Listen as Jesse Jackson destroys the 'Trump's a racist' narrative

Let's go to the tape...
Listen as Jesse Jackson destroys the 'Trump's a racist' narrative

According to Hillary and her surrogates, Trump is a horrible racist.  He’s a bigot, he hates pretty much everybody and, if he wasn’t running for President, he’d probably be riding around the deep south wearing a sheet.  He’s just that awful.

Of course, no one ever said any of this during the last 40 years - over the course of which Trump was a very public figure. It’s amazing that someone could be so famous, and yet no one, anywhere, ever mentioned his rampant bigotry. Like so many others, Trump’s supposed racism only came to light once he threated to derail the coronation political careers of Hillary and Bill Clinton.  Funny how that always seems to happen.


Sadly, the “Trump’s a racist” narrative has been dealt a severe blow - by none other than Jesse Jackson. (See Below)

In case you can’t hear the audio, Jackson invited Trump to speak because he understands the “challenges and opportunities to embrace under-served communities.”

Jackson seemed very impressed with Trump, saying:

  “He is deceptive in that his social style is of such, one can miss his seriousness and commitment to success, which is beyond argument. When we opened this Wall Street project, he gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there.


  Beyond that, in terms of reaching out and being inclusive, he’s done that too. He has this sense of the curious and a will to make things better. Aside from all of his style, and his pizazz, he’s a serious person who is an effective builder of people.”




Now, I know what you’re saying. “Anyone who Jesse Jackson praises is immediately suspect.”  I get that and, in general, I share the opinion. Jackson is a shyster and shakedown artist of the highest order.

However, for just a moment, roll with it.

The left is trying desperately to sell the idea that Trump hates anyone who’s less white than Casper the Friendly Ghost. Virtually every pro-Hillary sycophant now works some variation of the “R-word” into their appearances.  It’s the standard Democrat playbook and, admittedly, it’s worked for them in the past. Since they own most of the media, they have an easy time shoveling their manure.

Here, however, we have the patron saint of left-wing race-baiting blowing a massive hole in the narrative.  Jesse Jackson is the guy they trot out to tell you who IS a racist.  ...And yet, here he is, offering a clear, succinct, defense of the man they’re trying to destroy.

Leave your racist, xenophobic, fearmongering behaviours behind in the countries from which you fled

Time to put fear-mongering away

The West is in danger, but we can still prevail. We begin the struggle by standing up for our values and telling the truth about Islam. Even when we are insulted, even when we are harassed and intimidated, even when we are marked for death just for stating an opinion—we must never be silenced ~ Geert Wilders

I remember when Jonathan Kay wrote a piece in the National Post calling those of us against the niqab racists, xenophobes, fear-mongers and Islamophobes. It seems those of us against the niqab are beyond the pale and we must stop this fearmongering.

Well, I never thought the day would come when I would agree with any of Kay’s positions but I agree about ending fear-mongering. It has to end. It is time for the Muslims in Canada and all over the world to stop threatening those of us who believe in tolerance, accommodation, inclusion and diversity with threats of terrorism if we do not succumb to their demands which they veil in the clothing of tolerance.

We are being blamed for lone wolf attacks and terror in the name of intolerance for an intolerant belief system.

Remember Salmon Rushdie and the Fatwa put on him?  His book The Satanic Verses in 1988 provoked “peace-loving” death threats against him, including a fatwa calling for his assassination issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on February 14, 1989. Is this tolerance?

And then there was Theo Van Gogh, murdered in 2004 in Amsterdam. Shot twice in the chest by Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri,  “Van Gogh howled: ‘Can’t we talk about this?’ Bouyeri ignored his pleas and fired four more times. Then he pulled out a knife and slit Van Gogh’s throat with such strength that his head was almost severed from his body. He used the other knife to stab a five-page letter on to Van Gogh’s haemorrhaging corpse.”

The message was for the courageous author Ayaan Hirsi Ali to stop speaking ill of Islam. And a fatwa was put on her head-by intolerant, racist, xenophobic, fearmongering Muslims.

There were more attacks across the West. But we continued to remain willfully blind. Terror attacks against Jews in Europe and Israel were discounted. Then came the Charlie Hebdo Massacre and the attacks on a Kosher Market. A Muslim response to words against their Prophet. Then the Bataclan and Nice.  There have been ten terrorist attacks in France since January 2015. And that is just France. Is this not fearmongering of the highest order?

And yet, we in the West declare ourselves guilty of a lack of tolerance for Islam. We flagellate ourselves religiously.  It is our fault, our lack of tolerance for their belief system that is the reason that Muslims kill Westerners. We have acceptedthe fact that the root cause of terrorism is our intolerance.

