Do to others as you would have them do to you. JesusChristParty.com podcast with us 1 (713) 574-9075 use code 4900891#
UK moves to restrict freedom of movement; is America next? David Knight | Infowars.com – July 29, 2017 https://www.infowars.com/britain-surrenders-to-nwo-agenda/ First it was UN Agenda 21, the UN’s agenda for the 21st century, to concentrate population to a few urban centers and limit movement. Then we got UN Agenda 2030, setting a date of 2030 for […]
via Britain Surrenders To NWO Agenda – is America next? — Exposing Modern Mugwumps
Debbie Gibson Evidently freedom of speech.. press and LIFE is not allowed in Oregon! Queen Anna Brown says so!
Article 4 explaining the order: http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1965, will be copied at the bottom of this post
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact WRITE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY WITH THIS WEBSITE
It’s Anna Brown’s oath of office…
The government has persistently suggested that I have “aided and abetted” the defendants by exposing informants that were paid by the government to spy on the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during January 2016. That is only one of the elements that needs to exist before the Court can find me in contempt of court for non-compliance with the Order to remove all prohibited material from my website and any other website.
The other elements include whether I am subject to the Court’s Protective Order, and, if so, do I fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. Currently, the Court has an outstanding Order that I appear and show cause why I should not be held in contempt of court.
Well, as explained in Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, aiding and abetting has a legal definition. That definition can be found in case law as well as legal dictionaries, such as Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, which states:
Help, assist, or facilitate the commission of a crime, promote the accomplishment thereof, help in advancing or bringing it about, or encourage, counsel, or incite as to its commission.
The case law cited by the government shysters also includes criminal activity as a necessary element. One of the reasons for the Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. United States (Pentagon Papers) was that there was no crime resulting from the disclosure of the classified documents. The Court then upheld, in rather strong terms, the right, even the responsibility, of the press to publish such information.
Key to that decision was an absence of aiding and abetting, since though the exposure of the information was in good faith and brought to light some misdeeds of government, the publication of that material was not criminal, nor did it lead to a criminal act. The person (Daniel Ellsberg) who violated his signed agreement not to disclose the information, committed the only criminal act. The New York Times aided and abetted no one. (See Freedom of the Press #9 – “Prior Restraint”.)
In the Court’s Order (ECF #1691) of January 11, 2017, Judge Brown states:
On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abetted the dissemination of materials covered by the Protective Order, and, therefore, the Court GRANTS in part the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order as follows:
Using her judicial discretion (See Freedom of the Press #7 – “Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny), she has determined that there is no party that I aided, since that party is unnamed. She has also made the dissemination of materials a criminal act, though I, similar to the New York Times, am not subject to the Protective Order.
The government has not indicated whom I may have aided and abetted, nor have they indicated just what criminal act resulted from my publication of the prohibited material. So, let’s look and see just who might have been aided by what I have disclosed.
There can be little doubt that the defendants in the Ammon Bundy, et al., Group 2 trial, currently being heard in Portland, Oregon, have benefitted as a consequence of what I have published. They have subpoenaed, to the best of my knowledge, Will Kullman, and Allen Varner, to testify. So, they have been aided, though not abetted, by my articles.
Since the exposure, in the Group 1 trial, of Mark McConnell, as an informant paid by the government, the voluntary act of Terri Linnell, and the exposure of Fabio Minoggio, may all have played a role in the verdict; there can be little doubt that identities of the informants may provide exculpatory testimony, to the benefit of the defendants.
However, in that trial, the government shysters and the Judge determined that disclosure of the informants, or even unredacted informant reports (the reports were heavily redacted and gave no indication of the identity of the informants), would not be necessary, as there was no exculpatory purpose in releasing that information. The verdict clearly disputes the assertion.
Further, in the Group 1 trial, the defense was not allowed to mention the six informants that never visited the MNWR. They were only, during the discussion prior to the testimony of Minoggio, allowed to mention that there were nine informants who had visited the MNWR.
Now, in the Group 2 trial, the government has demonstrated some integrity clearly missing in the Group 1 trial. The government has admitted that there were 15 informants, and, that some of the informants were authorized to conduct criminal activity during their paid spying/infiltration of the MNWR occupation. The law requires this disclosure if there is exculpatory information. So, the Justice Department has abided by the law, perhaps due to my exposing of the informants. Simply put, they have been aided, though not abetted, by my articles.
I must mention another group of people that have been aided by my writings. This group is the primary target of those efforts and the exposures that have come to light. As I have stated for over twenty years, I will write about the misdeeds of government. The government putting spies in our midst is, without a doubt, a misdeed of government. It is tantamount to the servant spying on the master. When that master’s intention is to hold the servant (government) accountable to the contract (Constitution), the servant is subject to the scrutiny to determine the extent of his misdeeds. So, too, is the government –as they have clearly demonstrated by being a bit more forthright in the Group 2 trial.
My intent to aid was directed at the people, my reading audience. The affect, however, did aid the defense as well as the prosecution. However, if there was any abetting, it would be more realistically described as “un-abetting”, if the government was acting criminally (along with the Judge) in hiding exculpatory evidence. Hence, they have been un-abetted in their criminal activity, by exposing in the Group 2 trial what should have been exposed in the Group 1 trial.
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2017
I got a call from FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano, earlier today, January 11, 2017. He told me that he had an Order to serve. We made the same arrangements to meet at the restaurant in Los Molinos. The restaurant only serves breakfast and lunch, so it was closed, but I figured that this wouldn’t take very long.
