Was common law shut down years ago in America?

WAS COMMON LAW SHUT DOWN YEARS AGO IN AMERICA?


Judge Anna Von Reitz
Friday, January 8, 2016

 

penny4yerthoughtsJanuary 6, 2016 at 5:10 AM

 

Wasn't common law effectively taken out around 33/38 Erie Pennsylvania case, etc.  Also with the Trading With the Enemy/Emergency Banking Acts, and are we not under military rule and governments?    

 

I am not an attorney but think it is vitally important to explain because the whole of the Judge's article revolves around this point regarding Common Law which it seems was taken out years ago. This would be very basic for a judge to know and would ultimately make her argument null and void.  

 

All of the flags with gold rim now show we are under maritime law but this, too, was not noted nor was the comment answered.  

 

Could you please elucidate as to how this fact -- which contradicts what Judge Anna Von Reitz is writing -- could have gone unnoticed? 

 

I appreciate your attention to this as it is not making sense.   

 

Regards, Leslie  

 

***************************** 

 

And here is Judge Anna's answer:

Answer for Leslie-- 

 

You are recalling a 1938 case known as Thompkins v. Erie Railroad in which the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that the Federal Government has no such thing as General Common Law and is therefore incompetent to fulfill Article VII. 

As the rats continued their efforts to take over our courts and our country they adopted the one form of euphemistically named "common law" they had in their bag of tricks, which is known variously as "Special Admiralty" and "Executive Admiralty" and most tellingly as "martial common law"--- that is the form of the law being practiced under the gold fringed flag. 

To bring you under this jurisdiction they have to pretend that you are a "rebel" and "enemy combatant" instead of admitting who you really are. 

This form of law was adopted in the wake of the Civil War. Normal courts had been shut down in eleven Southern States. Congress told the military commanders of these "districts" to appoint whatever civilians they trusted to run local "tribunals" to deal with "rebels". 

This created the infamous Carpetbagger Era. 

Federal United States Citizens came from the North and ran these courts in a profoundly criminal fashion-- arbitrarily stealing the property of the Southerners under color of law. 

The same thing has been done here and now. 

As the county and state courts made the mistake of incorporating, they became franchises of the federal government corporation. As a result, we no longer had real state or county courts. Since about 1965 virtually all the courts in America pretending to be "state" or "county" courts are franchises run by the U.S. District Courts and they are ALL Federal Courts--- Federal State Courts, Federal County Courts--- all operating as federal corporation franchises, all operating in the foreign international jurisdiction of the sea. 

So-- what do you do when the Constitution requires that the people have access to Common Law and there is no Federal General Common Law and almost all the state and county courts in the country have either stupidly or treasonously been incorporated and thereby removed to federal jurisdiction? 

You dig up "martial common law" and you make up the euphemistic names for it-- "Special Admiralty" and "Executive Admiralty" and you foist this known evil off on the trusting innocent American People and use it as a means to defraud and railroad them and plunder their estates and private and public resources. 

Luckily for us, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case--Milligan Ex Parte in 1866, which addressed this situation and that decision still stands.  

When American Common Law Courts are operating in an area, the Supreme Court found, there is no excuse for the operation of martial law courts. 

So all we have to do is either dissolve the incorporation of the existing "state" and "county" courts and run them as unincorporated American Common Law Courts, or, what is more expedient, declare our own political status as one of the "free sovereign and independent people of the United States", hold elections to fill our natural unincorporated public offices including Common Law Judges, Sheriffs, Clerks, Recorders, etc. and notify the rats that American Common Law Courts are operating again and use Milligan Ex Parte to shut the rats down. 

All you have to do is get your ducks in order, declare your proper political status, hold your elections, fill your court offices, and show them the door. 

The Bar Attorneys will either have to tear up their BAR Cards and come to work for the people's court, or restrict themselves to working in their proper capacity in purely administrative and maritime/Admiralty Courts of the Federal Government. 

The Bar has been barred from holding any public office including judge in behalf of the people's government since 1819. 

Now you have received a very useful and valuable history lesson and insight into the situation with the courts, what we are dealing with, how this situation, and what we have to do to put a stop to it. 

Please share this information Far and Wide.

 

www.annavonreitz.com

  

 

 

The Difference Between "Law Enforcement" and "Peacekeeping"

Specifics for Sheriffs and Federal Agents Regarding the Difference Between "Law Enforcement" and "Peacekeeping"

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger

09 Jan 2016 06:13 AM PST

This information is crucial and needs to get into the hands of all 3100 County Sheriffs and all Police Departments and all Officers and Federal Agents Nationwide.  Please help by broadcasting, reading, making videos, printing pamphlets, hand-delivering, and talking to all those you know. 

