small minority of their family and friends have the dedication and resolve of Old Jack Hinson, we have created a whirlwind of violence that will last for decades. Now, many officials in our government, supported by the pleas of plastic talking heads in the media and academia want to bring those people to our country and pay them money when they arrive. Where, indeed, is a better definition of insanity?

It is imperative that we understand that wars for empire, barely concealed by the rhetoric of wars to implement democracy, are in truth unwinnable on any level. As a supposed “Christian” nation we must also come to the realization that blind patriotism and Christianity are totally incompatible.

Perhaps a movie glorifying the exploits of Old Jack Hinson would constitute a beginning of understanding! How many would stand and cheer?

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” ~ James Madison said by many to be the Father of our Constitution (Emphasis added)

“Continual warfare” and freedom cannot exist on the same plane. The last 15 years of continual warfare and the subsequent loss of Liberty and the creation of a police state unequivocally prove Madison’s warning to be true.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

AND THEY CALL ME A CONSPIRACY NUT

October 16th, 2016 by

www.rebelmadman.com/?p=544

By Michael Gaddy

*Author’s note: I wrote this article several years ago but find it to be relevant today as well. If our government stays true to form there will soon be another False Flag event in this country to take Ignoramus Americanus’s mind off the fact we are totally broke and this election, which is being turned into a modern-day soap opera (entertainment), has been choreographed by the power cabal known as the military/industrial/international bankers/national security complex. This government has been involved in more conspiracies against its own citizens, including the military than most are aware. Here are some of the most egregious.

“For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” ~Benjamin Disraeli

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” ~Justice Felix Frankfurter

“The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another — and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men — three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless.” ~Aristotle

I openly admit I do not believe our government or their media lapdogs when it comes to what really happened involving TWA 800, the Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11, Waco, the shootings in Aurora or Sandy Hook, the bombing in Boston or the bombing at the fertilizer plant in Waco and many other of their False Flag operations.

Sure, the easy way out is to believe anything the government says is gospel; that requires very little cognitive discourse and of course the last thing Boobus wants is anything that might require the use of a few cells in the gray matter. Not when there are sports on TV.

There are a multitude of reasons I disbelieve our government and the media when it comes to events such as those named above, but, for brevity’s sake, I will mention only one in this writing. What positive can be said or what integrity granted to a government that willingly leaves its military personnel behind in the hands of the enemy, then, not only makes no attempt to gain their freedom but instead fabricates lies to cover their crimes of omission and discredits those who attempt to reveal the truth? A government that would leave its military personnel behind to face torture and death at the hands of their enemy is totally undeserving of not only trust but even the slightest benefit of the doubt.

This pattern of overwhelming and continuous mendacity relating to our Missing in Action and Prisoners of War began almost 100 years ago in 1920. Shortly after WWI, Russia was in the midst of a terrible famine. Although previously denying they held any American POWs from WWI, when offered food and medicines, the Russians released 100 captive Americans after the first shipment of provisions. Although more food was shipped to Russia, no additional POWs were released. Rather than admit to their lack of diligence in securing the release of those POWs after the war, government officials simply declared there were no more being held; a tactic that would continue for decades.

In 1945, while marching to take Berlin, in large part due to political/military considerations granted to the Soviets by the socialist dominated FDR administration, some 25,000 American POWs were “liberated” into the hands of the Russian Army. Of that 25,000, only 4,165 of our military personnel were actually repatriated from the camp at Reisa. The Russians put the remaining 21,000+ on troop trains and took them into Russia where they were used for slave labor, medical experiments, human guinea pigs and other fates much worse than death on the battlefield. Allied political sources then went to work to alter intelligence reports to cover up these heinous acts. Both FDR and Truman issued directives there would be “no criticism of treatment by the Russians” and “no retaliatory action to Russian failure to cooperate.” (Source: A Chain of Prisoners: from Yalta to Vietnam, by John Brown and Ted Ashworth)

General George Patton knew of this betrayal of American military personnel and is reported to have confronted General Eisenhower at a train station in Germany where the argument became most heated according to an eyewitness. (Source: Bert C. Roosen an interpreter on Eisenhower’s staff) Speculation exists that this may have been the reason for Patton’s assassination. (Source: Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton by Robert K. Wilcox) Our political leadership fell all over themselves to assure the Russians were never accused of anything untoward and that millions in Eastern Europe were delivered into their hands at the end of the war.