I arrived at about 4:15 pm, and he said that he had to serve me. He handed me the Order, I looked at it and said, “I refuse this service, it is for the District of Oregon, and I am not within that jurisdiction.” I held the paperwork out toward him, but he did not take it, so, I said, “I will keep this, but I want you to tell Judge Anna Brown that I refuse service, as I am not subject to the Oregon District’s jurisdiction.” He agreed to convey the message, and then he proceeded to read certain portions of the Order to me. When he was finished, I reminded him that I wanted Brown to receive my message, and he assured me that he would pass it on. I feel certain that he will. After all, that is his job. We shook hands, and we departed.
Though I had already received two copies of the Order from other sources, I hadn’t read it. The news traveled so rapidly that my phone was in near constant use. However, between calls, I read portions of the Order. As I did so, a smile crept across my face. Now, you may wonder why I would smile after receiving the Order, but my first thought was that Judge Brown had not had an opportunity to read my article, that had gone out just a few hours before. The Order had been docketed, and I received copies just minutes after posting my article. Judge Brown had not had the opportunity to read my response to the Memorandum that had refuted most, if not all, of what she was provided by the US Attorney in the form of the Memorandum to prepare the Order.
Quite frankly, when Brown filed the Minute Order (See Freedom of the Press Update – A Grateful Thank You), there were two possibilities. First, that she really was holding the government’s feet to the fire, seeking real legal justification for issuing an Order. The other, that she simply wanted the government to give her the paperwork she needed, in the form of a Memorandum, to provide justification to issue such an Order. I decided to act on the former. I had said many things about Anna Brown in the past, few of them complimentary, but if she had turned to the right side, she was deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Her actions, in the past, had been nigh onto dictatorial, and had no foundation in law or justice.
So, let’s look at her Order, and I will comment, as we go. It is dated January 11, 2017.
This matter comes before the Court on the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order in which the government seeks to enjoin a third party, Gary Hunt, from further dissemination of discovery materials that are protected by the Court’s Protective Order (#342) issued March 24, 2016.
Through the Affidavits (#1681, #1690) of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker, the government asserts Hunt published excerpts from protected discovery materials on his website beginning on November 15, 2016, and continuing through the present. In particular, the government contends the postings on Hunt’s website identify some of the confidential human sources (CHSs) that the government used during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This information is not only protected by the Protective Order (#342), but the Court also found in its Order (#1453) issued October 18, 2016, that the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense and, in particular, that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs. Thus, the information in Hunt’s postings should not be publicly available.
Well, that is cute. Have I not said, from the beginning, that I was not subject to the Protective Order? Now, she says that the “information is protected by the Protective Order.” That means that those subject to the Protective Order have an obligation to protect the information. She is right in line with my thinking. But, that will change a little later.
Then, she finds that “the government had provided to Defendants all information regarding CHSs that was relevant and helpful to the defense.” That information was relayed to the defense on October 18, about ten days before the jury returned the not guilty verdict. She also stated, “that the government was not obligated to disclose to Defendants the identities of the CHSs.”
So, let’s get real. The government gave out redacted copies of the 1023 forms. The defense could not call any witnesses who had been informants. Obviously the information the government, and Judge Anna Brown, were willing to allow the defense to have was totally insufficient for them to prepare their defenses, especially with regard to possible exculpatory testimony those informants might have provided. The Judge, well let’s just go with Brown, from this point on, disregarded the fact that two of the government’s informants testified. Terri Linnell came forward voluntarily, against the wishes of the Prosecution, and testified for the defense. A diligent effort by the defense teams in tracking down Fabio Monoggio, another informant, whose testimony also was beneficial to the defense. Both gave testimony, which may well have turned the tide on the jury’s verdict. This testimony would have been denied the defense under the enforcement of the Protective Order and the subsequent statement on October 18.
This is absolutely contrary to the right protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which says that the accused has the right, “to be confronted by the witnesses against him“. Now, some have claimed that informants, unless they testify, are not witness. However, that is not what the Protective Order (March 24, 2016) says. That Protective Order clearly states what the prohibitions are, to wit:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Protective Order applies only to:
(1) Statements by witnesses and defendants to government officials;
(2) Sealed documents; and
(3) Evidence received from searches of electronic media.
Now, there are only two human objects in the Protective Order. It applies to “witnesses” and “defendants”. Well, I am not exposing defendants, so if the informants are not witnesses, then I am not in violation of the Protective Order. Ergo, the informants are witnesses, so saith Brown.
Therefore, Brown has denied the constitutionally protected right of the defendants to confront those witnesses.
The record reflects FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano met Hunt, who resides in Los Molinos, California, on January 5, 2017, and personally served him with a cease-and-desist letter from the government that demanded Hunt remove all discovery materials from his website. Special Agent Catalano also provided Hunt with a copy of this Court’s Protective Order (#342). According to SA Walker, Hunt stated he did not intend to comply with the cease- and-desist letter and did not believe that the Protective Order applied to him. It appears Hunt has not removed the protected discovery materials from his website.
.
Now, SA Ronnie Walker is quite a character. In the Affidavit upon which the government based the current Order, he uses a Facebook post to allege facts. Well, the fact that something was said is not really a fact, unless what was said was really a statement of a fact (See Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”.) Now, SA Walker does the same. I have never spoken with SA Walker, so, how could SA Walker know that I “stated that [I] did not intend to comply with the cease and desist letter…” At best, that is hearsay, and he probably heard it from Matthew Catalano. However, unlike the Facebook comment in the Affidavit, which was attributed to a source, albeit the fact was not verified, Now, he states a fact, but provides no attribution. And, Brown perpetuates that absolutely arbitrary method of creating facts out of thin air. I doubt, seriously, that the defense could ever get away with such an outrageous approach to evidence.
To the knowledge of the government, Hunt is not a member of the staff of any defense counsel representing any Defendant in this case.
The Court issued the Protective Order in order to obviate “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery.” Order (#285) issued Mar. 9, 2016, at 2. The Protective Order (#342) states defense counsel may only provide copies of the discovery in this case to:
(1) The defendants in this case;
(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and
(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.