The Articles of Confederation, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution are Organic Law of the Land.  The Law of the Land is all Common Law.  It functions on the land jurisdiction of the United States and is attached to it.  A Common Law Court functions only within the geographically defined boundaries it serves.  All the offices associated with a Common Law jurisdiction or a Common Law Court including the Office of Sheriff are by definition Public Offices.  They are administered under the Organic Law and the Public Law of the United States known as the United States Statutes at Large. All Public Offices serve the government "of the people, for the people, and by the people".

 All Public Offices are created and maintained by unincorporated body politics---- free associations of landowners and other members of the "free sovereign and independent people of the United States".  As you can see from reading Amendment VII, all conflicts arising between people and affecting private property of value in excess of $20 are owed service by a Common Law Court.  The Sheriff on the land is responsible for the enforcement of the Organic Law of our nation, including The Constitution, and the Public Law. He is the highest peacekeeping officer in America within the boundaries of his County. He has sweeping powers to deputize men and commandeer equipment, facilities, and supplies to secure the peace and guarantee the enforcement of the Organic Law.  A Sheriff on the land is elected by the people acting in free association as landowners in their counties. He has a Public Bond and he has an Oath of Public Office. 

But, when you incorporate anything, you remove it from the jurisdiction of the land and from the Law of the Land. 

Thus, when our Counties and States incorporated as franchises of the Federal "United States, Inc."---either out of stupidity or treasonous intent,  they became franchises in the same sense as we have franchises of Dairy Queen.  They no longer function as our organic counties or states.  They function as private corporate entities no different than Burger King or Walmart.  They have no authority as government, and are merely "governmental services corporations".  All the offices that were public offices associated with them immediately also devolve to merely private status.  Thus the "Sheriff" working for such a "Federal County" or "Federal State"  is no longer a Public Official. 

He is a private security officer working for a private corporation, no different than a mall cop working for Walmart. The fact that he may or may not be working on a contract requiring him to provide "law enforcement services" in a particular county in no way imbues him or his office with any governmental authority or immunity.   His job is to ride herd on corporations in general and employees of federal corporations especially.  These corporations set up as franchises of the parent federal corporation are all required to abide by the in-house rules of the "United States, Inc." or whatever federal corporation is acting as Queen Bee at the time.  Theirs is a government "of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation".

 His job does not involved enforcement of the Organic or Public Laws.  His job is merely "code, statute, and regulation enforcement" that is meant to apply solely to corporations and corporate entities--- trusts, transmitting utilities, and so on.  He does not have a Public Bond, does not have an Oath of Public Office, He's in the same status as a Mall Cop and has no lawful right to deputize anyone or commandeer anything. 

He is in private rather than public capacity and should not continue to call himself a "Sheriff" because there are no Sheriffs operating within the international jurisdiction of the sea and continuing to call himself a "Sheriff" sets up a condition of constructive fraud for which he can be held accountable. 

The same applies to the FBI, FEMA, DHS, BATF, IRS, and the host of other quasi-law enforcement "agencies" out there.  They continue to act as if they had something to do with the lawful government of the United States and as if they had some authority over the people of the United States, when in fact they do not and never have had. The rule is that if you can't do something acting in your private capacity, you can't do it, period, not at all.  If you can't bust down your neighbor's door and face-slam his teenage daughter and ransack their house looking for imaginary "contraband" as Joe Average, you can't do it as a Mall Cop, either.  

The only people who have that kind of authority are "Peacekeeping Officers" working for the unincorporated government of the land, and they are required to abide by the Organic Laws and Public Laws and to operate under Common Law when they do it.  

In 1976 the rats in "Congress" operating as the Board of Directors of the "United States, Inc."---- a doing business name of the International Monetary Fund--- declared with no lawful authority at all, that all our state offices and state laws were "vacated" and released to the trusteeship of the United Nations.  See the International Organizations Immunity Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.  Of course, nobody bothered to tell us. 

This had the affect of further removing all Federal County and Federal State and Federal Agency personnel from any valid Public Office.  Even though these "agencies" have continued to use the names of our public government offices and units, such as the "Bureau of Land Management" and  "U.S. Small Business Administration" and "Sheriff of Macon County"---- these are merely trademarked names, like brand names under new management, and have no meaning in terms of their actual authority or function. 

The FBI Agents out in Oregon are acting under Color of Law and pretending to be under the administration of our lawful government, when in reality they are just hired commercial mercenaries acting  at the behest of unknown private interests--- mostly banks--- and, as a result, they are engaged in armed racketeering on American Soil, against the American people, who are in fact paying their salaries via a criminally mismanaged "governmental services contract".  

So it is really very simple for anyone to determine exactly who these people are and what their status is.  Are they working for an incorporated entity or not?  If yes, they are working in a private capacity and have no lawful public function at all.  

Virtually all the Sheriffs in this country have been converted in this surreptitious way from being "peacekeeping officers" to being "law enforcement officers" --- leaving nobody in charge of enforcing the Organic Laws and Public Laws of this nation, except the People themselves, even though the People have continued to loyally pay through the nose for "Sheriffs" and "Deputies" and other such "services" aplenty. 