The release of the information about 21,000+ Americans being left to a terrible fate at the hands of the Russians would have been a death knell to any political aspirations of those covering up these crimes; obviously, Eisenhower would have never been elected to the presidency.

As president, Eisenhower would continue to cover up the fate of those left to the Russians which would later necessitate a similar cover-up of those left to the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean War. These prisoners too were used for torture, biological and chemical agent experiments as well as mind control operations. Colonel Phil Corso, a member of Eisenhower’s White House staff, would later speak to these cover ups. He would state it became a matter of national policy to ignore all intelligence concerning these acts and to simply deny any POWs were left behind.

Then came Vietnam and the madness and deceit would continue. In 1973, after Operation Homecoming, Dr. Roger Shields of the Department of Defense would tell President Nixon, “Mr. President, we have two missing for every man who came back home.” Nixon ignored the statement and then like those lying bastards before him, issued a statement that “all our POWs are home.”

To completely cover the POW/MIA issue would require a volume of books. The mendacity, prevarication and possible assassinations by our government surrounding this subject is emotionally overwhelming; that is if you care one scintilla about what happens to those we blindly send into the jaws of hell for political expediency after being driven into a patriotic frenzy by the same devils who create False Flag events which take the lives of thousands, many of them innocent children.

Hand me my Tin Foil Hat; I wear it proudly. I do not blindly believe the words of master politicians who have never seen a shot fired in anger and who are more than willing to see their fellow Americans not only die in battle but be used for torture and medical experiments after the wars are “over” for others, all in the name of “national security.” Always remember when they speak of “security” it is always their security and never yours they speak of.

If you feel compelled to believe everything the politicians and the lapdog media tell you about Aurora, Sandy Hook, 9/11, OKC bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing because you lack the courage to face the truth, you have become one of the “splendid dupes” mentioned by Chesterton: “Evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin.”

I find little truth or consolation in the facts presented by a government who would leave its own military personnel in the hands of its enemies to be tortured and subjected to all forms of heinous experimentation. Perhaps if it had been your brother, sister, father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, or friend who had been left to this fate worse than death by the government you view as trustworthy, you might not blindly believe everything you hear coming from the mouths of politicians and talking heads on the lobotomy box.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” ~William Colby, Former Director, CIA.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

  • Foot note: In the 1980’s, I was a Board Member with the American Foundation for Accountability of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action based in Arlington, Virginia. (AFFA POW/MIA)

OLDOGS COMMENTS!

May the Holy Lord of Glory have rewarded all those abandoned soldiers with an eternity of inexplicitly glorious pleasure, and may the souls of our politicians involved in this despicable act be dragged over a bed of burning coals forever.

AMEN!

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

REBELS VERSUS TYRANTS A PERPETUAL FIGHT FOR LIBERTY

October 13th, 2016 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=532

 

By Michael Gaddy

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worse state, an intolerable one.” ~ Thomas Paine

Down through the pages of time, governments have done that which they do best; they transform from necessary evil to intolerable evil. Our country has followed in those footprints and has become as tyrannical as their predecessors . Also, traversing the annals of history are those with uncompromising principles and an unquenchable thirst for freedom and liberty. I truly believe it is genetic. History tells us this unusual breed of man has been referred to most often as Rebels. He is often rebelling against tyranny masquerading as a strong centralized government. Imagine if you will the last scene in the movie Braveheart in which with his dying breath William Wallace screams “Freedom.”

As hard as it is for most folks whose strongest attachments are to the worship of government, this country owes its founding and very existence to a band of Rebels who bore the names of Hancock, Revere, and Adams, among others. Major John Pitcairn of the Royal Marines admonished those brave souls on Lexington Green who had the audacity to challenge the most powerful force on the planet by the name Rebels when he ordered them to “disperse.” Being the stalwart men they were, they refused a direct order from those in charge. Today, the majority of people in this country would condemn the actions of the Rebels as subversive and would have referred to Major Pitcairn as a “hero” who was just doing his duty. After all, he was wearing a government costume!

