What about Reason and Law

The un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon has stated her intent to enact by Executive Order a Ban on some types of firearms, mainly rifles and carbines. The executive action can only be understood as a restriction or infringement of our unalienable right to self defense and defense against deadly force toward others.

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe…or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

~ Sam Adams ~

I see where the Bush administration has initially indicated support for extending the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer ban on scores of semi-automatic rifles and on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition that the Clinton Administration imposed on America back in 1994.  I am seriously disappointed in that decision if it holds.

Laws against violent crimes such as murder, robbery or assault are already on the books and do not require a gun to be used in their commission to be considered criminal acts.  The only thing any criminal needs to carry out such deviant behavior is some means of providing a force advantage over the victim and he could use almost anything for that.

A criminal can just as easily kill or rob with a knife, a baseball bat or his bare fists so what difference does it make which gizmo is used to provide that force advantage over the victim—none whatsoever to my way of thinking.  It’s the act itself that makes such behavior a crime, not the tool used.

Laws are needed to deal with harmful deeds inflicted on people by the misfits of society—those whose behavior deviates from the accepted norm and thus becomes injurious to others.  They are needed to deal with the behavior that inflicts such harm —nothing more complicated than that. 

Crime is the result of socially unacceptable behavior and it is the behavior that determines the crime.  The operative word here is behavior not the implement used by some degenerate. A criminal can choke a person to death with his own mother’s apron strings as well as shoot him.  Is the victim any more dead if a gun is used or is the criminal any guiltier?  I think not. 

There are already laws punishing deviant behavior therefore to my way of thinking, laws pertaining specifically to guns are laws focused on objects incapable of behavior.  A mother’s apron strings can be just as deadly as a gun if the one exhibiting such criminal behavior chooses to use them in that way so should we have laws governing apron strings? Gun-centric laws only restrict, limit, prevent—infringe—upon your right to keep and bear 
arms and do nothing to address violent behavior.

Those 20,000 gun specific laws such as limited magazine capacity, rate of fire, barrel length, registration, licensing, waiting periods, and concealed carry without government permission as examples, do nothing but limit your right of access to guns—infringements upon your rights.  Such is not the mark of a free society.  What harm is there in a 15 round magazine or carrying a gun under your coat?  It’s when that gun is used to harm others that the crime is committed and it’s the criminal behavior that is the crime not the gun.  The gun is obviously incapable of behaving in any way whatsoever—but we all know that don’t we? 

Keep in mind the Second Amendment states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  There are no qualifiers to that statement, as “…shall not be infringed except for…” and you fill in the blank with any of those 20,000 gun laws.

If I could ask the founders their opinion on this question, I would ask if felons, the insane or the immature should be denied access to firearms.  Felons have proven to be unfit members of society and by their own choices have surrendered their rights to fully participate in our society. The insane are not responsible members of society for medical reasons.  The immature, let’s say those that do not know the difference between life and death, and that do not know the difference between right and wrong, and have had no firearms training for the sake of argument, are not yet fully responsible because they are still in the formative years of their lives.

So call me whatever you like but the laws against murder, robbery, and assault exist in Common Law and should be seriously enforced with harsh punishment for violating them—the type of weapon used is entirely irrelevant to the behavior involved.  We should address the behavior of the criminal and leave the law abiding among the rest of us alone. Our right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and not a Government granted privileged to be assigned or removed at the whim of anyone. 

Of course, such an approach would allow the general population to be fully armed and capable of resisting an out-of-control government if need be, so maybe that wouldn’t do after all—perhaps that thought just scares the living daylights out of some politicians.  Might that fear then be the genesis of the 20,000?  Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, 

“When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears its citizens, you have freedom.”

The Founder’s intent underlying the Second Amendment is easy to understand. 
It is fair to say the Founders and Framers obvious intent was to ensure that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was never threatened or infringed by any government action.

So what have the courts said over the years about such a “radical concept?”  Many times we’re told by anti-gun elements that the courts have maintained no individual right to keep and bear arms exists and pro-gun advocates are just too stupid to understand the intricacies of constitutional law.

Have the courts universally denounced the individual’s right to keep and bear arms over the past 200 years and are you really too stupid to read and understand what the Constitution plainly says?  To believe any of that anti-gun bilge, you’d have to be terminally stupid.  

Let’s read a few examples of what several courts across the country and across history had to say in the years after the Constitution was adopted.  Please judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions. 