Now, given this as a background---- all you "Sheriffs" and "Deputies" and "FBI Agents" and others involved in this travesty--- have to ask yourselves two questions: 

1. Am I working for a corporation? 

2. Am I therefore working in private or public capacity?

If you work all day enforcing "codes, statutes, and regulations" you are a Mall Cop working for some version or franchise of the current "federal corporation" as a private "law enforcement officer" operating under international law. Any presentation or pretense otherwise is constructive fraud.  You have no public office, no public bond, no capacity to exert any governmental authority on anybody. 

If you work all day long enforcing the Organic Law and Public Law you are a Peacekeeping Officer acting with all the authority of the actual government owed to the land jurisdiction of the people of the United States behind you. 

All corporations and all employees of all corporations are obligated to obey the Organic and Public Laws of this nation and if you do not, you are acting as an "Outlaw" on the land or a "Pirate" on the sea-----that is, as criminals.  

You are also perpetuating war crimes against unarmed non-combatants when you trespass upon private property and pretend to have any jurisdiction over it.  The people of this country have the absolute right to defend their lives and their property with armed force, and even more so, when the threat and trespass is being offered by their own misdirected employees who are required to provide them with Good Faith Service. 

Everyone on both sides of this circumstance needs to wake up. 

All those presently acting as "corporate Sheriffs" and "FBI Agents" and "DHS Agents" and so on need to recognize the very, very thin ice they are skating on and be very circumspect in their actions.  

At the same time, they need to be asking themselves--- hey, wait a minute!  I am not a "citizen" of District of Columbia nor an employee of the bankrupt District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, and even less am I aware of being a UN Corporation employee!  What is going on here~!  What am I doing?  There's no parachute for me.  I have been recognized as merely a private corporate Mall Cop, trespassing on private property, which is against the Public Law!  

And those militia men are right.  They are here to enforce the Organic and Public Law of this nation. 

In most cases, the "corporate Sheriffs" love this country and want to serve their communities, they are just clueless about the insane web that has been cast around them and the way that their authority and office has been altered via the mechanisms of incorporation. 

There is nothing stopping any of these men from reclaiming their own poltiical status as "one of the free sovereign and independent people of the United States" and occupying the actual vacated Public Office of Sheriff.  There is then nothing stopping them from deputizing as many men as they deem necessary to arrest the criminals responsible for misdirecting and misinforming them and causing all this harm to this country and the people they are bound to serve. 

PS---- Yes, this DOES mean that every improper "federal action" from Ruby Ridge to Waco to the Bundy Ranch has been absolutely, totally against the Organic and Public Law of the United States and those who participated in and carried out these actions under Color of Law are international criminals guilty of multiple capital crimes and/or trespass offenses.  

Janet Reno and G.W. and Bill Clinton and all the other Party Hearties responsible for these and other crimes against the American People need to be rounded up and turned over international courts of record for trial as war criminals guilty of capital "crimes of aggression" against the peaceful non-combatant people of the United States. 

When we finally unravel the story of what went on with the Twin Towers attack, there will be plenty more to add to the docket.

 

www.annavonreitz.com

 

 

 

New Windows 10 Stats Show Microsoft Closely Watching You

   NEW WINDOWS 10 STATS SHOW MICROSOFT       CLOSELY WATCHING YOU

 

 

TEHRAN (FNA)- Microsoft’s Yusuf Mehdi has published a new blog post discussing various aspects of Windows 10 adoption and how quickly the OS is being adopted. According to Mehdi, Windows 10 adoption is tracking nearly 140% faster than Windows 7 and nearly 4x faster than Windows 8. 

 

The post also makes reference to some specific application and usage information, however, and the specificity of the disclosures has made some tech publications uneasy.

 

Specifically, Mehdi states:

Over 44.5 billion minutes spent in Microsoft Edge across Windows 10 devices in just the last month.
 

Over 2.5 billion questions asked of Cortana since launch.
 

Around 30% more Bing search queries per Windows 10 device versus prior versions of Windows.
 

Over 82 billion photos viewed within the Windows 10 Photo app.
 

Gaming continues to grow on Windows 10 – in 2015, gamers spent over 4 billion hours playing PC games on Windows 10. Gamers have streamed more than 6.6 million hours of Xbox One games to Windows 10 PCs.

It’s easy to see why this bothers some people. It’s not just that Microsoft is monitoring how many people have installed its new operating system. It’s also tracking how much people use Edge (or, presumably, other browsers), how often they use Cortana, when they game, and which installed applications they run. It also knows if you stream a title from your Xbox One to your PC, though the data actually suggests this is a fairly niche feature, given the Xbox One’s install base.

Ed Bott takes a different tack

Over at ZDNet, Ed Bott has taken a different tack. He decries the privacy concerns surrounding Windows 10 as ginned up by “dedicated Microsoft haters and clueless writers who make a living with breathless clickbait.”