Then, in 1861, the people of the South rebelled against one of the most evil tyrants in history as they resisted the Yankee invader of their homes and firesides. 94% of those who took up arms to defend their states, families, and homes did not own slaves, yet revisionist court historians have painted them all as racists in order to legitimize their crimes. Ironically, it was the Rebels of the South who embraced the Constitution and Bill of Rights against Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in Congress who were working diligently to destroy them both.

After the surrender of Robert E. Lee on April 9, 1865, the tyrannical government of Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens and William Seward, imposed martial law and the horrors of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 on the people of the South. This epidemic of treason and tyranny would be known as Reconstruction. To ensure the Rebels learned their lesson and future generations would look upon those who dared to resist the forces of a government which had become “an intolerable” evil, the Radical Republicans sent legions of “Carpetbaggers” and other useful idiots into the South to teach these Rebels a lesson. The government “of the people, by the people and for the people” referenced by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address did “perish from the earth,” at least the earth of the South. (It had long since perished from the earth of the North under Lincoln) The Radical Republicans sent legions of faithful servants into the South to take over the education of the young. The children were commanded to sing songs glorifying the Yankee cause and its servants. The children were also ordered to pray for the Yankee government each day. Just as General Patrick Cleburne had predicted, almost immediately the children of the South were taught “the history of the heroic struggle” was being taught by their enemies, and through “the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as subjects for derision.” This paradigm continues still today.

The Yankees also sent new ministers to the churches throughout the South during Reconstruction to preach the Yankee sermons and to pray for the Yankee cause and to teach the people to repent from their Rebel proclivities.

Senator Charles Sumner, in eulogizing Lincoln, said the Gettysburg Address was itself more important than the battle itself. Others eulogized Lincoln as “Of the noblest personage,” comparing him to Jesus Christ. But, I believe a more accurate assessment of Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address came years later from H. L. Mencken when he wrote,

“The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.”

Yes, Mencken too was a Rebel, albeit a literary one. He had the vision to see through the veils of civic religion and hypocrisy and to write the truth.

So, how does a government morph from a necessary evil created to protect the rights of the individual to an intolerable one of totalitarian proportions? It requires a majority of the people to accept a world in which their government becomes a proxy religion. It must especially envelop those who claim to be Christian as well as those who call themselves humanitarians and those who are considered, according to Tolstoy, as “nice and kind.”  Tolstoy speaks of this paradigm as a problem in psychology. He states to get these people to “commit the most heinous crimes without feeling any guilt” these “good Christian folk” must be made into governors, superintendents, officers or policemen.” By becoming servants of the government, these people can completely ignore their blatant acts of hypocrisy. By accepting “something that goes by the name of government service” this allows these pillars of the community to treat people of other countries and their own fellow citizens “like inanimate objects, precluding any humane or brotherly relationships, and, secondly ensures that people working for this government service must be so interdependent that responsibility for any consequences of the way they treat people never devolves on any of them individually.”

Tolstoy nails it. What better example than the “law enforcement” officer who enforces unconstitutional, immoral laws on his fellow man, taking their lives if they resist while claiming “I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them.” And “if you have a problem with that take it up with the courts.” Therefore he/she can then claim to be good “public servants” while completely ignoring their responsibilities to society which was included in their sacred oath to “uphold and defend” our rights against “all enemies foreign or domestic.” How many of them will then assume the mantle of Christian, humanitarian or a nice and kind neighbor? Of course, judges and prosecutors will use the very same excuse when taking people’s money and freedom, claiming, of course, they too do not “make the laws.”

Then for the politicians who also deviously refer to themselves as public servants. My life’s experience has taught me the most dangerous of these are those who claim to be Christians. A great example, other than George W. Bush, who claimed God told him to invade Iraq which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, has to be a current candidate for Vice President named Mike Pence. First of all, he demanded the government aid the destruction of religious liberties in Indiana reference the demands of homosexual activists and corporate bullies. His support for Common Core flies in the face of those who oppose that program on principle. Also having taken a sacred oath to uphold and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Pence voted for the Patriot Act on several occasions and also voted as a globalist instead of a representative of the people who elected him. He consistently voted to fund the UN and the Import-Export Bank, both of which destroy our country’s sovereignty. Most revealing, this professing Christian, voted to veto an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would have blocked Obama from illegally and unconstitutionally detaining American citizens without due process. Probably the most truthful thing Pence has said during the campaign is that he would model his vice presidency after Dick Cheney. Rebels throughout this country should be cringing inside knowing that if elected this man will be a “heartbeat” away from the presidency. But the majority of the species Ignoramus Americanus will judge him not by his record but how well he does debating a socialist clown by the name of Kaine. No true Rebel will ever vote for the lesser of evils, knowing full well evil can not be quantified and evil in any amount is the destruction of all he holds dear.