Here, clearly stated, is Brown’s argument to deny the names of the informants to the defense, “a risk of harm and intimidation to some witnesses and other individuals referenced in discovery.”
This brings to mind a couple of things. First, the Protective Order only addresses witnesses and defendants. Now, we have “other individual” added to this list. And, I suppose, rewritten, without hesitation. What gives? What is the fact about who is protected, and who is not?
This leads us to the most significant of these very duplicitous statements that have been advanced by Brown. If a risk of harm or intimidation really does exist, why did the government expose Mark McConnell as an informant back in September? The government set the stage for exposing informants, and now they tell me that I cannot expose informants. What sort of judicial double standard is this? It reeks of hypocrisy and extinguishes any concept of equal justice, under the law.
Protective Order (#342) at 1. The Protective Order requires any person who receives a copy of the discovery to “use the discovery only to assist the defense in the investigation and preparation of this case and shall not reproduce or disseminate the discovery material to any other person or entity.” Id. (emphasis added). Defense counsel are further required to “provide a copy of this Protective Order to any person above who receives copies of discovery.” Id.
The Court notes although the literal terms of the Protective Order do not apply to third parties who obtain protected materials from a source other than defense counsel, it is well-settled that the Court may, nonetheless, prohibit a third party from violating a court order when that third party “‘actively aid[s] and abet[s]’” a violation of such an order. Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1995)(quoting Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985)). Moreover, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce its orders within the jurisdiction of the United States. Reebok Int’l, 49 F.3d at 1391.
Well, that is what I have been saying, all along. Thank you, Brown, for pointing out that the Protective Order does not apply to third parties. Since that is what is written, I have pursued my efforts, in total compliance with what was written — by you, Judge Brown, I might add. After all, we are a nation of laws, and we cannot be expected to live by house rules that can be changed at any time. If it is not written, how can one understand what he can, or cannot, do? I went into my efforts based upon what was written. Now, you sort of say that, “well, I didn’t mean what I said (wrote), now, here is what I mean, but failed to say.” It don’t work that way, Brown.
Now, as far as “it is well-settled“, let me suggest that it is only in your mind, and, further, that well-settled only came into existence in your mind when you realized that you screwed up. Your dictatorial highness still has the obligation to be honest, forthright, and to take responsibility for your actions. You are nothing more than a citizen of this country with a job that holds you to a higher standard than it holds me, as you work for the people. You may think that you have a higher privilege; however, really, you have a higher responsibility, especially to the defendants.
Let’s jump in to a little history. Back in the early 19th century, in a country, which lived under a government created by a new concept and a Constitution, it was rightfully stated that judges were the arbiters that the people could rely upon to keep the government within the government’s constitutional limits. They were considered the protectors of the people’s rights. Perhaps a bit more history and a little less arrogance might make you a decent judge. However, as explained above, I have lost hope in you.
In order to make clear in the public record that the Protective Order prohibits even third parties from disseminating protected materials and information, the Court is filing a Supplement to the Protective Order together with this Order.
Perhaps this should have been made clear in the first Protective Order. I believe that the legal term is estoppel. So, I had reliance from the wording of the Protective Order, and a pursued a course of action. Subsequently, as my efforts yielded results, I began, in October, writing articles that contained the information developed from documents I had received. There is no doubt that the US Attorney’s Office and most likely, nearly every judge and clerk in your courthouse, were aware of my articles, and I have that on good authority, should the need arise to establish the veracity of what I just said.
At the time, I received no notice from the Court or the US Attorney. That absence of action from October to January can be described three ways: 1) Silence; 2) Acquiescence; 3) Estoppel.
To more fully understand the implications and ramifications of this inactivity and subsequent activity, you have proven my point by, at this late date, after understanding my challenge to the recent activities of the Court and the US Attorney’s Office, decide that you had screwed up, and now you have now decided to file “a Supplement to the Protective Order“. Sorry, Brown, there are no “do‑overs”, you don’t even get a “participation award”. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw that possibility when they forestalled both legislative and judicial tyranny by incorporating Article I, § 9, clause 3, into the Constitution. And, if the legislative branch cannot enact ex post facto laws, then surely, a Court with limited jurisdiction has no less a prohibition.
Here is a rather interesting statement, “the Court may, nonetheless, prohibit a third party from violating a court order when that third party ‘actively aid[s] and abet[s]’.” Now, I will have to refer the reader to my previous article, Freedom of the Press #3 – “Contemptuous Postings”, where I addressed this whole matter of allegations of “aiding and abetting“. This also extends to the cases cited in Brown’s Order. As explained in the above linked article, the US Attorney simply grabbed stuff, threw it in, and hoped that nobody would pay attention to the fact that the cases cited do not lead to the conclusions that have been suggested. Apparently, even Brown and her clerks, have fallen prey to the devious deception. However, I didn’t, as I pulled all but the obscure District Court citations, and have seen that they have no relevance to the subject at hand.
On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Hunt has aided and abetted the dissemination of materials covered by the Protective Order, and, therefore, the Court GRANTS in part the government’s Motion (#1680) to Enforce Protective Order as follows:
Once again, the words flow wantonly. Aiding and abetting is a potential criminal charge, and, thusly, must be proven. Merely writing those words does not make it true, and cannot provide justification to imply that such an act occurred in order to impose punishment as a result of an activity that has not been tried, only applied. I’m going to toss out a phrase, where, there should be fair warning to the more astute players on the government’s side of the aisle. That phrase, simply put, is “prior restraint”.
1. The Court DIRECTS Hunt to remove all protected material and/or information derived from material covered by the Protective Order from his website(s) within 24 hours of the service of this Order;
2. The Court ENJOINS Hunt from further dissemination of material covered by the Protective Order or information derived therefrom to any person or entity.