As Bott points out, this kind of telemetry collection is now standard for both Microsoft and Apple. Google is known to track far more than either of the other two companies; if you use an Android device, Google essentially tracks every time you fart. He argues that Microsoft’s data collection is anonymized — though the value of such anonymity is highly questionable, given the ease with which the veil of anonymity can historically be pierced — and notes that modern websites and social media also collect enormous amounts of data.

All of this is true, and yet, it largely misses the point. The problem with Windows 10 is that Microsoft transformed tracking from an opt-in behavior (Windows 7) to a mandatory feature that non-enterprise customers can’t opt out of.

I also dislike the fact that the operating system sends Start Menu search data to Microsoft even if Cortana is disabled and the Start Menu is configured for local searching only. Windows 10 doesn’t just collect more information than previous versions. It makes it more difficult to prevent that data from being collected in the first place.

The problem with yelling “Microsoft is fine because everybody else does it, too!” is that it sets no firm boundaries on what should or shouldn’t be acceptable behavior. For years, companies defended vacuuming up customer data by claiming that they anonymized it. 

In the past six months, we’ve seen several companies drop the pretense and announce that henceforth, they won’t bother anonymizing data at all. Verizon is going to sell your personal information. Vizio was selling customer data whether you actually agreed to it or not. We’ve already seen examples of how shifting trends lead to business decisions that were unthinkable breaches of privacy 15 years ago. If Verizon and Vizio get away with what they’re doing, other companies will follow suit.

Prior to these changes, there were people who preferred Microsoft’s policies on such matters precisely because the company didn’t collect the same amount of data as other Silicon Valley corporations. I don’t know how many users would pay for a version of Windows 10 that stripped out and disabled the tracking that Microsoft now uses, but I know I’d happily purchase a retail copy with such features rather than taking the free upgrade I’m eligible for.

The problem here is simple: Instead of staking a bet on conspicuously not hoovering up user information, Microsoft chose to ape the practices of other companies. Wishing the company had made a different set of decisions doesn’t make a person a “dedicated Microsoft hater.”

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941018000067

Internal War Is Now On The Horizon For America

 Tyler Durden on 01/07/2016 22:30 -0500

 

 

If internationalists were to get their way fully with the world and future historians write their analysis from a globalist perspective of the defunct American nation, they will probably say simply that our collapse was brought about by our own incompetence - that we were our own worst enemy. Yes, they would treat America as a cliché. They will of course leave out the destructive influences and engineered disasters of elitists, that would just complicate the narrative.

My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, and that they won’t have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but also that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible.

As I write this, China’s stock market has crashed 7% and was shut down by Chinese authorities who are once again initiating outright intervention to stem the tide. U.S. markets are quickly tracking lower. Oil is plummeting.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans won’t care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They don’t realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. 

The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollar’s petro-status more likely in the near term.  With the U.S. in the middle, "taking a side" will be a demand.  I believe the U.S. government will NOT take a side, and this will elicit a furious response from Saudi Arabia (a currency depeg).

The Obama Administration has just made introductory announcements on new gun control measures through executive order.  These announcements were rather light on details and heavy on crocodile tears.  Their vagueness is clearly deliberate.  Psychological evaluations, redefining who is a lawful firearms dealer, "expanding" background checks; all of these measures could be interpreted broadly to mean almost anything.  We will probably know more in the coming weeks.

And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the “tip of the spear” in the fight against corrupt government. 

In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the “plan” is immediately labeled a coward and “keyboard warrior” by their supporters.  Emotionally manipulative arguments abound because there are no tactically rational arguments to be made, which tells me that the plan was doomed before it was implemented.

As I wrote in my article “Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with,” some people (not many but some) in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they don’t care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off.

I openly supported and aided the efforts at Bundy Ranch because the ranchers were defending their home from clear federal aggression. The Feds were direct invaders in that scenario. In Oregon, protesters are being perceived as the invaders, not the defenders — and all launched in the name of the Hammond family, who asked them NOT to artificially create a standoff. The two scenarios are polar opposites, and Oregon will end in a very different fashion.

I would just like to note that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to avoid deliberately trapping themselves in static positions on land that had no strategic or symbolic importance while inviting the British to "come and get them".  Again, there are right ways and wrong ways to fight tyranny.  Simply being willing to fight is not enough.

Now, if Americans are going to create standoff situations that could result in civil war they should do it over draconian gun control measures such as the use of classified government watch lists as grounds for denial of 2nd Amendment rights, rather than using a family who did not want armed support to begin with as a means to an end.

Keep in mind that watch lists are entirely arbitrary. There is no due process involved whatsoever, meaning you or I could walk into a gun store one day only to have our 4473 form denied because some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. decided we said something he doesn’t like and belong on a naughty list.  The changing of gun dealer laws could be used to erase gun shows and private sales of firearms as well.