Rebels are the outcasts of a society as revealed by Tolstoy, but throughout history, Rebels have stood firmly for liberty and freedom and have stood steadfast on those principles in the face of monumental opposition. Undoubtedly, that is why they and their symbols are seen as apostate to those who embrace government as their god.

I stand as a proud and unreconstructed Rebel defending the principles of Liberty. Where do you stand?

Let them call me Rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.” ~ Thomas Paine, The Crisis.

IN RIGHTFUL LIBERTY

Mike

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Let it be known; THIS Old Hoosier would cut off both his legs with a rusty saw, if he gained the writing ability of this giant of a man. ATTABOY MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The PUKES who support this putrid excuse of a government are among the dumbest Homo Sapiens alive.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

Dear Vladimir: It’s Not Us!

October 7th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/10/dear-vladimir-its-not-us.html

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PMBy Anna Von Reitz

We are going to say some things that you, Mr. President, are already aware of. We say them because the American People are tragically unaware of these facts and they need to know:

American foreign trade and foreign policy have been controlled by Britain for 227 years.

This is one of the results of the original states contracting for “essential government services” from the United States, which is a British-controlled corporation headquartered in the foreign international enclave known as the District of Columbia.

Most Americans have never read the Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783, which shows that King George remained the “prince” and “Arch-Treasurer” of the “United States”. Most Americans have never read the actual Constitution and grasped the fact that this agreement gave Britain control of American Trade and Foreign Policy.

We can now see why we have been kept at nearly constant war for most of our history: Britain has used us as its Bully Boy to cause trouble and engage in war for profit throughout the rest of the world, just as it is trying to do now in the Middle East.

As a spider at the center of its web, Britain pulls the strings and through its agencies—the United States and British Crown– wrecks havoc calculated to fill its coffers with no risk and no exposure to itself. 

While directing a US foreign policy that is plainly self-destructive and insane from the American standpoint, Queen Elizabeth pretends to have clean hands and so does the Lord Mayor of London— but the historical documents and the facts are the facts.

All the trouble we are having in the Mideast is caused by Britain, not America.

And it always has been.

The Americans want free access to the Persian Gulf, unmolested by anyone, for the purposes of Free Trade.  And that is the only legitimate interest America has in the Middle East.

We trust that the EU is competent to solve its own gas and oil supply problems with no assistance from us. 

They could embrace and use free energy technology to solve a great many dependency problems.  They could use LNG and ship in supplies and develop storage capacities like Japan and China.  They could direct their re-investment capital to their already existing oil development projects in the North Sea.

Instead, British Intelligence is working to influence the outcome of US elections and trying to start WWIII.  Their recent exposure of CIA false flag activities is especially ironic, since British Intelligence controls the CIA and mandates all its actions. 

If you dig deep enough, it is always Britain at the bottom of the dog pile, causing war and destruction for the entire rest of the world. 

They have never been willing to live on their own talents and resources and have chosen to be parasites instead.  They have built their successive empires on fraud and human enslavement and legal chicanery.  They have never given up feudalism.  They have never given up colonialism. 

Most recently, they have moved their financial operations to China, with the result that 800 loyal Chinese Generals have been purged, and Russia and the “United States” are being pitted against each other at every turn while China sits smug and brags about all the gold it suddenly has. 

And nobody questions this?   

Britain disrespects the Constitutional agreements it has with the Americans on one hand, and on the other, abuses American trust.  They have used us as the front-men for British aggression and self-interest for generations,. They have deliberately confused their own puppet, the United States, with America and the American People, so as to blame us for their treachery and wrong-doing.   

Let everyone always remember that the “United States” is not America.

Let us also plainly state before God and everyone, that Britain and its corporate shadow government doing business as the “United States” is a problem for the entire world, including the Americans.