Nonsense. And it is time that we wake up to the fact that we are too tolerant for our own good and the good of our children and grandchildren.

Let’s return to the niqab (burka) The niqab is not about religion or tolerance.  It is the ultimate symbol of the oppression and suppression of women in Islam. Of “honour killings.” Of female genital mutilation. It is a reminder that not all people are equal in Islam. It is a reminder of the lack of tolerance in Islam for “the other;”  the Christians, the Yazidi, gays, and Muslims for Muslims and most of all their visceral hatred of the Jewish people.  And their lack of tolerance for “the other” is racist and xenophobic; and deadly. So why are we allowing this symbol into our country?

For that matter, why are we allowing other Muslim requests like: prayer rooms in our schools and public and private institutions despite the fact that Muslims can say all their prayers in the evening if they miss some during the day;  demands for Halal food in schools is taking place in America.  Why?  Kosher food isn’t served in public schools in Canada.

In Britain, 200 Subway Food chains have removed pork from their menu and serve only halal meat.  In France Halal is spreading through the country-appeasing a minority and spreading Islam quietly; abducting western culture bit by bit.

And so the weak amongst us continue to capitulate to these intolerant demands while the elite blame the rest of us for being racist, xenophobic, fearmongering, Islamophobes which leads to more demands and accusations of racism, xenophobia, fearmongering, Islamophobia and…

There was a time when Canada was much more Christian. This country is based on the Judeo/Christian ethic. Stores were closed on Sunday- a day of rest. Slowly stores were allowed to open in the afternoon. After church.  Then, over time Canada became a 24/7 country. Canada realized that we had to become a secular country-no one religion prioritized over another. We must not allow a different religion/culture demand that we accommodate their intolerant practices in our country.

Please, come here and be blessed with the freedom we offer, but leave your racist, xenophobic, fearmongering behaviours behind in the countries from which you fled.

Diane Weber Bederman is a blogger for Times of Israel, a contributor to Convivium, a national magazine about faith in our community, and also writes about family issues and mental illness. She is a multi-faith endorsed hospital trained chaplain.  Read Diane’s new book: Back to the Ethic:Reclaiming Western Values

The Dumbed-Down New York Times

The Dumbed-Down New York Times

A New York Times columnist writes Americans are so “dumbed-down” that they don’t know that Russia “invaded” Ukraine two years ago, but that “invasion” was mostly in the minds of Times editors and other propagandists.

 In a column mocking the political ignorance of the “dumbed-down” American people and lamenting the death of “objective fact,” New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma’am mainstream media.

Egan states as flat fact, “If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it — two years after they had, in fact, invaded it.”

But it is not a “fact” that Russia “invaded” Ukraine – and it’s especially not the case if you also don’t state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched “special forces.”  Yet, the Times doesn’t describe those military operations as “invasions.”

Nor does the newspaper of record condemn the U.S. government for violating international law, although in every instance in which U.S. forces cross into another country’s sovereign territory without permission from that government or the United Nations Security Council, that is technically  an act of illegal aggression.

In other words, the Times applies a conscious double standard when reporting on the actions of the United States or one of its allies (note how Turkey’s recent invasion of Syria was just an “intervention”) as compared to how the Times deals with actions by U.S. adversaries, such as Russia.

Biased on Ukraine

The Times’ reporting on Ukraine has been particularly dishonest and hypocritical. The Times ignores the substantial evidence that the U.S. government encouraged and supported a violent coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, including a pre-coup intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should lead the new government and how to “midwife this thing.”

The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times’ coverage, you’d have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis.

While leaving out the context, the Times has repeatedly claimed that Russia “invaded” Crimea, although curiously without showing any photographs of an amphibious landing on Crimea’s coast or Russian tanks crashing across Ukraine’s border en route to Crimea or troops parachuting from the sky to seize strategic Crimean targets.

The reason such evidence of an “invasion” was lacking is that Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the port of Sevastopol. So, it was a very curious “invasion” indeed, since the Russian troops were on scene before the “invasion” and their involvement after the coup was peaceful in protecting the Crimean population from the depredations of the new regime’s neo-Nazis. The presence of a small number of Russian troops also allowed the Crimeans to vote on whether to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they did with a 96 percent majority.

In the eastern provinces, which represented Yanukovych’s political base and where many Ukrainians opposed the coup, you can fault, if you wish, the Russian decision to provide some military equipment and possibly some special forces so ethnic Russian and other anti-coup Ukrainians could defend themselves from the assaults by the neo-Nazi Azov brigade and from the tanks and artillery of the coup-controlled Ukrainian army.