One note before starting:  I suspect the Esteemed Readers will never see any of these quotes or rulings either reported or cited on the evening news but that would be just a guess.


1803:  George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”


1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."


1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251

" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."


1859:  Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."


1871: Andres v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178

“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”

“The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.”  [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)]


1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542)

Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."


1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."


1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."


1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."  


2000: Tuesday, June 13th. Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated inalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in U.S. v. Emerson.

Early accounts from those who attended the week's oral arguments on U.S. v. Emerson (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 23) revealed, with no uncertainty, how the Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja:

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?  You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people?  Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes".

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton-Gore argument—this time.

It’s frightening how tenuous is the jewel of liberty and how easily it can be incrementally eroded if left unguarded by the people and totally entrusted to the Machiavellian machinations of insidious politicians.

James Madison had it pegged, 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

If the un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon begins legislating from the Executive Branch of the Oregon State Government, she shall be subverting the intent of the Oregon State Constitution, the Law, and the Legal System she was sworn to uphold. Then again, maybe she does not care about reason, the Law, or the Legal System.

It’s my uncompromising conviction that unless the people jealously guard our jewel at every turn and strongly reject any attempt to incrementally infringe on our freedom, we will eventually and unwittingly lose it—piece by little piece.  Once it is lost however, it might be lost for generations. Generations that won’t even know what they’ve lost.

Sources:

Excerpts from:  What The Courts Said by Colonel Dan

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2015/01/one-more-time-gun-laws.html

Foreign Corporations Flying False Flags; or, Who Remembers Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Government land grabs are becoming more and more prevalent every day. There are executive agencies (BLM, USFWS, USFS) taking private land through Eminent Domain and regulatory acts. The federal government is seizing more private land under the auspices of environmental preservation and national parks and at the same time, filing for Land Patents on Land seized. We have even observed the military taking private land and calling the seizure necessary under the 1947 National Security Act. American Framers believed that the Right to secure and own property was vital to the preservation of Liberty and Freedom and placed that unalienable right in the Constitution for the united States of America (that would be, the one Obama, the Constitutional Scholar who never wrote anything on the Constitution, the one he calls unimportant and too confusing to understand).

Here at Fix America we have watched and observed this incident unfold.  At every turn of events, facts were checked and Mr. Marsico attended the rally and the Saturday town Hall meeting. As more information was gathered and checked, it seemed that there was a much bigger story than one hundred and twenty-nine acres of burned grass land (being burned as a back fire set to protect buildings and livestock) by the Hammonds. With sentences served for a supposed crime that even Tim Colahan, the local district attorney, said held no merit and Judge Michael Hogan, the judge that herd the case, said that the Hammonds did nothing that had not been done by other ranchers for the last seventy years. 

The political appointment by Obama of the U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Amanda Marshall who pressed the resentencing issue, and Judge Ann Aiken Federal superior Court, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to serve the maximum five year sentence, ten years after the fact and after both Hammonds had served their time and had been released form a California prison seems more than cruel and unusual punishment. The Hammond Case follows a well established pattern of abuse at the hands of the Corporate Federal Government and it's Corporate agent, the BLM, by using false and scurrilous charges of eco-terrorism to put Dwight and his son back in prison which obviously will put them out of the ranching business eventually. The U.S. Attorney for Oregon has now taken a leave of absence for health reasons. Please see: 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/04/unbelievable-update-oregon-bundy-militia-standoff-the-federal-prosecutor-at-the-heart-of-the-hammond-family-problem/


It should be understood by the Esteemed Readers of Fix America, that this trail and other paths of events has led to the suspected incident being a False Flag Event led by government instigators. Just one of the side paths being pushed by the Privately owned major media is that this incident is an Armed Takeover of a Government Building. The Government Building was the home of John Sharff
which was taken over by the Government. Another side path is the simple fact that people in Oregon Open Carry:  every one is able to be armed and carrying which is not similar to an armed Takeover. There were a few hundred armed Americans at the rally in Burns, but that did not constitute an Armed Takeover of the Burns Rally. The occupation of the home occurred by people carrying side arms and long guns, because they usually carry firearms and the weather at the time was six below zero. Not a bad reason to seek shelter.  Another side path is as far as is known by people that were at the Home/Headquarters of the Malheur Refuge no Militia members were present as they had never gone to the Refuge in the first place. 