This time, if anyone goes to war, let’s make sure we get the real culprits and address the actual problem once and for all, instead of stupidly bashing each other for their benefit.

Rumors are circulating of a “tactical nuclear exchange” between the British-controlled United States and Russia.  Let us observe that there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear exchange and that if such a thing happened, it would rapidly spread to global destruction–and that destruction would be the result of British meddling, guile, and greed. 

Instead of targeting the hapless Americans whose worst sin is gullibility, please focus your fire power on Britain?  And ask your Chinese allies about their new Best Friends? 

If the Earth is to be destroyed in a firestorm of nuclear bombs unleashed because of the endless dishonesty and greed of British commercial interests, at least let’s all have the satisfaction of taking the actual perpetrators down with us? 

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Dear President Putin,

If you are goaded into nuking the free States of America, please make sure the first one get’s OBUMA! The State Nationals are not your enemy, they are just ignorant of their real status and have been brain washed all their life. Patriotic lies have been a powerful tool to involve us in one war after another, while the Banking Cartel laughs their ass off counting their profits.        

10 13 11 flagbar

All the Ways You Can Comply and Still Die During An Encounter with Police

October 4th, 2016 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/all_the_ways_you_can_comply_and_still_die_during_an_encounter_with_police

 BLESSED ARE THE PEACE KEEPERS, WHO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM OPPRESSION!

OLDDOG

By John W. Whitehead
October 03, 2016

Police are specialists in violence. They are armed, trained, and authorized to use force. With varying degrees of subtlety, this colors their every action. Like the possibility of arrest, the threat of violence is implicit in every police encounter. Violence, as well as the law, is what they represent.”—Author Kristian Williams

How do you protect yourself from flying fists, choking hands, disabling electrified darts and killing bullets?

How do you defend yourself against individuals who have been indoctrinated into believing that they are superior to you, that their word is law, and that they have the power to take your life?

Most of all, how can you maintain the illusion of freedom when daily, Americans are being shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, challenge an order or just exist?

The short answer: you can’t.

Now for the long answer, which is far more complicated but still leaves us feeling hopeless, helpless and vulnerable to the fears, moods and misguided training of every cop on the beat.

If you ask police and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with law enforcement, they will tell you to comply (or die).

It doesn’t matter where you live—big city or small town—it’s the same scenario being played out over and over again in which Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question, while government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

For example, a local law enforcement agency in Virginia has started handing out a guide—developed in cooperation with a group of African American pastors—on how to interact with police. The purpose of this government resource, according to the police, is to make sure citizens feel “comfortable” and know what to do when interacting with police in order to “promote public safety and respectful interaction.”

Curiously, nowhere in the “Guide to Interacting with Police” is there any mention of the Constitution, or the rights of the citizenry, other than the right to remain silent.

In fact, the primary point stressed throughout the bilingual guide aimed at “building trust and cooperation,” is that citizens should comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

The problem, of course, is what to do when compliance is not enough.

I’m not talking about the number of individuals—especially young people—who are being shot and killed by police for having a look-alike gun in their possession, such as a BB gun. I’m not even talking about people who have been shot for brandishing weapons at police, such as scissors.

I’m talking about the growing numbers of unarmed people are who being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Killed for standing in a “shooting stance.” In California, police opened fire on and killed a mentally challenged—unarmed—black man within minutes of arriving on the scene, allegedly because he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket and took a “shooting stance.”

Killed for holding a cell phone. Police in Arizona shot a man who was running away from U.S. Marshals after he refused to drop an object that turned out to be a cellphone.

Killed for behaving oddly and holding a baseball bat. Responding to a domestic disturbance call, Chicago police shot and killed 19-year-old college student Quintonio LeGrier who had reportedly been experiencing mental health problems and was carrying a baseball bat around the apartment where he and his father lived.

Killed for opening the front door. Bettie Jones, who lived on the floor below LeGrier, was also fatally shot—this time, accidentally—when she attempted to open the front door for police.

Killed for being a child in a car pursued by police. Jeremy David Mardis, six years old and autistic, died after being shot multiple times by Louisiana police in the head and torso. Police opened fire on the car—driven by Jeremy’s father, Chris Few, who was also shot—and then allegedly lied, claiming that they were attempting to deliver an outstanding warrant, that Few resisted arrest, that he shot at police (no gun was found), and that he tried to ram his car into a police cruiser. Body camera footage refuted the police’s claims.