A standoff scenario based on these issues would be a much more practical concept than what is taking place in Oregon.  As our situation in this country becomes more precarious, there are going to be far more flashpoints than anyone will be able to keep track of. It is inevitable that a fight between corrupt elements of the U.S. government and regular people will erupt. I and other analysts have been warning people about this for years. I have been educating people on their preparedness options and tactical resources. I have been promoting community preparedness teams in my work with Oath Keepers and helping to organize such teams in my own part of the country. I even designed the first working thermal evasion suit available to civilians to give people half a chance against advanced weaponry.  

I have no illusions that a peaceful solution exists.  I know that there is no such solution at this point in the game.  But when the fighting starts, I also know that those who navigate the storm intelligently rather than allowing their emotions to get the best of them are more likely to survive and succeed.

I cannot say how quickly a crisis will develop. But, I can outline some of the many pitfalls you are going to come across as this storm rises.

False Leadership And Irrational Leadership

You are going to stumble across numerous gung ho activists and even politicians who will claim they have the one and only solution, that they are the real “tip of the spear.” First, if you feel compelled to seek out leaders on the mere basis that they have offered to lead you, then you need to do some soul searching. Become your own leader first. And then, if you meet someone with an excellent plan and a principled motive, give him the time of day, but don’t jump blindly into any situation.

If his plan seems poorly thought out, don’t follow him. If his agenda revolves around his own ego and a desire for personal glory, don’t follow him. If he focuses completely on the Obama administration and ignores the complicity of Republican leadership, don’t follow him. If all he talks about are the evils of the federal government but he ignores the puppet strings that lead to international banks and globalist organizations, don’t follow him. If he refuses to allow his initiatives to be questioned or discussed in a reasonable way, do not follow him. If he acts as if his ideas are sacrosanct and questions your “patriotism” when you do not immediately jump on the bandwagon, do not follow him.  

Remember, it is the job of this leadership to CONVINCE YOU of the legitimacy of their plan if they are seeking your support.  The burden of evidence is on them.  It is not your job to support them blindly just because you want to avoid being called a "sunshine patriot".

To summarize, if you are going to follow someone, know him well first, and make sure his planning is solid.

Hotheads And Imbeciles

I’ve found that there are two very frustrating extremes within the liberty movement: the people who embrace pacifism and who refuse to even consider the possibility of a violent conflict and self-defense, and the people who have delusions of being the next George Washington and are ready to dive headlong into any violent confrontation without thinking because they want to cement their own legacy. Neither of these groups seems to be able to treat each event as unique: some events requiring a diplomatic approach and some of them requiring the violence of action.

The pacifists are annoying, but they mostly hurt themselves in their lack of preparedness and a warrior’s mindset. The hotheads are the real problem. If you are only looking for a fight, then one will certainly find you; but any moron can trigger a standoff with the Feds. The point is to be able to make a move that matters in the long run. Hotheads cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate needs. They are like mosquitoes mindlessly hunting for blood. Strategic planning is impossible for them and they will destroy allies in the process of their pursuits.

I hate to say it, but there is a distinct possibility that our current generation of freedom advocates and freedom fighters may not live to see the future we are working toward. That better world built on liberty, individualism and voluntary community is something our children will thrive in, not us. If you are not fighting with a long term strategy in mind, then you have missed the entire point.

Factions And Tribes

Humans in crisis events tend to become more tribal in their associations in order to survive, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather live in a tribal world than under centralized corrupt government or global government any day. 

That said, if a “tribe” or faction does not respect the rights of the individual or uses unprovoked violence to achieve its goals, then it is no better than any other tyranny. Never trade safety for tyranny, regardless of the difficulties ahead.

The upside is tyrants of small tribes are easier to deal with than tyrants of large nations. They are no more bulletproof than anyone else, and they don’t have the resources to prevent reprisal if they hurt the wrong people.

Expect that families, neighborhoods, towns, churches, gangs and activist groups will rally around each other as a way to provide security. If you do not already have friends and family on board with your way of thinking, you will be isolated, making survival far more difficult if a breakdown does occur.

Governments Will Not Disappear

I can think of very few scenarios in history in which a crisis or collapse immediately facilitated the fall of the government in power. Rather, the government usually morphs into something else, something more dangerous. In fact, crisis is often the prime excuse used by corrupt officials to rationalize greater controls on the population. This in turn acts as a catalyst for more rebellion, which in turn acts as a vindication of the government’s tyranny.

Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. We must act in a way that exposes the true nature of corrupt government, rather than giving them more ammunition to shoot us down with in the public eye. Above all, if we fight we must fight TO WIN.  This means not deliberately searching for an Alamo.  Martyrs are ultimately useless in this kind of war because if we lose, no one will remember them anyway. Glory seekers and self-proclaimed prophets will only lead people to disaster.

Develop a tactical mindset because the future will require tactical minds. Maintain your principles no matter the threats ahead. Retain your humanity. But also, when the fight begins, fight with the intention of victory. Choose your ground wisely.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/internal-war-now-horizon-america 

 
 

Oregon: It's Not 'Terrorism'

Whatever's Going on in Oregon, It's Not 'Terrorism'

Terrorism is the use of violence against noncombatants for a political purpose. That's not what's happening here.