But an honest newspaper and honest columnists would insist on including this context. They also would resist pejorative phrases such as “invasion” and “aggression” – unless, of course, they applied the same terminology objectively to actions by the U.S. government and its “allies.”

That sort of nuance and balance is not what you get from The New York Times and its “group thinking” writers, people like Timothy Egan. When it comes to reporting on Russia, it’s Cold War-style propaganda, day in and day out.

And this has not been a one-off problem. The unrelenting bias of the Times and, indeed, the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis represents a lack of professionalism that was also apparent in the pro-war coverage of the Iraq crisis in 2002-03 and other catastrophic U.S. foreign policy decisions.

A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly “objective” news (because it is anything but objective).

Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they’re not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it.

Robert Parry is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 and the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2015. He has been the editor of Consortiumnews since 1995

Can Americans Overthrow The Evil That Rules Them?

Those who control us are not going to give up their control without a world war.
Can Americans Overthrow The Evil That Rules Them?

 Paul Wolfowitz and the lies that he told in the high government positions that he held are responsible for a massive number of deaths and massive destruction in seven countries. Wolfowitz has announced his vote for Hillary Clinton. Does this make you feel reassured?

The real surprise would have been Wolfowitz’s announcement in favor of Donald Trump. So why was what was expected news?

Trump has said that he doesn’t see any future in the conflict Washington has initiated with Russia, and Trump questions the point of NATO’s continuing existence. These peaceful attitudes make Trump into a “national security risk” according to Wolfowitz. What Wolfowitz means is that a peace candidate is a threat to Wolfowitz’s doctrine of US world hegemony. In the crazed mind of Wolfowitz and the neoconservatives, America is not safe unless it rules the world.

Hillary is a warmonger, perhaps the ultimate and last one if she becomes president, as the combination of her hubris and incompetence is likely to result in World War 3. On July 3, 2015, Hillary declared: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. . . . we would be able to totally obliterate them.” The crazed Hillary went on from this to declare the President of Russia to be “the new Hitler.” Little doubt she thinks she can obliterate Russia also.

Hillary is the one who brought zionist neocon Victoria Nuland into the State Department to oversee the US coup in Ukraine in order to create more propaganda against Russia and force Washington’s European vassals to impose sanctions and place military bases on Russia’s borders, thus provoking a nuclear power and raising dangerous tensions.

This fits in perfectly with Wolfowitz’s intention. As Wolfowitz is Hillary’s likely Secretary of Defense, the two together mean World War 3.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Wolfowitz, then a high Pentagon official, penned the Wolfowitz doctrine. The doctrine states that the principal goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of other countries that could serve as constraints on US unilateralism. This means Russia and China,  The combination of Hillary with Wolfowitz should scare everyone in the entire world. The prospect of nuclear weapons being in such crazed hands as those of Hillary and Wolfowitz is the most alarming though imaginable.

The question is whether Hillary can be elected in the face of her violations of national security rules, for which she received a pass from corrupt Obama, and her heavily documented self-dealings that have produced a Clinton private fortune of $120 million and $1,600 million in their foundation. It is completely clear that the Clintons use public office for their private aggrandizement. Is this what Americans want? Two people who become even more rich as the world is led into nuclear war?

But with electronic voting machines, the question will not be decided by what Amerians want, but by how the electronic machines are programmed to report the vote. The US has already had elections in which the exit polls, always a reliable indicator of the winner prior to the appearance of electronic voting machines, indicated a different winner than the electronic voting machines produced. The secrecy of how the voting machines are programmed is protected by “proprietary software.” The machines have no paper trails, precluding vote recounts.

As both political establishments are fiercely opposed to Trump, how do you think the machines will be programmed? Indeed, the media is so opposed to Trump, the question is whether there will be exit polls and if there are, will they be misreported?

Republican operatives, not Republican voters, are all in a huff over their allegations that Trump is costing the Republicans votes. How can this be when Republican voters chose Trump over other candidates? Aren’t the Republican operatives saying that they, instead of the voters, should choose the Republican candidate?

If so, they are just like the Democrats. Some years ago the Democrat establishment created “super delegates” who are not chosen by voters. Enough “super delegates” were created in order to give the Party establishment the ability to over-ride the voters choice of presidential candidate. That it was the Democrats—allegedly the party of the people—who first took the choice away from the people is astonishing. Much information indicates that Bernie Sanders actually won the Democratic presidential nomination but was denied it by vote fraud and “super delegates.”

This is politics in America—totally corrupt. Chris Hedges might be right: nothing can change without revolution.