Killed for attacking police with a metal spoon. In Alabama, police shot and killed a 50-year-old man who reportedly charged a police officer while holding “a large metal spoon in a threatening manner.”

Killed for running in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch. Georgia police shot and killed a 47-year-old man wearing only shorts and tennis shoes who, when first encountered, was sitting in the woods against a tree, only to start running towards police holding a stick in an “aggressive manner.

Killed for crawling around naked. Atlanta police shot and killed an unarmed man who was reported to have been “acting deranged, knocking on doors, crawling around on the ground naked.” Police fired two shots at the man after he reportedly starting running towards them.

Killed for hunching over in a defensive posture. Responding to a domestic trouble call, multiple officers with the Baltimore County police forced their way inside a home where, fearing for their safety and the safety of others,” three officers opened fire on an unarmed 41-year-old man who was hunched over in a defensive posture. The man was killed in front of his two young daughters and their mother.

Killed because a police officer accidentally pulled out his gun instead of his taser. An Oklahoma man suspected of trying to sell an illegal handgun was shot and killed after a 73-year-old reserve deputy inadvertently fired his gun instead of his taser. “Oh! I shot him! I’m sorry!” the deputy cried out.

Killed for wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey. Donnell Thompson, a mentally disabled 27-year-old described as gentle and shy, was shot and killed after police—searching for a carjacking suspect reportedly wearing similar clothing—encountered him lying motionless in a neighborhood yard. Police “only” opened fire with an M4 rifle after Thompson first failed to respond to their flash bang grenades and then started running after being hit by foam bullets.

Killed for telling police you lawfully own a firearm and have a conceal-and-carry permit. Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken tail light. As he was reaching for his license and registration, Castile explained to police that he had a  conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter.

Killed for leaving anywhere at all when a police officer pulls up. Deravis Caine Rogers was killed after starting to drive away from an apartment complex right around the same time as a police officer pulled up. Despite the fact that the police officer had no reason to believe Rogers was a threat or was suspected of any illegal activity, the officer fired into Rogers’ passenger side window.

Killed for driving while deaf. In North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed 29-year-old Daniel K. Harris—who was deaf—after Harris initially failed to pull over during a traffic stop.

Killed for being homeless. Los Angeles police shot an unarmed homeless man after he failed to stop riding his bicycle and then proceeded to run from police.

Killed for being old and brandishing a shoehorn. John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, lived in an assisted living center, used a walker to get around, and was shot and killed by police who mistook the shoehorn in his hand for a 2-foot-long machete and fired multiple beanbag rounds from a shotgun at close range.

Killed for having your car break down on the road. Terence Crutcher, unarmed and black, was shot and killed by Oklahoma police after his car broke down on the side of the road. Crutcher was shot in the back while walking towards his car with his hands up.

Killed for holding a garden hose. California police were ordered to pay $6.5 million after they opened fire on a man holding a garden hose, believing it to be a gun. Douglas Zerby was shot 12 times and pronounced dead on the scene.

Shot seven times for peeing outdoors. Eighteen-year-old Keivon Young was shot seven times by police from behind while urinating outdoors. Young was just zipping up his pants when he heard a commotion behind him and then found himself struck by a hail of bullets from two undercover cops. Allegedly officers mistook Young—5’4,” 135 lbs., and guilty of nothing more than taking a leak outdoors—for a 6’ tall, 200 lb. murder suspect whom they later apprehended. Young was charged with felony resisting arrest and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police. However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality, because in the American police state, compliance is no longer enough.

Frankly, as these incidents make clear, the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed, intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are now at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Sad, isn’t it, how quickly we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat us all like suspects and criminals?

WC: 1798

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission: John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

The REAL Cost of the War of Terror

September 23rd, 2016 by

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-real-cost-of-the-war-of-terror/

CLICK HERE for the YouTube version of this video

by James Corbett
TheInternationalForecaster.com
We all know by now that the real terrorists (the politicians in the suits and ties and the banksters that pull their strings) are waging their war of terror on multiple fronts for multiple reasons.

Domestically, it rallies the population around the flag, keeping the flock in check. At the same time it justifies the build up of the police state control grid to catch the thought criminals who resist.