Sheldon Richman | January 7, 2016

A key to understanding the political world lies in realizing that the words terrorism and terrorist are inherently political terms. This has been clear in international affairs, but we now see this in domestic matters, specifically the case involving ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond and the takeover of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service building in Harney County, Oregon.

The Hammonds have been imprisoned under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, an ostentatiously get-tough bill —passed after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building—favored by congressional Republicans and signed by triangulating Democratic President Bill Clinton, who was seeking reelection that year and whose wife, the hawkish Hillary Clinton, is seeking the presidency today. Among other things, the Act limits habeas corpus relief in federal courts for those claiming to have been unlawfully imprisoned.

The words terrorism and terrorist are also used to describe the people now occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in sympathy with the Hammonds. CNN reports that "progressive" opponents of the occupiers refer to them as "YallQaeda" and "vanilla ISIS." Some urge government violence against them.

Is this description fair? One can answer this question regardless of what one thinks of the Hammonds and the occupiers. If terrorism has any reasonable referent, it is the use of violence against noncombatants for a political purpose. The point is to terrorize by killing or injuring noncombatants, or destroying their property, in an effort to effect change.

Nowhere do we see such violence in either the Hammonds' case or the occupation of the government building. The actions that brought criminal charges against the Hammonds consisted in setting two fires on their own land in 2001 and 2006, the first to destroy invasive vegetation, the second ostensibly to protect against a wildfire on adjacent land controlled by the central government. 

On both occasions the fires unintentionally spread to the government-controlled land. The Hammonds put out the first fire; the second fire reportedly 'endangered' government firefighters, whom the Hammonds knew were in the vicinity.

Even if we grant the worst allegations—that the Hammonds wrongfully declined to inform the government that it would be setting the fires and that one fire was allegedly set to cover up poaching—the actions look nothing like terrorism. No one was intentionally threatened, and no one was injured or killed. So why were the cases prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years?

Even if we make the dubious concession that the Act was a good-faith attempt to fight bona fide terrorism, what does it have to do with the Hammonds?

As for the occupiers of the government building, who now call themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, again, where's the terrorism? Yes, some occupiers are armed. But the building was unoccupied when they entered it, and no one was threatened, much less harmed or killed. It's reported that roads around the building are open. The news media come and go at will.

In neither case was anyone terrorized. To be sure, the occupiers have a political objective, to pressure the central government into giving up control of its massive land holdings. 

Terrorism, however, requires a particular kind of violence along with a political motive. Critics describe the occupiers as 'white supremacists'. I don't know if they are, although John Ritzheimer, a spokesman for the occupiers, is an anti-Muslim activist. But regardless, their conduct in Burns, Oregon, does not constitute terrorism, and no constructive purpose is served by promiscuously throwing that inflammatory word around.

I'll leave for another time the controversy surrounding the government's landholdings except to say that one need not regard all governments as illegitimate (as I do) to see something wrong in the U.S. government's control of so much land, especially in the West, holdings acquired through forcible preemption. 

While white ranchers and anti-U.S. government activists claim that their rights and the state of Oregon's "rights" have been usurped by the central government, largely overlooked is the solid claim of the Northern Paiute.

According to the Indian Country Today Media Network, "Ironically, the 'legal' basis for [the occupiers'] starting a fight with the federal government is that sovereignty 'really' belongs to Oregon rather than the Paiutes, who have seen their federal trust land shrink from over one and a half million acres to a tiny remnant of 760 acres in Burns, Oregon, where this current armed standoff began." It adds, "President U.S. Grant established the Malheur Indian Reservation for the Northern Paiute in 1872.... White settlement nibbled at the Malheur Indian Reservation until the Bannock War in 1878, which ended with surrendered Paiutes and Bannocks on the reservation being removed, officially to the Yakama Reservation in Washington Territory." (See more on the Northern Paiute claim here.)

Citizens for Constitutional Freedom is right that the national government should vacate the land. But it's wrong about who should have it. It was stolen from the Northern Paiute, and therefore it should be returned.

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog. 

Sheldon Richman is the proprietor of the blog Free Association, chairman of the board of trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society, and a Research Fellow with the Independent Institute.

https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/07/whatevers-going-on-in-oregon-its-not-ter

Exercising the 1st Amendment

 

Great Responses to Obama’s Terrible Speech

A Couple of Great Responses to 'president' Obama’s Terrible Gun Speech

January 8, 2016 by Onan Coca

There were several great responses from the GOP in the aftermath of President Obama’s horrible gun grab speech, and we’ve collected a handful of them for your enjoyment. We’ve got a couple of presidential candidates, several conservative firebrands, and a few GOP establishment mouthpieces. It’s nice to see a unified response! Now let’s see if the GOP can bow up and really fight back.