Source: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Malheur/about.html

In the late 1880s, plume hunters decimated North American bird populations in pursuit of breeding feathers for the hat industry. Hunters targeted large flocks of colonial nesting birds and shorebirds, killing birds indiscriminately and 
orphaning chicks. Eventually, the large numbers of colonial nesting birds on Malheur Lake were discovered by plume hunters. In 1908, wildlife photographers William L. Finley and Herman T. Bohlman discovered that most of the white herons (egrets) on Malheur Lake had been killed in 1898 by plume hunters. After 10 years the white heron population still had not recovered. With backing from the Oregon Audubon Society, Finley and Bohlman proposed establishment of a bird reservation to protect birds using Malheur, Mud, and Harney lakes.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 18, 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt as the Lake Malheur Reservation. Roosevelt set aside unclaimed government lands encompassed by Malheur, Mud and Harney Lakes “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” The newly established “Lake Malheur Reservation” was the 19th of 51 wildlife refuges created by Roosevelt during his tenure as president. At the time, Malheur was the third refuge in Oregon and one of only six refuges west of the Mississippi.

The Refuge constitutes a small percentage of the Northern Great Basin’s total acreage but is a tremendously important source of wildlife habitat relative to other portions of the Northern Great Basin. The Refuge represents a crucial stop along the Pacific Flyway and offers resting, breeding, and nesting habitat for hundreds of migratory birds and other wildlife. Many of the species migrating 
through or breeding here are highlighted as priority species in national bird conservation plans.

The refuge now encompasses 187,757 acres of wildlife habitat. The 65,000 acre Blitzen Valley was purchased in 1935 and added to the refuge to secure water rights for Malheur and Mud Lake. With the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1933, the refuge was able to use this additional manpower in 1935 to begin major improvements on the refuge. The CCC constructed most of the infrastructure in the Blitzen Valley including the Center Patrol Road which travels through the center of the refuge. The 14,000 acre Double-O unit was added to the refuge in 1942 and provides important shorebird habitat, as well as waterfowl nesting areas. Malheur Refuge is situated within the Harney Basin in southeastern Oregon. Located in the Northern Great Basin, this portion of 
the State is lightly populated, generally arid with cold winters, and characterized by wide open spaces.

Comment by Kelly Tharp:  

"I hope they are taking care of the Malheur headquarters. That used to be the home of my great uncle John Sharff who was the Malheur manager. He was a sheep herder and worked well with the ranchers, then when he retired the new manager was from back east, college educated and turned their beautiful home into an office. The house was built by the  Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and it was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942. Florence, Johns wife, was my grandmothers cousin and the home was always covered in beautiful flowers..."

Following is a Post by Mars Hoffman that should be read and understood:

"ATTENTION: THIS MUST BE READ ALL THE WAY TO THE END AND THEN PASSED AROUND FAR AND WIDE. WE HERE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME FEED-BACK. WE WILL ALSO ENTERTAIN CALLS; WHEN ANNOUNCED VIA THIS PAGE.
Mars Hoffman 

This came from the Nevada Militia page....I'm very troubled by this. This guys says it's all a set up by the Feds.

...Everybody... please gather around and listen to what I am about to say..Then either shut your mouth, or share this far and wide. If you have ANY faith in me as a leader you will heed what I am about to say. If not..I want nothing to do with you. simple as that. 

The key to victory in any battle is the ability to remain calm in any given situation. What we are seeing right now is a whole bunch of people acting based solely on raw emotion. This is very bad and I'm about to explain exactly why. I am not letting my emotions make my decisions for me, but instead, looking at this from a calm, level headed, common sense approach.

What you are all witnessing right now right now in Oregon has the makings of a full on false flag event. And I will prove that to you to the absolute best of my ability. Should you choose to look at this from a logical perspective you will see I am 100% correct. Some of what I will tell you is speculation based on my own experience and experiences of others I have talked to throughout this ordeal, but most of what I am going to tell you is documented verifiable fact.

Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial "leader" of the militias present at the Bundy ranch. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, none of the militias listened to him at all. The ONLY ones who listened to him were the Bundy's, Blaine Cooper, who Payne claimed was a "professional security consultant', who turned out to be nothing more than an ex con, and Buddha bear (nice name) who he also claimed was a "professional security consultant", but was later discovered to be nothing more than a tattoo artist thug. The militias ignoring these three, is precisely why that situation didn't turn into a blood bath. (strangely enough all three are present at the refuge)

I and Scott Woods were asked on one occasion, by Payne to go and destroy BLM equipment in the middle of the night. We refused, stating that that's not why we were there. We were there solely to defend the family. That very same night he rushed off in a car with a loaded AR to START a violent altercation with LEOs who supposedly had pulled over members of the Armenian Militia off exit 10 near the ranch. This report was never vetted nor was it looked into before he rushed off. It is also well documented that Payne had tried to incite other militia members to start violent altercations with the authorities who were present there. all of which were refused by militia members..all for the same reason...we were NOT there to start a fight...but to DEFEND the family. When people refused, Payne, Cooper, and Buddah ostracized them and ran them off the ranch. This is why most militias left the ranch when they did. One other point worth mentioning was there were militia members present with long range 50 cal sniper rifles... but instead of positioning them on the hilltops surrounding the ranch, Payne had them stationed down in a valley where they were effectively useless...does that sound like the makings of a solid leader to you? And also Payne was always sure to make certain that there was ONE completely UNDEFENDED access point to the ranch.. I brought this up to him asking why he would leave our back door completely open and undefended... and he completely blew me off... What he was doing in fact, was leaving an access point open for authorities to bum rush the ranch if that's what they felt needed to be done. And I have the witnesses to prove it. 

Now throughout the situation Payne made repeated threats to law enforcement on NATIONAL media. There's VIDEO of him doing this..its not hard to find. Yet oddly enough with all that evidence he was never charged with anything during or after the standoff. Does that seem ODD to anyone but me? (not if you're a paid provocateur) Now in this situation at the refuge, he has publicly stated to a reporter that he has snipers set up to kill any federal official who approaches the refuge. Yet still.. no charges are being filed against him. making threats like that, you'd think they'd swoop in and scoop him up... but noooo.. because they're giving patriots time to get there... Don't think for one second that with a couple of phone calls to the proper alphabet agencies, those schmucks wont be SORELY outnumbered. Tell you what... if you think LEO's don't take threats against them seriously... go find the nearest cop and walk up to him and tell him you plan to kill police officers and see what happens to you.. See how long it takes for you to end up in prison.. yet Payne roams free..as does Cooper. Better yet go ask Schuyler Barbeau what happens when you threaten a public official... oh wait...you can't... hes in prison... because of a Facebook post. Funny how that works huh? Also... has anyone else noticed that until this situation popped up Payne was damned near SILENT on social media? Wonder why that is... Hell, Most of you don't even know who he is... He also claimed to be an Army Ranger, But when we had someone at the Ranger School check their records... they said NO Ryan Payne had EVER attended that school... whoda thunk it?

Myself and Scott begged the Bundys, after we left (via phone) to stop listening to Payne..that he was a plant. But they refused to listen. Payne wouldn't let ANYONE talk to the Bundys with out him being present..or close by. The Bundy's are good God fearing Christians but they are TERRIBLY naive. They truly believe Payne is one of the good guys. Which is why they are at the refuge now. Do you honestly think for one second it was AMMON's idea to take that building? If you do... you're a fool. They're not that type of people. Ammon has been suckered into this standoff by Payne and Cooper. He truly went up there with the intention of helping the Hammonds, and when they were refused, The Bundys were made to believe that taking a stand against the BLM was the answer. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Now Cliven is on his way there.. and the govt is finally going to get their revenge on the Bundy's and in doing so gain the access they need to their land. All the major players in the operation of that Ranch will soon be together at the wildlife refuge... that's no coincidence. I assure you.

Payne, Cooper, Pete Santilli... All well trained provocateurs who are doing everything in their power to lure patriots to the ranch.. Case in point...Santilli just released a video try to say that the FBI was TRYING to shut him down.. Don't you think if that were the case...with ALL of the resources the FBI has, they would just go ahead and do it...do you really think this schmuck is smart enough to outsmart the ENTIRE FBI? Think about it... 

Let us continue on.. why the wild life refuge? how in the blue hell did they even know it existed if this wasn't PRE-PLANNED? And why were their trailers staged up there THURSDAY night if this was all "unplanned"? And if they wanted support so bad...why not let the Oregon 3%'ers and militia in on this? I'll tell you why.. because they would have had no part in it and vehemently refused if they had known.... as was demonstrated by their response once they found out. SO..that being said.. why pick a place so remote.. I'll tell you why.. the same reason the Bundy ranch was picked.. it's remote... no civilian casualties. And if everyone out there is killed there's no witnesses allowing the govt to write the narrative of what happened afterwards..You can bet any reporters out there will be silenced should they actually get close enough to catch anything worth documenting unless of course they're willing to report what they're told to... the reason it failed at the Bundy ranch was because the community got so involved... NOT the case at the refuge.