3. The Court DIRECTS the government to serve Hunt personally with a copy of this Order together with a copy of the Protective Order (#342) and the Supplement (#1692) thereto as soon as possible and to file immediately in the record a certificate stating it has effectuated such personal service or otherwise ensured Hunt has personal knowledge of the contents thereof.
4. In the event that Hunt fails to comply with this Order after he is served, the government may initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. 1
Here, we are getting some rather interesting insight. Does She, or Doesn’t She? And, I am not talking about hair coloring, rather, jurisdiction. This will be discussed more, shortly.
5. In the event that the government obtains reliable evidence regarding the source from which Hunt obtained the protected materials, the Court trusts the government will seek appropriate relief from the Court without delay.
Now, this appears to be a disguised attempt to intimidate me into providing the source of the information, because they really have nothing on me. The Cease & Desist Letter had no effect; this Order has no effect, in my pursuit of bringing to the public, through the Freedom of the Press, their right to know the workings of their own government. This might be an appropriate place to quote from John Adam:
Adams to James Warren, July 17, 1774, “Papers of John Adams”
[Footnote]
1 Because the question is not presently before it, the Court does not express any opinion regarding which United States District Court would have jurisdiction to require Hunt to appear personally in such enforcement proceedings.
I have made my case before you, the public. My case has not been lost on only you, since both the defense and the prosecution await my scribblings. The former with anticipation, the latter with dread. So, there can be little doubt that this sudden concession to the jurisdictional issue is a consequence of their dread.
Now, we can move to another aspect of my writings, that being as to whether the Protective Order extends to me, or stops at those named. This is the ex post facto violation. This is where the Court has now determined, at this late date, to incorporate, and I hate to say it, anybody and everybody that has read any of my articles and/or simply posted or shared them on Facebook. What follows is the Supplement to the Order:
BROWN, Judge.
For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order (#1691)Granting in Part the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, the Court supplements the Protective Order (#342) issued March 23, 2016, as follows:
Any individual or entity that obtains materials protected by the Court’s Protective Order (#342) is prohibited from disseminating those materials or any information derived therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11th day of January, 2017.
Now is the time to refresh your memory to what John Adams said, and I will repeat at the end of this article. We must decide not to be civilly disobedient, rather we need to stand strong and be civilly defiant — to challenge the presumed authority of the Court in their efforts to quash me, but, more importantly, to defend, at whatever cost, your absolute right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the Freedom the Press, and your right to know the workings of YOUR government.
Adams to James Warren, July 17, 1774, “Papers of John Adams”
Something to be aware of. Some of their styles are very anti-Christ.
The CFR’s “North America: Time for a New Focus” report, a globalism blueprint, states ‘The Next U.S. President Must Have North American Goals?’ NOT ON TRUMP’S WATCH! The Council on Foreign Relations are pushing for a shared sovereignty for the United States. They are firm with their message that the next president in 2017 MUST HAVE THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION […]
via GAME ON – TRUMP DEPLORABLES VERSUS NWO UNSUSTAINABLES! — THE MARSHALL REPORT
I rarely watch TV, especially mainstream news. There’s a sweep of people who are unplugging; who’ve decided to stop watching TV/news due to the significant portion of violent events they hear/see. The content of the stories presented and the way that we react to them create a cycle of lower vibrational thoughts, feelings and actions. […]
Psychological and Spiritual Warfare is on-going, in and outside the home ( Targeted Enlightenment is not about about Gang-Stalking, Cause Stalking, And Targeted Individuals). TE or Targeted Enlightenment is about an individual who has been placed onto a list of people who are willfully ignorant about the New World Order its agenda and system. These individuals who are brainwashed by mainstream government propaganda are under psychological and often mental warfare tactics which is orchestrated by the U.S. military, C.I.A. and federal law enforcement within the USA, but this is a global criminal syndicate that is run by the Zionist NWO Illuminati Khazarian Mafia.
The curtain is now being pulled back to fully expose the Khazarian Mafia and its evil plan to infiltrate, tyrannize the whole world and eradicate all Abrahamic Religions and allow only their Babylonian Talmudism also known as Luciferianism, Satanism or ancient Baal worship. “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.” Morpheus from The Matrix (1999)
Targeted Enlightenment is a form of raising awareness through educating and prayers for the public with websites, books,videos,blogs and prayer groups. Targeted Enlightenment is when a person who has been singled out by a Patriot Network called “Truthers.” The targeted Enlightenment is being under 24 hour prayer and info bombardment by large groups of various Patriot Networks . New technologies have brought about the possibility of this achievement to bring together Truthers to focus on one person or group at a time in hopes of the power of prayer’s and truthful information!
“I’m inventing a new tool for activists in the truth movement a term called targeted enlightenment. A term to describe a individual who has been targeted for enlightenment by a social network of Truthers. If you have somebody that you would like to be involved with enlightenment use the hashtag #TargetedEnlightenment and also tag the persons Facebook profile and the network of Truthers that see and use the hashtag will info bomb the individual with truth and knowledge. This is a flash mob for truth.” Daniel J Leach Jr
If you want to join the resistance out team of info warriors and fight the darkness of the NWO Khazarian Mafia and its evil plan to infiltrate, tyrannize the whole world then add people to our list of people or groups that are Targeted for Enlightenment. Use the hashtag #TargetedEnlightenment and tag the groups or people that you wish to be Liberated through Prayers and info bombardment! Don’t forget to join our Facebook group and introduce yourself to the team!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/231307517284741/
Click to listen: http://tobtr.com/s/9569209
//percolate.blogtalkradio.com/offsiteplayer?hostId=154920&episodeId=9569209
Posted by Daniel Joseph Leach Jr.
