150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick silver

but midnight 7th help by stop paying his taxes , so he's no longer part of the NWO . once you step out of line you will be called anti-government are white terrorists' as the niggar burn down city . I didnt hear what they were called

---

You're only considered anti government when you step out of line being a complete moron.
I stepped out of paying taxes because I choose to no longer participate in Social Security and stood on my Constitutional Bill of Rights not to participate.
Its an individual decision that didn't bring attention to myself to the likes of these guys.
I did bring attention to myself before learning the truth about taxes, settled with the IRS after understanding its not the IRS (they are just a collection agency). The IRS just enforces the laws its has to abide by....and yes they give you plenty of time before they make a move.
Social Security is what makes you liable for income taxes....not the statutes in the IRC.

What these guys are doing is equivalent to owing a tax for taking or accepting a benefit and then not paying for it (a tax).....and that's where trouble begins.
You want to stop paying taxes?........then you don't tell the IRS to go to hell.....you find the root cause of being liable (Social Security). That's where you start and who you deal with...not the IRS. The IRS is the last agency that knows you are liable. Social Security Administration is the first to know and updates all IRS tax information to the IRS database.
You use your head and research the laws to gain knowledge.....not having a stand off over a subject you don't have a damn clue about like these guys.

Lets hope it ends well without a shoot out....but I'm not holding my breath. These guys are stupid trying to make a point using emotions to gain support rather than intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Infowars spun that as bad as the main stream media. There was no armed take over. The place was closed for the holidays. Several tv stations came and went during the day and interviewed Bundy. Pete Santilli live streamed it. I watched all three of the interviews. There were no armed militia types visible. Bundy was calm and cool.

As ill conceived as his plan was, it may open a small segment of the populations eyes regarding federal jurisdiction. Us old farts were taught that in high school. The first half of the year on state government, the last half on the Constitution and federal government. In those days the federal government was pretty careful not to get out of line. But like boiling frogs they little by little dumbed down the people and usurped jurisdiction. They started first by putting tags on pillows and mattresses "do not remove" under penalty of Federal Law. This had a psychological effect on the masses even though it didn't apply to them. The same with emission control devices on automobiles. Once a car was sold the owner could do anything he wanted that didn't violate his states emission control laws. As time went on the schools stopped teaching, people assumed the federal law applied to them.

---

It kind of does if they believe themselves to be "U.S. citizens". They are declaring that they are a citizen of the District of Columbia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

You're only considered anti government when you step out of line being a complete moron.
I stepped out of paying taxes because I choose to no longer participate in Social Security and stood on my Constitutional Bill of Rights not to participate.
Its an individual decision that didn't bring attention to myself to the likes of these guys.
I did bring attention to myself before learning the truth about taxes, settled with the IRS after understanding its not the IRS (they are just a collection agency). The IRS just enforces the laws its has to abide by....and yes they give you plenty of time before they make a move.
Social Security is what makes you liable for income taxes....not the statutes in the IRC.

What these guys are doing is equivalent to owing a tax for taking or accepting a benefit and then not paying for it (a tax).....and that's where trouble begins.
You want to stop paying taxes?........then you don't tell the IRS to go to hell.....you find the root cause of being liable (Social Security). That's where you start and who you deal with...not the IRS. The IRS is the last agency that knows you are liable. Social Security Administration is the first to know and updates all IRS tax information to the IRS database.
You use your head and research the laws to gain knowledge.....not having a stand off over a subject you don't have a damn clue about like these guys.

Lets hope it ends well without a shoot out....but I'm not holding my breath. These guys are stupid trying to make a point using emotions to gain support rather than intelligence.

---

It's not really the same as not paying a tax. They are contesting Federal Jurisdiction within a state. According to the Constitution the Federal Government has zero jurisdiction within a state unless the state with consent of it's legislature sold the land to the Federal Government. Reading through the history of Oregon and how Theodore Roosevelt just declared the land a nature reserve basically usurped jurisdiction within a state which is illegal and unconstitutional.