Next.. why has a detachment of Delta Force been deployed to the area? (does anyone remember that Delta was ALSO at WACO?) 19 sets of orders were cut for operators to be at Waco. Why in the Blue hell would they send Delta to squash a bunch of unorganized mostly unarmed protesters? I'll tell you why.. one of the things Delta specializes in is hostage rescue.. I.E. blow open a door rush in and shoot the bad guys but save the good guys.. I.E. embedded reporters from the national media who can later report the protesters fired first. 

This is happening EXACTLY the same way WACO did... you know who else claimed, "We won't fire first but if attacked we'll fire back.."? David Koresh. Again well documented fact. This situation is going to turn out the exact same way. If these guys don't stand down now, while the sheriff is giving them an opportunity to, I promise you.. its going to turn out the exact same way. I'll bet my life on it. 

Now lets look at poor John Ritzheimer. This guy is exhibiting all the classic signs of PTSD. It is my belief that he is not in on this plan but like the Bundys... has been suckered into believing what he is doing is right. This poor bastard is still fighting the war in his head and Assholes like Payne and Cooper are feeding into his delusions that dying for this cause is what he needs to do. They are taking advantage of his big heart and his undying love for the country he fought for and twisting him into a suicidal maniac. Im sorry if that stings.. but I assure you its the cold hard truth. How could ANYONE in their right mind think that dying trying to fight the BLM of all things is going to "change the govt"? How ignorant do you have to be to think that fighting and dying out there is going to somehow make the BLM fold up shop and stop what they are doing. 

Sorry kids... the ONLY people who can stop the BLM are in DC.. and I assure you, as long as People like Harry Reid and the like are around... the BLM is not going anywhere.. no matter how much we fight them and run them off. We ran them off at the Bundy ranch...and how much did that slow them down..? we ran them off at the sugar pine mine... how much did that slow them down...? What makes anyone think this will be any different? Mind boggling I tell you.

Now to those of you who are buying into this whole "this will galvanize the movement line of crap".. What this is REALLY going to do is crush the patriot movement. They are going to hit these people with such force with such blinding speed and a level of violence of action that most patriots are going to turn and look at their own children and go there's no way in HELL I want that to happen to MY family... thus the reason there are women and Children being taken to the refuge. The govt has already shown at WACO and Ruby Ridge just how willing they are to kill American Children. Don't think for a second they wont do it here as well. 

All the classic signs of a psyop. They plan to frighten the people into not even daring to ever take a stand against them again. 

So what then of the militias? We'll still be here but will be forced into hiding.. those who aren't will be scooped up and charged as Domestic Terrorists. Do you for even ONE second really believe that this happening at the same time as Obama prepares to announce a whole new slew of gun restrictions is really a coincidence? Its not.. Not at all. What this is going to be used for is an EXCUSE to show why we need to disarm the American people for their own safety.. or put into place such SEVERE restrictions on owning firearms that we will NEVER be able to properly defend ourselves against a tyrannical govt. Hitler did it... Stalin did it... Mao did it... now Obama's doing it. History is repeating itself in front of our own eyes and we're too blinded by raw emotion to recognize it. 

If everyone picked up and left that refuge tomorrow, what do you think Payne and Cooper would do? They're so die hard...think they'd stay and fight? I mean that's what they're saying... they're not leaving right? Prepared to die for the cause....right?.... My ASS! Nope... they'll slink back into the shadows and wait for the next opportunity to bamboozle good patriots into signing their own death warrants. And of course... once again.. neither will be charged with anything. And good peoples lives will be risked for nothing. 

We're being goaded into a fight here people...you NEED to see that. And every ONE of you who is advocating for this... Know this... if these people die... it will be YOUR fault. Not mine, nor will it be the fault of ANYONE in ANY unit I command. I simply wont allow it. THIS is the reason my troops follow me.. because I take the time to think these things through...to look at them from ALL directions... not based on sheer emotion as so many of you are doing now. 
It was stated, dare I say, TAUGHT to me today by a close friend who is an ex special forces operator, that wars are not won by people taking rash actions such as the ones that have been taken here. Wars are won with proper planning. That shit hit me like a brick.. And I Will NEVER forget those words as that is the smartest thing I have heard throughout this entire ordeal. 