For further discussion about this topic and many more join our facebook group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/AntiNewWorldOrderPartyGlobal/
So Iv waited to write about the ND Pipeline protest until I figured out why this was really happening and why so many Native Americans are being sucked into this Geopolitical big business event and it took me awhile to put it all together. I live in the heart of the Oilfield in Williston ND so I hear all about whats going on with the North Dakota Access pipeline protest and its really one of the biggest topics of conversation around town.
At first look you see Native Americans Protesting about Clean Water and I am sure many of them do believe this and have actually gone and protested with this as their motivation to put themselves and their family’s lives in harms way they spend money they dont have they travel any way they can to get to this location where the protesting is happening because of this most Honorable belief.
But this is not the true story here that is just a cover story! I want to tell the other side to the story! I want to save my Native American Brothers and sisters from being sucked into and used by Billionaires such as Warren Buffett as pawns this False Narrative this is a scam of a protest! What we are looking at here is a False Flag Operation
The Obama administration that has come under fire for aligning itself with activists fighting a North Dakota pipeline project even as the protest at the 2-month-old encampment spirals out of control. This is not about Water its about money big money! Billionaires such as Warren Buffett are using secretive foundations to finance anti-pipeline protests as the rich get even richer. They are, in reality, being bankrolled by billionaires, fat-cat foundations and foreign oil interests.
This section Copied from: http://naturalgasnow.org/
Putin-allied Russian oil billionaires laundered $23 million through the Bermuda-based Wakefield Quin law firm to the Sea Change Foundation and thence to anti-fracking and anti-Keystone groups, the Environmental Policy Alliance found.
Sandpiper opponents are also being funded and coordinated by wealthy financiers and shadowy foundations, researcher Ron Arnold discovered.
It’s true that several small groups are involved in the anti-Sandpiper protests. However, the campaign is coordinated by Honor the Earth, a Native American group that is actually a Tides Foundation “project,” with the Tides Center as its “fiscal sponsor.” They’ve contributed $700,000 and extensive in-kind aid. Out-of-state donors provide 99% of Honor’s funding.
The Indigenous Environmental Network also funds Honor the Earth. Minnesota corporate records show no incorporation entry for the Network, and 95% of its money comes from outside Minnesota. Tides gave IEN $670,000 to oppose pipelines.
Indeed, $25 billion in left-wing foundation investment portfolios support the anti-Sandpiper effort. Vastly more backing makes the $13-billion-per-year U.S. environmentalist movement a power to be reckoned with, Arnold and I document in our book, Cracking Big Green.
These tax-exempt foundations do not simply give money to pressure groups. They serve as puppeteers, telling protesters what campaigns to conduct, what tactics to use. Meanwhile, donors enjoy deductions for “charitable giving” to “education, conservation and other social change” programs.
Tides Foundation combined cash flows exceed $200 million annually, Canadian investigative journalist Cory Morningstar reported (here and here). Like Arnold, she and fellow Canadian sleuth Vivian Krause have delved deeply into troubling arrangements among Big Green, Big Government and Big Finance.
Morningstar calls the San Francisco-based Tides operation “a priceless, magical, money funneling machine of epic proportions.” It enables über-rich donors to distribute funds to specific organizations and campaigns of their choice, without disclosing their identities.
Even more interesting, among Tides’ biggest donors is Obama friend and advisor Warren Buffett. Beginning in 2004, Buffett funneled $30.5 million through his family’s NoVo Foundation to Tides. The cash ultimately went to selected pressure groups that led campaigns against Keystone, Sandpiper and other projects, Morningstar and Arnold found.
By donating the market value of greatly appreciated Berkshire Hathaway shares to NoVo, the Omaha billionaire avoided income taxes on his gains. Even more important, while public, media and political attention was riveted on Keystone, Berkshire Hathaway quietly bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Union Tank Car manufacturing company – with no notice, dissent or interference, Morningstar observed.
When Keystone XL et al. were blocked, more oil was shipped by rail – much of it via Buffett companies. In fact, oil-by-rail skyrocketed from 9,500 carloads in 2009 to 450,000 carloads in 2014. Mr. Buffett’s “investment” in anti-pipeline activism garnered billions in rail revenues.
The anti-pipeline campaigns blocked thousands of jobs and increased risks of tank car derailments, like the Lac Megantic, Quebec spill that destroyed much of the town and incinerated 47 people.
That may help explain why Mr. Buffett recently criticized President Obama’s veto of Keystone XL legislation. He now says the pipeline would be good for both Canada and the United States, and it is a mistake to jeopardize trade relationships with our northern neighbor.
But, the campaigns rage on. Mr. Buffett helped unleash a beast he cannot control. The campaigns are not grassroots, or even Astroturf. Their “green” tint is the color of unfathomable behind-the-scenes wealth.
The clandestine Buffett-Berkshire-NoVo-Putin-Tides-activist-railroad arrangement reflects “a devious strategy on the part of both benefactor and recipient,” Morningstar concludes. “At minimum, it demonstrates an almost criminal conflict of interest.” Legislative investigations are needed, especially since the Justice Department is hardly likely to look into what its key allies are doing.
However, there are also some surprising beneficiaries from the administration’s refusal to allow the pipeline to be built. The shale boom in North Dakota and other parts of the country has led to a shortage of pipeline capacity, which is part of the reason that TransCanada wants to build Keystone XL. In lieu of adequate pipeline infrastructure, oil companies have had to use alternative methods for shipping crude, including trucks, freight trains, and barges. In fact, more oil is moving by freight transit now than at any time since record-keeping began in 1981. From 2011 to 2012, U.S. rail deliveries of crude quadrupled. In North Dakota, which would have some usage of the Keystone XL, rail is used to carry 69% of production.
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states. “In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Employees of the federal government often quote the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to assert that federal law trumps state law, including the state’s police powers. However, bureaucrats usually only quote the first half of the clause. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States of America 1789 found at article VI, clause 2 makes is very specific as to what it says.