The demonization of Trump by the presstitutes is proof that Trump, despite his wealth, is regarded by the Oligarchs who comprise the One Percent as a threat to their agendas. The Oligarchs, not Trump, own or control the media. So the presstitute demonization of Trump is complete proof that he is the candidate to elect. The oligarchs who oppress us hate Trump, so the oppressed American people should support Trump.

The presstitute demonization of Trump did not work in the Republican primaries. Is it working in the presidential election? We don’t know, because the polls are reported by the presstitutes, not by Trump.

If the demonization does not work, and the election has to be stolen from Trump by the electronic machines, the consequence will be to radicalize Americans, something long overdue. Perhaps the expectation of this development is the reason all federal agencies, even the post office and Social Security, have acquired arms and ammunition, and Cheney’s firm Halliburton was paid $385,000,000 to build detention centers in the US.

Those who control us are not going to give up their control without a world war. In the United States evil has seized power from the people, and evil will not give it back.



Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments.


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber
LAWFUL REBELLION STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT "There is no way to peace, peace is the way."

BEING QUESTIONED: COPS ARE TRAINED LIARS
https://www.facebook.com/notes/joseph-f-barber/being-questioned-cops-are-trained-liars/10150147035004984

The Blueprint for an American Patriot Insurgency
http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/2014/04/to-arms-blueprint-for-american-patriot.html

Stay focused, determined and resolute until you get out to vote Donald Trump

Losing the Internet one month before election

We should take seriously all the bombs Barack Hussein Obama plans to toss in our path on his way out of the door. Most know that his coming departure is only a temporary one, given that Hillary Clinton is poised to be Obama’s third term in office.

Next big bombshell coming down the pike at America:  At midnight September 30, Obama will cut off the access of millions to the Internet by abdicating Internet stewardship over to the control of the United Nations.

In other words, Obama will turn the Internet over to the only world body that is more corrupt than Obama and the Clinton Foundation, and the one with octopus arms already choking the life out of Western society.

Lamenting that Obama had promised the UN would “never” take control of the Internet is wasting time now that he’s shutting the door on the average person having access to the World Wide Net.

‘You can keep your Internet’ is as honest in intention as ‘You can keep your doctor’.

While many have been waiting for Obama to impose martial law in order to cancel Election 2016, he’s effectively shutting out the Peanut Gallery instead.

Adding to our problems will there be a complete Internet blackout one month before elections?

...”U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.” (WSJAug. 28, 2016)

“On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

“It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

“Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system. 

“Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

The devil’s always in the details in government-sponsored schemes.

And the turning over of the Internet to UN control is no different:

“Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, called it “simply stunning” that the “politically blinded Obama administration missed the obvious point that Icann loses its antitrust shield should the government relinquish control.” (WSJ)

“The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

“As the administration spent the past two years preparing to give up the contract with Icann, it also stopped actively overseeing the group. That allowed Icann to abuse its monopoly over internet domains, which earns it hundreds of millions of dollars a year. 

“Earlier this month, an independent review within Icann called the organization “simply not credible” in how it handled the application for the .inc, .llc and .llp domains. The independent review found Icann staffers were “intimately involved” in evaluating their own work. A company called Dot Registry had worked with officials of U.S. states to create a system ensuring anyone using these Web addresses was a legitimate registered company. Icann rejected Dot Registry’s application as a community, which would have resulted in lowered fees to Icann. 

“Delaware’s secretary of state objected: “Legitimate policy concerns have been systematically brushed to the curb by Icann staffers well-skilled at manufacturing bureaucratic processes to disguise pre-determined decisions.” Dot Registry’s lawyer, Arif Ali of the Dechert firm, told me last week his experience made clear “Icann is not ready to govern itself.”

“Icann also refuses to award the .gay domain to community groups representing gay people around the world. Icann’s ombudsman recently urged his group to “put an end to this long and difficult issue” by granting the domain. Icann prefers to earn larger fees by putting the .gay domain up for auction among for-profit domain companies. 

“And Icann rejects the community application for the .cpa domain made by the American Institute of CPAs, which along with other accounting groups argues consumers should expect the .cpa address only to be used by legitimate accountants, not by the highest bidder. An AICPA spokesman told me he has a pile of paperwork three feet high on the five-year quest for the .cpa domain. The professional group objected in a recent appeal: “The process seems skewed toward a financial outcome that benefits Icann itself.”

“The only thing worse than a monopoly overseen by the U.S. government is a monopoly overseen by no one—or by a Web-censoring U.N. Congress still has time to extend its ban on the Obama administration giving up protection of the internet. Icann has given it every reason to do so.”

 Let’s consider the prospect of an Internet blackout some five weeks before election:

Make like the proverbial busy beaver during the month of September by backing up and recording all contacts and information that you get through the Internet.