 

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL):

"I fear he may have made things worse in the minds of many Americans. People are really scared and worried. You know, last night I ran into a couple who often travels abroad or to other parts of the country for New Year’s Eve. For the first time in over a decade, they’re not traveling anywhere this year because they’re so scared. Ran into someone else today who said they’re avoiding stadiums and malls during the holiday season because they're scared. And people are scared not just because of these attacks but because of a growing sense that we have a president that’s completely overwhelmed by them."

Congresswoman Diane Black (R-TN):

“President Obama’s contempt for the 2^nd Amendment – and the Constitutional separation of powers – is well documented but that does not entitle him to this childish temper tantrum. This is nothing more than a cheap stunt by a lawless President looking to seal a political legacy in the last months of his failing Administration. What’s more, the President’s actions lack any basis in fact, as even the Washington Post was forced to admit that not a single recent act of mass violence could be prevented by new gun laws. Congress cannot let this backdoor power grab go unchallenged. We must use every tool at our disposal, including the power of the purse and, if necessary, the pursuit of legal action, to put a check on this unconstitutional overreach.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):

"The #Obamaspeech was an attempt to turn a necessary discussion on terrorism and national security into a [sic] ineffective gun control debate.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI):

"From day one, the president has never respected the right to safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued since its founding. He knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue. Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID):

“Once again, President Obama has ignored the will of the American people and subverted our Constitution which gives Congress, not the president, the power to write our laws. When this President doesn’t get what he wants, he acts unilaterally -- as he has done repeatedly in the past on immigration, environmental regulation and Obamacare. Now, the President is putting election-year politics ahead of the Bill of Rights. I will continue to support the Second Amendment and fight the abuse of executive authority by this or any other president.”   

Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK):

Today, President Obama once again usurped the legislative power of Congress by executive overreach.  The President’s gun control executive actions will infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, but do nothing to prevent gun crime and mass shootings.  I am confident that his proposals will be challenged in court and ultimately vacated. Obama’s new executive actions on gun control would have not prevented mass shooting tragedies from Columbine to San Bernardino. The executive actions broaden guidance on who must obtain a firearms license while being deliberately vague in defining who will be considered a gun dealer.  This will give federal agents undue power and make people reluctant to engage in gun transactions for fear of being selected for politically-motivated prosecution.  The actions not only violate 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms but also 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, the President plans to prohibit certain Social Security recipients from legally owning firearms.  In response, I will co-sponsor legislation (H.R. 3126) to prohibit the Social Security Commissioner from turning over social security numbers to the Justice Department-run gun background check system.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/27736/a-couple-of-great-responses-to-president-obamas-terrible-gun-speech/

 

A 'president' condemns the founding of the nation he has become DICTATOR over

Obama Condemns the Founders and the Declaration of Independence at Town Hall Meeting

 

Jan 9 2016  Gary DeMar

 

 

During CNN’s town hall meeting with President Obama concerning his Executive Orders on guns, he said the following: 

 

“What I think Mark is alluding to is what I said earlier, this notion of a conspiracy out there, and it gets wrapped up in concerns about the Federal government. Now, there's a long history of that, that's in our DNA, you know? The United States was born suspicious of some distant authority...”

Mark is Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords who represented Arizona's 8th congressional district and who was critically injured by a gunshot wound to the head by Jared Lee Loughner. (A long suspected MKUltra victim by the U.S.A. 'gov', programmed for gun control.)

Obama was referencing the lead up to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the eventual War for Independence and the Constitution. It was that Constitution that Obama used to run for President of the United States in 2008 and 2012. Part of that DNA is the Second Amendment and the First which there are almost no restrictions on "freedom of the press."

The irony of it all.

Yes, our nation’s founders were suspicious of unbridled political power. They were suspicious of an overbearing national government. All one has to do is read some of the Declaration of Independence. Consider its opening paragraph:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

President Obama, this is America’s history, and it’s a history that created the greatest nation in the world that millions of people from around the world have given up almost everything to come here and participate in it.

Then there’s this:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

You can read the list for yourself to see how current “repeated injuries and usurpations” are for our time and place.

At this point in time, we are beyond suspicious.  We gave up suspicion a long time ago. The 'United States government' and its 'representative three branches of government' for decades have brought a wrecking ball to this nation’s financial stability and moral accountability.

Our debt is beyond compensation. The Supreme Court has redefined when life begins with Roe v. Wade (1973) and what marriage is with Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

Our nation’s healthcare system has been coopted by the national government. I have to prove I have government-defined adequate health care or I’ll be fined. I got the letter in the mail yesterday.

Now the 'president' is placing further restrictions on the Second Amendment in the “name of the children,” and the next day he vetoes a bill because it removes funding for the baby-killing business known as Planned Parenthood (sic).

http://godfatherpolitics.com/27799/obama-condemns-the-founders-and-the-declaration-of-independence-at-town-hall-meeting/

WHAT MORE has to happen before Americans 'get the picture' and rid themselves of this treacherous tyranny?