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
To fully understand exactly what this means you have to go to Webster’s Dictionary 1828 for the definition of, “notwithstanding.”
NOTWITHSTAND’ING, the participle of withstand, with not prefixed, and signifying not opposing; nevertheless. It retains in all cases its participial signification.
Gun wielding federal bureaucrats, as seen in recent federal raids such as the Bundy raid, USFWS raid on Gibson Guitar Company, and many others, are operating outside their lawful delegated authority. Unless the federal agencies are required by the sheriff to follow the law they will continue to illegally encroach upon state jurisdiction. When the local sheriff, as in the case of Clark Co. Sheriff Gillespie abdicate their duties, and turn a law enforcement operation over to the federal government, they may subject themselves to removal for malfeasance of office.
The recent breach of the peace that we witnessed in Clark Co., Nevada emphasizes the gravity of allowing federal employees to continue to assert law enforcement powers never granted to them by Congress or the Constitution. These federal employees need to be disarmed. Congress needs to open an investigation into appropriations for guns, ammunition and law enforcement equipment. Managers of the BLM, USFS and other agencies should be called to testify under oath about where in law they obtain their law enforcement authority. While the BLM asserts they were merely enforcing a lawful court order in the Bundy matter, Congress needs to investigate the numerous court orders against federal agencies which they ignore with impunity. The rule of law needs to apply equally to everyone, including federal bureaucrats.
[1] Report, Part I, p. 8 [2] Report, Part I, p. 13-14 [3] Report, Part I, p. 21. [4] Report, Part I, p. 98 [5] Report, Part I, p. 234The Liberty and Property Rights Coalition is committed to promoting and preserving Constitutional rights to liberty and property in public policy and the law.
A service of Liberty and Property Rights Coalition, 2013.” Posted on JUNE 29, 2014 Written by
This section was taken from the official http://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/FLPMA.pdf
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, is the Bureau of Land Management “organic act” that establishes the agency’s multiple-use mandate to serve present and future generations.
TITLE V RIGHTS-OF-WAY AUTHORIZATION TO GRANT RIGHTS-OF-WAY Sec. 501. [43 U.S.C. 1761] (a) The Secretary, with respect to the public lands (including public lands, as defined in section 103(e) of this Act, which are reserved from entry pursuant to section 24 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 818)) [P.L. 102-486, 1992] and, the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within the National Forest System (except in each case land designated as wilderness), are authorized to grant, issue, or renew rights-or-way over, upon, under, or through such lands for– (1) reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other facilities and systems for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of water; (2) pipelines and other systems for the transportation or distribution of liquids and gases, other than water and other than oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced therefrom, and for storage and terminal facilities in connection therewith; (3) pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems, and conveyor belts for transportation and distribution of solid materials, and facilities for the storage of such materials in connection therewith; (4) systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy, except that the applicant shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act, including part I thereof (41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S.C. 791a- 825r) [P.L. 102-486, 1992]; (5) systems for transmission or reception of radio, television, telephone, telegraph, and other electronic signals, and other means of communication; (6) roads, trails, highways, railroads, canals, tunnels, tramways, airways, livestock driveways, or other means of transportation except where such facilities are constructed and maintained in connection with commercial recreation facilities on lands in the National Forest System; or (7) such other necessary transportation or other systems or facilities which are in the public interest and which require rights-of-way over, upon, under, or through such lands. (b) (1) The Secretary concerned shall require, prior to granting, issuing, or renewing a right-ofway, that the applicant submit and disclose those plans, contracts, agreements, or other information reasonably related to the use, or intended use, of the right-of-way, including its effect on competition, which he deems necessary to a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as to whether a right-of-way shall be granted, issued, or renewed and the terms and conditions which should be included in the right-of-way. (2) If the applicant is a partnership, corporation, association, or other business entity, the Secretary concerned, prior to granting a right-to-way pursuant to this title, shall require the applicant to disclose the identity of the participants in the entity, when he deems it necessary to a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this title, as to whether a right-of-way shall be granted, issued, or renewed and the terms and conditions which should be included in the right-of-way. Such disclosures shall include, where applicable: (A) the name and address of each partner; (B) the name and address of each share-holder owning 3 per centum or more of the shares, together with the number and percentage of any class of voting shares of the entity which such shareholder is authorized to vote; and (C) the name and address of each affiliate of the entity together with, in the case of an affiliate controlled by the entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of that affiliate owned, directly or indirectly, by that entity, and, in the case of an affiliate which controls that entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting 36 ———— Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 stock of that entity owned, directly or indirectly, by the affiliate. (3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall have the authority to administer all rights-of-way granted or issued under authority of previous Acts with respect to lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, including rights-of-way granted or issued pursuant to authority given to the Secretary of the Interior by such previous Acts. [P.L. 99-545, 1986] (c) (1) Upon receipt of a written application pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection from an applicant meeting the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue a permanent easement, without a requirement for reimbursement, for a water system as described in subsection (a)(1) of this section, traversing Federal lands within the National Forest System (‘National Forest Lands’), constructed and in operation or placed into operation prior to October 21, 1976, if – (A) the traversed National Forest lands are in a State where the appropriation doctrine governs the ownership of water rights; (B) at the time of submission of the application the water system is used solely for agricultural irrigation or livestock watering purposes; (C) the use served by the water system is not located solely on Federal lands; (D) the originally constructed facilities comprising such system have been in substantially continuous operation without abandonment; (E) the applicant has a valid existing right, established under applicable State law, for water to be conveyed by the water system; (F) a recordable survey and other information concerning the location and characteristics of the system as necessary for proper management of National Forest lands is provided to the Secretary of Agriculture by the applicant for the easement; and (G) the applicant submits such application on or before December 31, 1996. (2) (A) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting any grants made by any previous Act. To the extent any such previous grant of right-of-way is a valid existing right, it shall remain in full force and effect unless an owner thereof notifies the Secretary of Agriculture that such owner elects to have a water system on such right-of-way governed by the provision of this subsection and submits a written application for issuance of an easement pursuant to this subsection, in which case upon the issuance of an easement pursuant to this subsection such previous grant shall be deemed to have been relinquished and shall terminate. (B) Easements issued under the authority of this subsection shall be fully transferable with all existing conditions and without the imposition of fees or new conditions or stipulations at the time of transfer. The holder shall notify the Secretary of Agriculture within sixty days of any address change of the holder or change in ownership of the facilities. (C) Easements issued under the authority of this subsection shall include all changes or modifications to the original facilities in existence as of October 21, 1976, the date of enactment of this Act. (D) Any future extension or enlargement of facilities after October 21, 1976, shall require the issuance of a separate authorization, not authorized under this subsection. (3) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture may terminate or suspend an easement issued pursuant to this subsection in accordance with the procedural and other provisions of section 506 [43 U.S.C. 1766] of this Act. An easement issued pursuant to this subsection shall terminate if the water system for which such easement was issued is used for any purpose other than agricultural irrigation or livestock watering use. For purposes of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, non-use of a water system for agricultural irrigation or livestock watering purposes for any continuous fiveyear period shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of abandonment of the facilities comprising such system. (B) Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to be an assertion by the United States of any right Public Law 94–579—Oct. 21, 1976, as amended through May 7, 2001 ———— 37 or claim with regard to the reservation, acquisition, or use of water. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to confer on the Secretary of Agriculture any power or authority to regulate or control in any manner the appropriation, diversion, or use of water for any purpose (nor to diminish any such power to authority of such Secretary under applicable law) or to require the conveyance or transfer to the United States of any right or claim to the appropriation, diversion, or use of water. (C) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, all rights-of-way issued pursuant to this subsection are subject to all conditions and requirements of this Act. (D) In the event a right-of-way issued pursuant to this subsection is allowed to deteriorate to the point of threatening persons or property and the holder of the right-of-way, after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, refuses to perform the repair and maintenance necessary to remove the threat to persons or property, the Secretary shall have the right to undertake such repair and maintenance on the right-of-way and to assess the holder for the costs of such repair and maintenance, regardless of whether the Secretary had required the holder to furnish a bond or other security pursuant to subsection (i) of this section. [P.L. 99-545, 1986] (d) With respect to any project or portion thereof that was licensed pursuant to, or granted an exemption from, part I of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.] which is located on lands subject to a reservation under section 24 of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 818] and which did not receive a permit, right-of-way or other approval under this section prior to enactment of this subsection, no such permit, right-of-way, or other approval shall be required for continued operation, including continued operation pursuant to section 15 of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 808], of such project unless the Commission determines that such project involves the use of any additional public lands or National Forest lands not subject to such reservation. [P.L. 102-486, 1992] C
Originally reported by: Lorri Anderson; Contributor for Freedom Outpost
While many people across our union are focused upon the murderous acts of a madman in Florida, CAIR has called for better “Gun Control”, Obama hints at it, Homeland floats ‘national security’ as excuse to take guns, Democrats hold sit in to try and force gun control on law abiding Americans, and NAACP touts almost identical wording located within the UNODA/UNSATT documents. One does have to wonder, is there a muchgreater agenda at play?
Main stream media have consistently bombarded us with the “ISIS” “mass murderer” story, yet have failed to report on issues that effect the whole of the American people. Issues that would cause all of us to be unarmed leaving us at the mercy of madmen and criminals. I am speaking about the unalienable rights you were born with, which were confirmed in the second amendment to the Bill of Rights. Your right to keep and bear arms is being attacked via “agreements” by an un-elected body of individuals wishing to control, and disarm “We The People” leaving all of us helpless to defend ourselves, as was the case in Florida massacre.
The United Nations held the “Sixth Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects”. This meeting was held June 6 – 10, 2016 in New York. Located in their “Draft Outcome” report are many disturbing findings.
Document A/CONF.192/BMS/2016/WP.1/Rev.2 of June 10, 2016 titled “Sixth Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” states the following:
3. States reaffirmed their respect for and commitment to their obligations under international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, as well as those set out in the Programme of Action, including its eighth to eleventh preambular paragraphs
5. States welcomed the progress made in implementing the Programme of Action and the International Tracing instrument since their adoption, including on the establishment, strengthening and enforcement of national laws, regulations and administrative procedures to prevent the illicit trade and illegal manufacture of small arms and light weapons, the development of national action plans, the establishment of national points of contact, the submission of voluntary national reports and the strengthening of subregional and regional cooperation. They also welcomed progress made in implementing stockpile management and security, the collection and destruction of illicit small arms and light weapons, the marking of small arms and light weapons, technical training and information sharing
8. States reiterated the importance of national laws, regulations and administrative procedures, interagency coordination, and, where they exist, national action plans to the full and effective implementation of the PoA
18. States noted the opportunities new technologies, when available, can offer for enhanced small arms and light weapons stockpile management and security, including through improved marking and record-keeping, and for the destruction of surplus small arms and light weapons that they have designated for destruction
23. States welcomed the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.
24. States acknowledged, in line with the 2030 Agenda, that sustainable development cannot be realized without peace and security and that peace and security will be at risk without sustainable development.
25. States noted that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons has implications for the realization of several SDGs, including those relating to peace, justice and strong institutions, poverty reduction, economic growth, health, gender equality, and safe cities and communities.
26. States underlined the importance of the full and effective implementation of the PoA and ITI for attaining SDG 16 and SDG Target 16.4.