Ignore all ‘news’ sent out by the Hillary Clinton campaign, including stories about Huma hubby Anthony Weiner returning to the Internet five years later in yet another sexting scandal.

The jury was in on Anthony Weiner’s genitals gone viral last time out.

Anthony Weiner’s junk is Hillary Clinton’s latest distraction; a wind-up novelty ‘toy’ to be taken off the shelf and sent viral over the Internet every time Clinton needs a timely distraction.

Keep this in mind all during the month of October as the news that never changes and the news that matters most: “The Butcher of Benghazi is headed back to the White House.”

Remember that Word of Mouth is still the world’s best form of disseminating information.

Think of all the smears against Donald Trump you will miss during October’s Internet blackout.

Stay focused, determined and resolute until you get out to vote Donald Trump.

Trump may be the only one who can give the masses back their access to the Internet.

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

I am A Renegade boy from Alabama who butchers wolfs

I am A Renegade boy from Alabama who butchers wolfs 

It has been said that I am and animal without any compassion and that I have stated There will be no mercy For cowards and traitors!
There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.

It seems to me that we are at a tipping point in our nation.

“To transform the world, we must begin with ourselves; and what is important in beginning with ourselves is the intention. The intention must be to understand ourselves and not to leave it to others to transform themselves or to bring about a modified change through revolution, either of the left or of the right. It is important to understand that this is our responsibility, yours and mine...”

It used to be that if you obeyed the law, you had absolutely nothing to fear. You lived in peace. You were free to work on your own little patch of the American Dream. You did not have some nosy supervisor looking over your shoulder, telling you where and when you could do something with what was yours. You, the free and responsible citizen, got to choose and the story was yours to write.When historians conduct their autopsy on Lady Justice, that will be the time of death. That is the precise moment when Justice drew her last labored breath, cursed our ridiculous country and our hopelessly corrupt government, and collapsed. Sure, she’d been in bad shape for a while, but there was no surviving the final blow. When it is explicitly announced and made public that the wealthiest and most elite and most liberal are indeed above the law, the charade of “law” cannot continue. There is no law. We are living under the rule of men, not of law. We are subject to the whims of petty tyrants and bureaucrats. They are subject to no one on Earth.

America has been on a long ugly road when it comes to law and justice, reason and logic, morality and truth.

Now, everyone is looking over their shoulder and wondering when the next shoe will fall. Not because they are involved in nefarious acts, but because the big nose of government pokes into every crevice of enterprise.

You cannot even be confident in a court that what is clearly the law will be enforced.

Once we sail into waters without regard for laws - we enter that place on the map whose gate reads “abandon all hope, ye who enters here”.

Which brings me to the most troubling development of all  “Obama’s gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law? … This president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: ‘I am going to do X – and I’m not going to wait for Congress.’ That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first. At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.”

The fabric of our constitutional framework is being shredded, bit by bit. The cost of allowing it to continue is incalculable. If we cannot trust and honor our laws, what do we have?

How can law enforcement function if laws are disregarded?

Where is the justice to be found?

The Law Is Dying Because Morality Is Dying

It is clear to me and those patriots that I stand with that this truth is global and firm in all its rights. When you give everyone a voice and give people power, the system usually ends up in a really good place. So, what we view our role as, is giving people that power.

I have and have always been and enemy of the state for the state is in its self a govenr of men and women “You see, the point is that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone.”

Am I An Enemy of the People

“The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population -- the intelligent ones or the fools?” again I tell you that the “The most dangerous enemy of the truth and freedom amongst us is the compact majority” “Oh, yes--you
can shout me down, I know! But you cannot answer me. The majority has
might on its side--unfortunately; but right it has not.”

I know it seems laborious, but we must work with one another. We must stand together. We must come back to our senses and THINK about taking the law seriously. To disregard it so flagrantly imperils us all.


Understannd citizens and patriots “There is so much falsehood both at home and at school. At home one must not speak, and at school we have to stand and tell lies to the children.”

I stand apart from the state and this so called form of governnment “I am in revolt against the age-old lie that the majority is always right.”

“What sort of truths are they that the majority usually
supports? They are truths that are of such advanced age that they are
beginning to break up. And if a truth is as old as that, it is also in
a fair way to become a lie, Ladies & gentlemen.”

we must find unity again with in the people “Oh yes, right—right. What is the use of having right on your side if you have not got might?” what does it help to be in the right if you don't have any power?” “A community is like a ship; everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm.”