It also writes a blank check for the illegal wars of aggression abroad. Simply place your terrorist boogeyman in the square of the chessboard you’re looking to occupy and — hey presto! — you’ve got yourself an excuse to invade. (Even if you “accidentally” end up supporting them, right Uncle Sam?)

But of course the politicians, their string pullers and their fellow travelers benefit from the war of terror in a more straightforward sense. They get to use the terror scares that they themselves create to drum up billions upon billions in the name of fighting the boogeymen.

We’ve all heard of the $640 toilet seat and other ridiculous examples of Pentagon “overspending,” but these stories tend to trivialize the abuses by the military-defense contractors whose entire industry is built on providing overpriced solutions to made up problems. After all, the Pentagon itself just admitted it could cut $2 billion from its budget by shutting down some of the needless bases and defense facilities that have been built around the globe in the name of the American empire.

But $2 billion is chump change.

In the 15 years since 9/11, $1 trillion has been spent building up the police state in the American “homeland” itself.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department has been spending over $600 billion per year maintaining the American military in the post-9/11 era. $4 to $6 trillion of that was spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone, the most expensive wars in US history.

Combined defense spending, including Homeland Security, DoD, State Department, defense related debt interest and other defense costs, has reached the highest levels in modern history over the past decade. From a Cold War era high in the 1980s of $3500 for every man, woman and child in the United States to a 1990s low of $2500, that figure has since breached $4000. Just look at the chart; it isn’t hard to see exactly when the trend reversed and the good times began to flow for the military-industrial contractors: It was 9/11, the birthday of the war of terror and the new era of homeland security.

There are other numbers we could throw in here:

The billions upon billions in military aid sent to the co-perpetrators of the war of terror, including the $38 billion that has been promised Israel over the next 10 years.

The $1.5 trillion joke known as the F-35 fighter jet.

The $6.5 trillion of “year-end adjustments” in the ongoing, never-ending saga of the Pentagon’s missing trillions.

But we have to be careful not to fall into the psychopaths’ trap. The real costs of the war of terror cannot be measured in dollars and cents. They are not tallied in a ledger. They are not about money at all.

The real cost is paid in blood. The blood of a million dead Iraqis. The blood of the hundreds of thousands murdered men, women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The blood that is being shed right now in Syria, in Libya, in Yemen, and in all of the countries that have crossed through the crosshairs of the NATO, American and Israeli terrorists.

It’s measured in the devastation of towns and cities that once bustled with life. In the families torn apart by drone bombings. In the havoc of the hundreds of thousands forced to flee their homes, leave their families and their homeland and their former life behind as everything they knew is torn to shreds.

It’s measured in the blood of the servicemen and women themselves. Lied to, propagandized and indoctrinated their entire lives, given a ticket out of grinding poverty by the military, shot up with experimental vaccines and shoved into the meat grinder for tour of duty after tour of duty. And then, upon returning home, left to rot in rundown hospitals and ignored by the glad-handing politicians and their military-industrial cronies as a suicide epidemic gradually thins their ranks.

This is the true cost of the war of terror, and it is incalculable. And none of it, absolutely none of it, will come to an end until the public stops believing the false narrative of the war of terror and the lies that have brought it about.

Much like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, the real terrorists can only survive if you believe in them.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Just remember everyone of those scumbags you voted for are laughing all the way to the bank!

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Me and Walter Cronkite

September 20th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/09/me-and-walter-cronkite.html

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM

By Anna Von Reitz,

We got a real television (not the hopelessly grainy eyeball model) when I was four years old.  This black and white picture was also grainy, but you could see the faces clearly.  One of the first faces I became familiar with as a toddler and young child was Walter Cronkite

While other four year-olds were watching Huckleberry Hound and Mighty Mouse with religious devotion, I watched Walter. Every night.  Without fail.  I’d put on my Dale Evans cowgirl hat and red leather cowboy boots and mount my hobby horse sitting in front of the television and watch with morbid fascination.

I remember the Nixon v. Kennedy Debates and there aren’t too many people my age who have a clear recollection of that.

Like many Americans, I loved Walter. He had such a comforting voice and his dark, serious, but often gently amused eyes seemed to be looking straight into mine on many important occasions.