1. Plan 
2. Equip 
3. Rehearse 
4. Execute 

THAT'S how you win a battle. THAT'S how you minimize casualties.. THAT'S how you win a war. None of that was done here. Therefore, these guys are all as good as dead.. Why do you think the local sheriff there just said these guys need to leave WHILE THEY STILL CAN... Because he KNOWS whats going to happen to them! He's OFFERING them a way out and DAMNIT THEY NEED TO TAKE IT! 

The first thing I teach my guys is when they make unexpected contact with the enemy is, the proper response is to fall back, reset and take back the initiative. That's what we need to do here. Will it look like a loss in the eyes of the people? Absolutely. But hey, you all had better get used to the fact that we are not going to win every battle.. BUT... in the eyes of those who put this whole bullshit plan together... this will be a CRUSHING defeat...Even though it will never be made public knowledge. We have let the enemy pick the time and place of our fight...and that is about to prove to be a fatal mistake. Mark my words.

But we can still snatch victory out of this whole screwed up mess...if ONLY you will listen to me. 

How do we win then? Well I'll tell you... 
We get those people out of there!!!!! 

Anyone and everyone who has contact with the people there needs to PLEAD with them to get the hell out of there... Then, we regroup, and WE pick the time and place of our fight...not the enemy. WE make THEM react.. WE pick ground that is most sensible for a proper defense, not a building in the middle of a field that has absolutely NO defensible positions as in the case of the refuge. Then we properly equip, plan, rehearse, and execute. If you want to win a war...that's how you have to do it. Most importantly.. we expose frauds like Cooper and Payne for who they truly are. and drum them out of the movement before they really get someone killed. 

So that my take on this mess... listen to me if you want, ignore me at your own peril... either way it is of no consequence to me. I will not debate this issue, and NO ONE will change my mind about this... I have done too much research into this situation to allow ANY armchair commando to dictate my actions for me. This is the war you all wanted so badly... now either lead follow or get the fuck out of the way. End of story.

(please note this post has been edited to provide more factual evidence to include mention of Delta at Wac

DAMN IM GOOD.I SAID EXACT SAME THINGS ABOUT LOCATION.ITS INCONSEQUENTIAL IN THAT ITS IN DESOLATE AND THAT NO INNOCENTS ARE IN ARE.I SAID IT BETTER THE 1ST TIME BUT THATS THE GIST

Chat Conversation End

Type a message...

..

..I am sharing this unsettling narrative think as you will, I know some of this can be confirmed, end game we agree they need to exit stage left as quikly as possible."

POW or Enemy Sympathizer? And What About Coal?

A lot is being said about the exchange of five high level terrorists for one Sgt. "Bowe" Bergdahl. Some claim that he deserted, and walked into the hands of the Taliban.

Based on all the evidence presented thus far, the President broke more than one law in releasing prisoners. Judge Andrew Napolitano explains it to Shepard Smith of Fox News in the video:

But there were five others released nearly a year ago, that did not get mentioned on the nightly news! 

In late July of 2013 there was a release of 5 Guantanamo detainees as a good will gesture to the Taliban. In other words, they got five of their people back and we got the right to open peace talks with them. Do you find that the least bit submissive? It was not widely reported, because compared to the news of that time it seemed relatively insignificant. 

See:  http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06/02/ten-terrorists-yes-ten-one-traitor-release-didnt-hear/


Many are angry because there were many others who were wounded or killed in ambushes while searching for Sgt. Bergdahl.

Pictured above (from the Daily Mail) is one of the soldiers killed while searching for Bowe Bergdahl. The caption under the photo states:  
"Hero: Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews died in a Taliban ambush on Sept 4, 2009, after he tried to save colleagues who had been injured in an IED explosion. Top brass had told his parents that he died searching a Taliban commander. Now former comrades have come forward to say they were really looking for Bergdahl."

Read more: The Daily Mail Online


What I find is the most important fact in all of this, is that once again, the person occupying the White House has used executive fiat to circumvent the law and do as he damn well wants. The Dictator didn't stop there though.