Dear people I have already told you that what I want to speak about
is the great discovery I have made lately--the discovery that all the
sources of our moral life are poisoned and that the hole fabric of our
civic community is founded on the pestiferous soil of falsehood.”

So I ask you
Am I An Enemy of the People  as We are living in a demented world

Everywhere there are doubts as to the solidity of our social structure, vague fears of the imminent future, a feeling that our civilization is on the way to ruin. They are not merely the shapeless anxieties which beset us in the small hours of the night when the flame of life burns low. They are considered expectations founded on observation and judgment of an overwhelming multitude of facts. How to avoid the recognition that almost all things which once seemed sacred and immutable have now become unsettled, truth and humanity, justice and reason? We see forms of government no longer capable of functioning, production systems on the verge of collapse, social forces gone wild with power. The roaring engine of this tremendous time seems to be heading for a breakdown. But immediately the antithesis forces itself on our minds. Never has there been a time when men were so clearly conscious of their commanding duty to co-operate in the task of preserving and improving the world's well being and human MANY HAVE SAID TO ME WHY DO YOU ALWAYS SAY STAND FREE AND YOUR GROUND FEED ALL YOU CAN IS IT YOUR TRYING TO INDUCE SOME KIND OF REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS IN PEOPLES HEAD ,to THAT MY ANSWER IS YES not in the way you may think my friends if I can say or do something that helps all people or even just one think for themselves and to find that joy missing in their lives then I have done what I have been asked to do by our lord some will call me insane by saying some god or faith leads me to say such things but for me I have much to pay for from this life I have been given and at times abused I have been cruel and inhuman to my fellow human beings and for that I am sorry.


In my life I have had to learn and have come to see that Free Minds, Free People.“I often warn people: "Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you, 'There is no "I" in team.' What you should tell them is, 'Maybe not. But there is an "I" in independence, individuality and integrity.” these for me are principles I have come to live by and my faith in god is my power,there will be those that call me a lair and that I speak out in ways that is bullshit but I have a conscience and it is said we will be judged by that if that is so then the cruel and horrible things I have done in this life are going to be my pain through out the rest of the time I have left just know that everything I have done in war or in the service of our country I did in good cause,People must come to understand this truth and not all my countrymen or women will see this through my eyes but with eyes of conformity, If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep.

If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath—a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.

Americans who lack the vision and fortitude, and fail to understand that you're either with us or against us. That includes fellow US troops who lack the skill, or who dare to question the wars that have not been fought for the freedom of ourselves or others but for corperate interest Iraqis,Afghanistan, by contrast, are not sheep:they're either wolves themselves, or nameless collateral damage. Mostly wolves, though. “I am a strong Christian. Not a perfect one—not close. But I strongly believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible. When I die, God is going to hold me accountable for everything I've done on earth. He may hold me back until last and run everybody else through the line, because it will take so long to go over all my sins.” Honestly, I don’t know what will really happen on Judgment Day. But what I lean toward is that you know all of your sins, and God knows them all, and shame comes over you at the reality that He knows. I believe the fact that I’ve accepted Jesus as my savior will be my salvation. But in that backroom or whatever it is when God confronts me with my sins, I do not believe any of the kills I had during the war will be among them. Everyone I shot was evil. I had good cause on every shot. They all deserved to die.” “anyone who has a problem with what guys do over there is incapable of empathy. People want America to have a certain image when we fight. Yet I would guess if someone were shooting at them and they had to hold their family members while they bled out against an enemy who hid behind their children, played dead only to throw a grenade as they got closer, and who had no qualms about sending their toddler to die from a grenade from which they personally pulled the pin—they would be less concerned with playing nicely.”

“God will not look you over for medals, degrees or diplomas but for scars.”


I will not conform or be Governed

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

I ask what must a SOLDIER do to save his world when the very laws he has sworn to protect force him to do nothing?

It is not a question of what a AMERICA citizen should do, nor a husband, nor a BROTHER OR SISTER. Instead, ask yourself, my FRIEND, what should a free man do?
Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.

So in my answer to those who have asked the question to why I say stand free and your ground feed another my time will soon be over like those before me and those yet to come and I have asked to be forgiven by our lord call him what you will for he or it goes by many names in our world just mine god has no religion. so When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left, and could say, 'I used everything you gave me'. We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us.

What they didn't tell you in school
In school you were taught that the Government has three branches, the Legislative branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch. The Legislative branch is the Congress and they make the laws. The Executive branch is the President, who runs the daily business of government. The Judicial branch is the Courts who interpret the law and determine of laws are constitutional. These are the three branches of government you were taught in the government-controlled schools. But there is a fourth branch of government, and that's the People.