Congressman predicts 'largest data breach' in U.S. history  

 

Cyber attack would affect almost half of nation's population

 

 House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chastises U.S. Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy, March 24, 2015 (Image: ABC News screenshot)

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said during a Brookings Institute event the United States ought to take care to avoid a data breach at the Department of Education – that’s where nearly half of Americans’ records are stored.

He made the remarks while discussing the federal agency’s recently revealed security deficiencies, as showcased in an Inspector General report in November.
“Almost half of America’s records are sitting at the Department of Education,” Chaffetz said, the Hill reported. “I think ultimately that’s going to be the largest data breach that we’ve ever seen in the history of our nation.”

The IG rated the Department of Education an “F” on four different security tests for federal agencies, as implemented under the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, the Hill said. And IG watchdogs followed that written report with testimony before Congress criticizing the agency for failing to abide several warnings of vulnerability.

Chaffetz said part of the problem was the Department of Education’s data collection process relied on 184 different systems, mostly managed by contractors, the Hill reported. And of crucial importance: The agency holds 139 million Social Security numbers and oversees more than 40 million federal student loan borrowers.

Chaffetz referred to the recent hack of Office of the Personnel Management data, as previously reported by WND, and said a data attack on the Department of Education would far and away be larger than even that.

“We’ve been talking a lot about the breach at the Office of the Personnel Management, where we lost data on 22 million people,” Chaffetz said, the Hill reported. “Here, we’re talking about more than $1 trillion in student loans and data on more than 100 million Americans, and it’s not secure by any definition.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/congressman-predicts-largest-data-breach-in-u-s-history/ 

 

 

Texas Gov. Abbott ‎calls for convention

Texas Gov. Abbott ‎calls for convention on Constitution, proposes amendments

Jan. 8, 2016: Gov. Greg Abbott calls for a convention of states to amend the Constitution during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin, Texas. 

 

Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP

January 09, 2016

FoxNews.com

 
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott looked for Republican support on Friday for calling the first constitutional convention since 1787, a new priority for his administration that has blocked state laws over gay marriage, abortion restrictions and voting rights.

Abbott hopes his weight as the leader of the nation’s largest conservative state can revive momentum in an enduring, yet unattainable dream of some Republicans.

Abbott’s vision includes an outline of new state protections that would nullify federal laws and weaken the Supreme Court as well as a federal balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

One of his nine proposals would require a super majority of seven justices — out of nine — to invalidate any state law. The plan spanned nearly 70 pages, according to the Dallas Morning News.

"The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution," said Abbott, the state's former attorney general and a former Texas Supreme Court justice. "Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare."

The nine proposed amendments include:

·         Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs in one state
·         Require Congress to balance its budget.
·         Prohibit administrative agencies from creating law
·         Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law
·         Allow a two-thirds majority of the states of override a Supreme Court decision
·         Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
·         Restore balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution
·         Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds
·         Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law regulation.

Texas has been named as a defendant in major cases before the Supreme Court. 

The court will hear oral arguments over the state’s abortion crackdown in March. The restrictions would leave the state with fewer than 10 abortion providers, down from 40 in 2012.

Abbott unveiled his plan to a friendly audience of conservative policymakers in Austin but outside others called the prospect of a convention far-fetched.

"There is no remote possibility that is going to take place," said Lino Graglia, a conservative professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas at Austin. "Just to get any constitutional amendment is virtually impossible."

Abbott’s opponents were quickly dismissive about his plan. Texas Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Manny Garcia said the governor’s priorities were misguided.

“America added 292,000 new jobs in December. But under Abbott, Texas fell to sixth in job creation, remains the uninsured capitol of the nation, wages and incomes remain far too low for hardworking families, our neighborhood schools are still underfunded, and college education is slipping out of reach,” Garcia said in a statement. “Texas families deserve serious solutions, not Tea Party nonsense.”

The American Civil Liberties Union also urged Abbott to not “mess with the Constitution.”

Over the last 40 years, 27 states have endorsed the idea of an assembly at one time or another, including Texas at a time when the state was run by Democrats.   

Convention proposals were also introduced or discussed in about three dozen legislatures last year. An assembly needs approval from 34 legislatures.

Shortly after Abbott took office last year, the Texas Legislature failed to endorse a more narrowly focused convention on conservative ideals. Some Republicans blamed the defeat on fears of a "runaway" convention that would take on myriad issues. Abbott said he wants Texas lawmakers to give their support next time around in 2017.

Earlier this week, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said if elected president he will advocate for the states to call a constitutional convention to impose term limits on members of Congress. He says creating term limits must come from a grassroots movement because members of Congress will never do it themselves.

The United States has not held a constitutional convention since George Washington himself led the original proceedings in Philadelphia in 1787.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/09/texas-gov-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-proposes-constitution-amendments.html