31. To ensure that destroyed and deactivated small arms and light weapons are rendered permanently inoperable such that illicit reactivation is physically impossible, and recognizing the value of relevant best practices in this regard.
35. To coordinate, as appropriate, national-level implementation of the PoA with relevant subregional, regional and international instruments, and with related issues and processes, including disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration; border controls; organized crime; terrorism; urban crime; relevant UN resolutions; and related capacity-building initiatives.
36. To take into account complementarities between the PoA and relevant subregional, regional and global instruments in which Member States participate in order to enhance, as appropriate, national-level coordination on the implementation of the PoA.
37. To share best practices in physical stockpile management and security, as well as permanent weapons reactivation, in order to prevent the diversion of small arms and light weapons to illicit markets, illegal armed groups, terrorists and otherunauthorized[emphasis mine] recipients, including in conflict and post-conflict situations.
38. To continually assess national stockpiles for surpluses and to responsibly dispose, preferably through destruction, of small arms and light weapons that no longer meet operational needs.
Politicians such as Obama, Hillary Clinton and certain factions of main stream media have tried to gloss over the true nature of the UN SATT for years. The American people have been told the “UNSATT has nothing to do with disarming the people, nor the eradication of an individuals right to bear arms”. These statements have proven to be false, and misleading time and time again by the United Nations own documentation. See previous articles covered here, here,, here,
Located within the “United Nations International Small Arms Control Standard ISACS 03.30 version 1.0, dated 2015-06-11; titled “National regulation of civilian access to small arms and light weapons” section 6 states:
6 Regulating types and characteristics of small arms
6.1 Prohibitions
6.1.1 GeneralNational law shall prohibit civilians from acquiring, owning or possessing
a) light weapons;
b) automatic small arms; and
c) armour-piercing ammunition.
The United Nations openly shows within their own reports they must be successful in disarming the population as a whole in order to establish their UN Agenda 21 [aka: UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda]. The people of America must unify together in a joint effort across our union to stop these un-elected bodies from destroying our individual unalienable right to self defense before it becomes too late. Contact your representatives, your local sheriff’s, share this information with everyone. We must start visiting our sheriff’s and find out where they stand on protecting our unalienable rights. If they are unaware of their authority, be active and help educate them. CSPOA.ORG has a wealth of resources for Sheriff’s and Police officers. Let your Sheriff’s know you are holding them to the oath they took before taking their position, and you will make sure if they violate their oath they will be held accountable. “Acting under color of law” is no excuse.
states: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
states:
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
As Sheriff Richard Mack stated in his book; “The County Sheriff America’s Last Hope”
“As Thomas Jefferson opined, “When all government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated”. The COUNTY SHERIFF is our nation’s LAST LINE OF DEFENSE, for the preservation and return to fundamental and individual liberty.”
“The bottom line; America was founded as a constitutional Republic, a representative form of government with extremely limited powers, confined within the parameters as expressly set forth by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself. In order for the Founders to perpetuate the principles of the Constitution they secured a proviso in Art. VI paragraph 3, which states very clearly, “…all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution…”
“Therefore, what is our supreme duty and responsibility? That’s right! To protect and defend, the U S Constitution! There is nothing we could do, that could come even close to justifying any peace officer in this country failing to keep his oath of office.”
Now more than ever our people need to arm themselves, train, and be prepared to defend the innocent from terrorists and criminals. Police are unable to protect you when every second counts, as proven in this massacre. It is your duty and your right to protect yourselves, YOU not the police are and always have been the first responders. By working together, we can defeat this tyranny. NOW and not tomorrow we must Stand Up, Stand Strong, Stand United, and say NO MORE to their gun grabbing agenda. Semper Fidelis
Sources:
US Senators send BHO Cease and Desist Letter; July 22, 2011
UN Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms; Forbes June 7, 2011
ISACS; International Small Arms Control Standards
ISACS; 03.30 National regulation of civilian access to small arms and light weapons
UNODA: Sixth Biennial Meeting of States on the Programme of Action
United Nations: Transforming our World, The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
ABC News: Obama Calls For Assault Weapons Ban, New ‘No Fly, No Buy” Law
Breitbart: Obama’s Gun-Control Plan Includes Gun-Ban For Some Social Security Beneficiaries
hillaryclinton.com: It is past time we act on gun violence
Politicususa: Bernie Sanders Bluntly Calls For Automatic Weapons Ban After Orlando Mass Shooting[perhaps Bernie and the author of this article should be informed it’s already illegal to purchase or obtain “automatic weapons” without approval of the FBI and has been since 1938]
USA TODAY: High Court to consider whether to hear assault weapons ban challenge
Congress.gov:H.R.4269 – Assault Weapons Ban of 2015; Detroit Free Press: Conyers, others call for gun control hearings in Congress
CBS News: Senators renew call for gun control after Orlando shooting.
FOX 61: Connecticut congressional delegation calls for gun control in wake of Orlando massacre
Chicago Tribune: Illinois U.S. Rep. Dold breaks ranks with GOP, endorses gun control measures
Los Angeles Times: California’s congressional delegation calls for action on gun control
Boston Herald: Congressman calls Obama gun control plan ‘desperate’
Boston Herald: Trump: Obama’s gun control moves will backfire
CBS News: Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson “Gun control is now a matter of homeland security”
Infowars: WAPO: Rand Paul’s Warning About UN Gun Grabbers “Black Helicopter Stuff”
Has ISIS Infiltrated Homeland Security? Orlando Terrorist Worked for Major DHS Contractor
Infowars: Obama Admin. Adopts Clinton’s “Weapons of War” Mischaracterization of Semi-Auto Firearms
Infowars: Orlando Shooter did not use AR-15 Rifle-Despite False Media Reports
AntiNWOParty Blogtalk Radio
Anti Deep State Party 