It seems that Obama is going to by-pass the rule of law and have the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) write regulations that will cripple the coal industry if not completely destroy it, while not allowing the Keystone XL pipeline to be completed, and knowing quite well (he said so!) that it will force energy (electric) prices to soar. And that, he says will drive alternatives and efficiency initiatives. No, Barry. What it will do is create more unemployment and poor people. What it will do is make us even more dependent on foreign sources for energy. What it will do is deprive private industry of what control they have left, given excessive regulations, restrictions, and limits imposed by government, and done so by bureaucrats who know nothing about energy nor economics, and continue to erode freedom and free market enterprise.

What we have now is clear to see; there is an interloper holding the reins of the most powerful national military and he is aiming directly at the People. 

IRS Money Laundering? You Bet!

While doing due diligence as I research articles, documents, letters, memos, and other reference material, I occasionally run across other authors, express themselves in a manner that I cannot ignore.

Kevin E. Lake is such an author. I present to the Esteemed Readers of this blog, Mr. Lake's article which is based on his own experiences with the "Infernal Revenue Service" as they break the law and steal disability benefits from veterans. Well, let's just allow Mr. Lake to tell the story!

Kevin E Lake is an author and an Iraq War Veteran. His most recent novel, “Off Switch” was written to raise awareness of the suicide epidemic in the U.S. among our soldiers and veterans.


"The IRS has mastered the art of breaking their own laws, one case in particular; using banks to launder and then steal disabled veterans’ disability checks.

The Veterans Disability Act of 2010 is a Federal law which exempts VA disability from withholding of any sort. Actually, existing code USC, Title 38, §5301 already protected VA disability from withholding, but this provision was re-iterated and included in the newer legislation of 2010, because too many civil court judges were legislating from the bench and including veterans’ disability monies as earned income and granting it to ex-spouses (men and women) in divorce proceedings, at times, leaving disabled veterans without any safety net for self-care.

However, the IRS is still figuring out ways to get to a veteran’s disability money. How do I know? Recently, it happened to me.

A couple of months ago, when I logged into my online bank account to make sure that my VA disability check had been deposited (I am a 60% disabled veteran of the Iraq War) I saw red and a negative balance, beside which read the word “hold.”

I called my bank and was informed that the IRS had sent a letter demanding that the bank take all of the available funds out of my account on the first day of the month and then wire them to them. The bank gave me a telephone number at which to call the IRS. After being placed on hold for a very long time- long as in a biblical age- I finally spoke with an agent.

Long story short; they claim I made $157,000 in 2010 and that I owe them tons of money, and that until I pay it, a lien will remain on my personal bank account.

At the beginning of 2010, I was still in the hospital recovering from injuries I’d sustained while serving in Iraq. I was released early in the year, but still did not find employment until October, and even then, it was only part time. I can assure you, as I did the IRS, that I did not earn $157,000.00. Actually, I earned less than $10,000.00 in 2010.

I kindly read the federal code mentioned above to the lady I spoke with at the IRS, reminding her that VA disability money is 100% exempt. She placed me on hold for another age (I could see a man coming- bearing water- over the horizon) and then she came back on the line and told me, “We do not take veterans’ disability money. We wait until the funds are deposited from the VA and then we take all of the funds from your bank account.”

Um.

Isn't this called laundering?

I find it ironic, now, that only weeks before the IRS put this hold on my bank account, I’d been asked to be a contributing writer for key Tea Party personality “Joe the Plumber.” I’d been writing freelance articles on veterans affairs for some time, publishing and distributing them mostly through Facebook, and I viewed the personal call Joe made to me as one of the greatest compliments I’d been paid in regard to those articles. I jumped at the opportunity to join his team and give my work, such as this piece, a wider audience. I can’t help but think that part of my decision to join Joe’s team may have played a part in being singled out by the IRS at this specific time and having my VA disability money taken from me in complete breach of federal law.

The good news is that through my persistence, and my refusal to accept their answer, that it is okay to launder VA disability money, I was able to get the IRS to refund all of the money they’d taken from my bank. I am working with the IRS to remedy their great misunderstanding of my earnings for 2010, and I am reaching out to all disabled veterans to let them know that if this is happening to them, they do have rights, and they need to stand up for them.

As many veterans know, our war does not stop once we make it home. Often, new battles begin, such as battles for the rights our government promised they’d provide for us upon our return from war that they often turn around and attempt to take away.