Of course, I trusted Walter.  Who didn’t?  So it came as a terrible shock to learn that he was lying to me!  Yes, Walter Cronkite was lying about all sorts of things and when I first discovered that, well, it was worse than learning the truth about Santa Claus.  Much worse.

It was worse because Santa was just a fictional character. Walter Cronkite was real. 

And he was lying about what happened to President Kennedy. 

Any fool, even a seven year-old, knew what happened in Dallas that day in November,1963.  Anyone who saw the television footage of the assassination knew what direction the bullet was coming from and nobody needed the Warren Commission to tell us any more lies about it.

We didn’t need the scapegoat, Lee Harvey Oswald.  We didn’t need Jack Ruby doing his final mafia hit. 

LBJ and his cronies killed JFK to make way for the war profiteering of Vietnam, the seduction of the States with “federal block grants”, to spool up the reign of the oil industry, and keep the central banks happy.

And there was Walter Cronkite, speaking in his calm, deliberate, serious, caring way, lying through his teeth about what was perfectly obvious to the naked eye. I was confused.  Heart-broken.  Severely disillusioned.  I was seven and one of my heroes was revealed to be a fraud.

So when 911 happened, the first words out of my mouth were, “Where is this Techni-Color Hollywood – quality newsfeed coming from?”

If 911 wasn’t a set-up, we’d be seeing jiggling shots taken by astonished tourists from three blocks away, grainy security camera footage from banks and hotels up and down the street—–but no, we saw 911 happen from every possible angle, in high definition color.  It was a set-up.  It was obviously a set-up.  Just like the Kennedy murder.

And just like the Kennedy murder, Bush assigned a “Blue Ribbon Committee” to white wash it and come up with fanciful excuses for it, and because the American People have trusted what they thought of as “their government” instead of their foreign vendors, they choked it down.  They were confused. They were patriotic.  They didn’t know what to think.

Well, I am telling you what the evidence shows.

The private, mostly foreign-owned governmental services corporation run by G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney murdered 3,000 innocent people from around the world with malice aforethought.  Their pals collected billions of dollars of insurance money instead of having to pay for the demolition of asbestos polluted office buildings.  Tons of gold bullion were stolen to pay for quasi-military black ops, mostly in support of the oil industry in the Mideast and the whole crappola war and take over in Iraq.  And hundreds of millions of records proving that the “government” corporation defrauded Americans were destroyed.

So you see, I knew 911 was a fraud and a false-flag and a set up from the first moments of news coverage I saw, and I didn’t need any scientific evidence, no thermite residue, no architectural and engineering analysis.  All I needed was the memory of Walter Cronkite shining me on about the Kennedy murder, and the fact that the 911 event was covered from all angles by professional movie crews.

I already told you all about why I stopped watching television news altogether (except for the weather report) in 1989 but let’s repeat.  I did a little experiment and kept track of how many stories had to do with sex and how many had to do with death and how many had to do with sex and death, both.  And I concluded that the actual useful news accounted for only about 5% of what was presented as “news” every night —- mostly the weather report. 

So my advice to everyone is — don’t believe a word the talking heads say and don’t be surprised or disappointed when Tom Brokaw admits that he doesn’t know a thing about the news stories he is parroting.  Journalism in this country died with the gag-orders imposed by the federal government corporation during World War II and ever since, with very, very rare exceptions that always result in lost careers—we have lived with a government controlled news media that is essentially just a giant propaganda machine designed to scare us and sell stuff to us by turns.

Turn the knob, push the button—- “Off!” — and start looking with your own eyes and listening with your own ears. It’s the only way you are ever going to know what is going on.

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

American’s where is your natural instinct? You should not have to be told that your early education was a surreptitious preparation for loving your enemies in Government, and hating all others. You should not have to be told that wars are insane, and no one ever wins a war, They are just the result of your indoctrination when you volunteer to be killed protecting something that never existed. You are like the man who killed his best friend for telling him his wife had been a whore for as long as he could remember, and had proof. He simply could not stop loving her because of all the years he had been with her had made him feel good about his self. Patriotism is a fool’s excuse for his ignorance. History will tell you there has never been a good government anywhere; ever! Turn off that stupid box and read!!!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


SEO Powered By SEOPressor