Some would argue that the People are not a branch of the Government. They would argue that we have a government that is of the People, by the People, and for the People. They would argue that through voting that the Government represents the People and that the Government is the People. In theory, and in an ideal world, this would be true. And for the most part it is true. But there are time when the Government does not represent the People and that the interests of the Government are not the interests of the People. There are times when the People have to assert their will directly and overrule the Government and assert the supremacy of the will of the People over the will of the Government.

The Government Exists for the Sole Purpose of Serving the People, not Ruling the People

LAWFUL REBELLION STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis


A man is either free or he is not. There cannot be any apprenticeship for freedom

“We cannot have peace if we are only concerned with peace. War is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a certain way of life. If we want to attack war, we have to attack that way of life.” “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?” “No Big Power in all history ever thought of itself as an aggressor. That is still true today.” There is no way to peace; peace is the way.
When the typical reformer or revolutionist proclaims the new order, he goes on to urge men to organize, agitate, get out the vote, fight. Jesus also proclaimed The Kingdom of God [i.e., the revolution] is at hand; but immediately added in true prophetic fashion, Repent. That is to say, if we are to have a new world, we must have new men; if you want a revolution, you must be revolutionized. A world of peace will not be achieved by men who in their own souls are torn with strife and eagerness to assert themselves. In the degree that the anti-war or pacifist movement is composed of individuals who have not themselves, to use Aldous Huxley's phrase, achieved detachment, who have not undergone an inner revolution, it too will experience the same failure to achieve self-discipline, integrity, true fellowship among its own members which has afflicted other movements for social change.

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” and many do but at a price of being placed on a watch list or to be detained hounded and arrested held and with out due process they are the heroes those whom have chosen to speak out at any cost from veterans to soldiers to the citizen STAND AND BE COUNTED

“When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left, and could say, 'I used everything you gave me.”

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber

Firearms Not Allowed

What happens when one law says that you can and the other law says that you can’t? Well, let’s enter the world of Perplexity and see what we can find.

To begin, we have to look at Count II of the Superseding Indictment. In the Indictment, it reads like this:

(Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities)
(18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)

On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016, in the District of Oregon, defendants [lists names of Defendants], and aided and abetted by each other and by others known and unknown to the grand jury, did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and counseled, commanded, induced and procured the commission thereof, with the intent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372, Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 930(b) and 2.

So, let’s put that into English, in simple terms, “On or about January 2, 2016, and continuing through February 12, 2016… [The Defendants] did knowingly possess or cause to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon in a federal facility located at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… with theintent that the firearm or dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, to wit: 18 U.S.C. § 372.

The first cited statute, 18 US Code §930(b) reads:

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Did those who occupied the Refuge “intend” to shoot anybody; use firearms to force people to leave their duties (18 US Code §372); or, have any other intent than to protect themselves? They had no intention of robbing the place, they had no intention of damaging the facility (instead, they improved it), and, there was no one present for them to impede. This was discussed in a previous article, “Burns Chronicles No 14 - Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?”. From all appearances, and absent any evidence to the contrary, their purpose in having firearms was solely one of self-defense (But more on that, later.).  Civil Disobedience, and even Civil Defiance (See Resistance Has Begun), might put one at risk, but then that person has every right to defend himself against an overzealous attack by an overarching government. Absent a lawful warrant: not even the government is justified in shooting someone except in self-defense.

After all, we have about 41 days in which the government claims that something was done, though we are not sure what was done. But, before we get into what was, or was not, done, let’s look at the location, “in a federal facility”.

Then, let’s look at what 18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2 says. Now, understand that US Code is structured in an outline format, such as:

 (a, b, c)    (1, 2, 3)    (A, B, C)  (i, ii, iii)

There has to be a lower case letter before any subsequent subparagraph. As written, the “(2)” would be subordinate to the “(a)”. However, “930 (a)” has no subordinate. It is followed by “(b)”. Now, I don’t want to say that the US Attorneys are stupid, so I won’t. But, how can someone know what they are charged with when the citation doesn’t make sense?

Now, (b), (c), (f), and (h), have no subordinates (See bottom of the article), but (d) does, in fact, it has a (2), but those are exclusions (does not apply to-).  Then, (e) is rather circular, but (e)(2) is exceptions to (e)(1).

However, (g) has a (2), which may be what just might have been intended, if the US Attorneys knew what they were doing. It says, “(g) As used in this section… The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.” Gee, did they mean “(g)”, and just forgot to say it?

Perhaps they wanted to, but did so rather poorly, to assure that the “or other dangerous weapon” was properly defined.