Currently in America, twenty two veterans a day are committing suicide. One of the biggest contributors to the suicide epidemic is our veterans’ inability to find suitable work after serving and the inability to take care of themselves and their families financially. This is why VA disability is sacred- except in the eyes of the IRS. Too many disabled veterans in the U.S. are just a disability check away from being on the street and joining the already nearly 70,000 homeless veterans in America.


If you are a veteran receiving disability from the VA, and you are having it garnished, withheld, or having a lien placed upon it for any reason, please contact the entity who is withholding, garnishing, or who has placed the lien, and reference the federal code stated earlier in this article. You stood up for the rights of all people of a great nation in combat, but unfortunately, you must continue to stand up for yourselves to ensure that the promises of being taken care of upon your return are kept. But you can do it, because you are a warrior, and that’s what warriors do."

Reprinted with permission of the author. Thank you for your service!

Reference: http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/05/20/shock-irs-caught-laundering-veterans-disability-checks/

When Law Is Crime!

There is a convinced and growing portion of the population in the united States of America today, that has been recently fueled by the stand-off at the Bundy Ranch, in Bunkerville, NV and the lack of attention brought to other government land grabs across the country. (See:  Native Americans Still Being Raped Of Their Land By “White Mans Government”: The BLM Land Grab That DIDN’T Go Viral)

The purpose of the original Legislative Branch of government is to represent the People (House of Representatives) and the States (two Senators originally selected by the state legislative bodies) and to protect the rights of both.

Little by little, the rights of both the People and the States have been taken by an increasingly tyrannical corporate federal government. And many Americans think that it is both 'necessary and proper' that we allow it, and it is allowed by silent consent. I strongly disagree.

The Founders knew that a corporate federal government (See:  East India Company) will overreach its limits and begin to infringe on and control the rights of the People. The very fact that it is by the People's consent that governance exists is lost on most Americans today, as they have been indoctrinated by a public education system designed to make them believe they are obligated to a corporate structure.

Sovereignty was the province of the King and all others were Subjects. Our nation was founded on the principle of Sovereign Individuals and the bodies of government were servants to the People.

There were very specific reasons that the Constitution limited the scope of the federal government. Because the law of the land is the Constitution, all laws must conform to it, otherwise they are invalid. When an unconstitutional law is obeyed by the majority of People, it gives government power to enforce it. Common Law is the law of the land under the Constitution, and it has been replaced with the very system that helped ignite the Revolution. See references to the Organic Act of 1871 in previous posts at the end of the article.

To those who do not remember or who did not learn of it in school, it was the taking over of the law by the British and the confiscation of arms that finally riled the People into rebellion. Defending themselves was a right they were not willing to concede to authority, even when that authority possessed the mightiest naval forces in the world at that time.

There are so many laws that have been passed by all levels of government, that it seems that the moment you leave your home, you are violating some of them. Of course it only seems relevant when actions you take that are perfectly in order with natural rights, are deemed against some law or mandate and you are arrested and charged with a crime.

In the post titled, The Second Amendment: Meaning and Purpose the reason that it was included in the Constitution becomes clear.  And it was clear when the Japanese were interrogated after the war, that they did not invade the US mainland because they feared a 'rifle behind every blade of grass' as the American People were well-armed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

It is apparent that any laws that restrict the rights of  the People to keep and bear arms, and to restrict the formation of citizen militias, is a crime against the Constitution and the People. Those who wrote and passed these laws are by their actions, perpetrators of high crimes and misdemeanors.

There are lawful processes for the People to take action against crimes committed by those entrusted to protect the People's rights. The Constitution provides the remedy through the grand jury method. Not the one that requires a prosecutor (DA) to initiate. But one initiated by Petition of the People.

There is no constitutional grounds for the federal government to own land. The 'public land' belongs to the People. It's time for the People to defend their lands, even from their own government.

Links:

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2014/03/hook-line-and-sinker-plans-are-revealed.html

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-to-plant-seeds-of-destruction-or.html

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-to-plant-seeds-of-destruction-or-by.html

Two Americas Tied in a Bow

"In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, read his 'Two Americas' response to Barry Soetoro's/Obama speech on 'Income inequality'":

Two Americas

by Bob Lonsberry,

December 9th, 2013

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college - and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow."

Two Americas post from:  http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=3651&go=4

Income Inequality speech text from:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obama-income-inequality-100662.html#ixzz2too6EJSA  as provided by The White House