So, now that we have had to assume (You know what that is) what the (2) might have meant, we can go on to the primary element of the charge, which reads:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

Well, wait just a minute. It says that “whoever knowingly possess… in a federal facility”, but exempts, “as provided in subsection (d)”. So, let’s look at the pertinent portion of subsection (d):

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Oh, I see. If I take a firearm or other dangerous weapon into a federal facility, so long as it is “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes”, then it is okay.

So, now that we think that we understand the law, after playing legal hopscotch, we can begin to look at what might be lawful, and what might not be lawful. To do so, we have to understand that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) are probably more qualified to make that determination than some FBI geek in Portland. In fact, under the authority of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, MNWR published a brochure that is made available at the Refuge and other locations in the area. Now, here is what it says about firearms (not to mention “other dangerous weapons”, which it does not):

I can’t say much for the grammar, but we are concerned with intent. It says nothing about any federal regulations; it simply refers to “State regulations”. So, let’s look at what “State regulations” have to say about firearms.

To understand the Oregon statutes, we need to know the foundation. And, what better place to start than with the Preamble to that Constitution:

PREAMBLE

We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution.—

I do like that wording. “Liberty perpetuated” has a very nice ring to it. Now, onto the Bill of Rights, specifically, the right to bear arms:

Article I - Bill of Rights

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

It says that the people “have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State”. No problem, as with the Second Amendment, in a question of a distinction between militia and people. The right to self-defense and defense of the State is unquestionable.

So, now we go to the Statutes, particularly Chapter 166, but with the understanding that nothing need be granted, since the Constitution does that. Instead, we find only limitations. Though the Statutes address Concealed Carry, there is no reason to venture into that realm, as there is no mention of concealed, only possession, in the Indictment.

Chapter 166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

    (2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void

Simplifying (2), we see clearly that “no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, restrict or prohibit the possession of firearms… Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void.” This is consistent with Section 27 of the Oregon Bill of Rights. Now, the statute does grant some specific authorities, such as in,

    166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit thepossession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.

Note that what is allowed to be regulated is a loaded firearm, though Harney County has no such ordinance.

    166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both.

This, then, would be what amounts to no more than brandishing. You may not, without penalty, point a firearm at someone, “except in self-defense”. Now, that is the very reason that those who occupied the Refuge and set up means of assuring that they could, if necessary, respond, but only in self-defense.

    166.220 Unlawful use of weapon.

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:
a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015; or
(b) Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge.

    (2) This section does not apply to:

    (a) Police officers or military personnel in the lawful performance of their official duties;

    (b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219;

Here, we see exception for “Persons lawfully defending life or property”. Once again, we see lawful authority to possess the weapons, as was the intention of the people that occupied, peacefully, the Refuge.

So, let’s recap what we have learned.

The federal government, in 18 US Code §930, says that firearms were in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and were intended to be used in a crime, though no crime was committed, and the government is relying on their belief of the intentions of those who intended only to defend their lives. All of the acceptable under Oregon Revised Statutes, which the government deferred to in their brochure. Now, if the government didn’t mean what they said in the brochure, then it is nothing more than a trap in which to ensnare people, if the government really wants to ensnare someone. But, if that is the case, then the dishonesty of the government is far more egregious than the actions of people that occupied the Refuge (I would suggest “Three Felonies a Day”, by Harvey Silverglate).

I know that the federal government believes that federal law trumps state law. This doesn’t account for the fact that often state law is contrary to federal law (See Camp Lone Star - Massey & The Clash of Laws), but states continue to pass such laws, as it is not contrary to the Constitution. So, if the federal government specifically acquiesces to state law, can they come back, later, and decide that it was okay for them to lie to people?

To me, having covered the misdeeds of government for over two decades, I am not surprised that they have done so. It is wrong for them to assert an undue and unconstitutional authority over both the people and the states. And, as more and more people realize this, the more likely we will see a positive change.

Gary Hunt was a Professional Land Surveyor. Having been the County Surveyor for Orange County, Florida from 1974 to 1978, he began private practice in 1978 and continued as such until 1993, when events in Waco, Texas caused him to leave his business in pursuit of restoring the Constitution.

In 1989, he began researching, investigating and studying history, law and events where the government was “pointing its guns in the wrong direction”. He began publishing a patriot newspaper, “Outpost of Freedom”, in February 1993.

Since that time, he has investigated numerous occurrences, including, Waco, the Murder of Michael Hill, Ohio Militia Chaplain, Oklahoma City Bombing, and other events. He has attended the sites to investigate the events, and has reported on his investigations.

He has continued to report on his findings on the Internet, as well as write articles about other current events; about the history of the Revolutionary era; and the founding documents.

His Internet home page is outpost-of-freedom.com