I see your point, and I agree they did this haphazardly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

It kind of does if they believe themselves to be "U.S. citizens". They are declaring that they are a citizen of the District of Columbia.

---

Yes, it is important that you understand "who you are". That is what we learned in government classes in the 1950's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Yes, it is important that you understand "who you are".

---

Agreed and makes sense if you think about it. Why wouldn't "federal law" apply to citizens of the District of Columbia while they travel the various states of the union?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Agreed and makes sense if you think about it. Why wouldn't "federal law" apply to citizens of the District of Columbia while they travel the various states of the union?

---

The same reason your home state law wouldn't apply if you were visiting Horn in Costa Rica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

Infowars spun that as bad as the main stream media. There was no armed take over. The place was closed for the holidays. Several tv stations came and went during the day and interviewed Bundy. Pete Santilli live streamed it. I watched all three of the interviews. There were no armed militia types visible. Bundy was calm and cool.

As ill conceived as his plan was, it may open a small segment of the populations eyes regarding federal jurisdiction. Us old farts were taught that in high school. The first half of the year on state government, the last half on the Constitution and federal government. In those days the federal government was pretty careful not to get out of line. But like boiling frogs they little by little dumbed down the people and usurped jurisdiction. They started first by putting tags on pillows and mattresses "do not remove" under penalty of Federal Law. This had a psychological effect on the masses even though it didn't apply to them. The same with emission control devices on automobiles. Once a car was sold the owner could do anything he wanted that didn't violate his states emission control laws. As time went on the schools stopped teaching, people assumed the federal law applied to them.

---

Stop drinking the cool aid!!!
Federal law and all acts of Congress (when applicable) apply to "US citizens".
That article you posted about a judge spilling the beans says international law applies to "US citizens"....every state has laws on their books specifically stating so.
Why because US citizens are subjects to Congress and Congress only has jurisdiction over what the Constitutions allows....international affairs and territories and such.
The "State of Iowa" is federal territory, the union state Iowa is not a territory....two different jurisdictions.
US citizens reside in "The State of Iowa" ...."We the People" inhabit the Union state of "Iowa".

Most GSUS'ers don't have a clue about this and believe they are awake when in fact they are sleeping just like the sheeple are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

The same reason your home state law wouldn't apply if you were visiting Horn in Costa Rica.

---

Not exactly, we have compact laws in America. The states are considered a union with the District of Columbia being the federal seat. So it would make sense that if you declare yourself to be a citizen of the District of Columbia that the laws passed in the District of Columbia would apply to you in other states. Remember the Federal Government is the only entity allowed to cross state lines. Other states are not allowed nor have jurisdiction in other states. The Federal Government does, but with permission. It's citizens are subject to its laws and since the Feds have a presence in every state their citizens are subject to federal laws no matter where they go. State citizens are under no such obligation or oppression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

It's not really the same as not paying a tax. They are contesting Federal Jurisdiction within a state. According to the Constitution the Federal Government has zero jurisdiction within a state unless the state with consent of it's legislature sold the land to the Federal Government. Reading through the history of Oregon and how Theodore Roosevelt just declared the land a nature reserve basically usurped jurisdiction within a state which is illegal and unconstitutional.

I see your point, and I agree they did this haphazardly.

---

I'll give you that Ares but lets be smart about this.....we don't know for sure Oregon didn't. I bet Oregon accepted some federal money, privilege, ect in return.
Legislatures were a hell of a lot more keen on government operation back then than they are today.
Civics class was taught back then.....not today with this government (federal government) class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Not exactly, we have compact laws in America. The states are considered a union with the District of Columbia being the federal seat. So it would make sense that if you declare yourself to be a citizen of the District of Columbia that the laws passed in the District of Columbia would apply to you in other states. Remember the Federal Government is the only entity allowed to cross state lines. Other states are not allowed nor have jurisdiction in other states. The Federal Government does, but with permission. It's citizens are subject to its laws and since the Feds have a presence in every state their citizens are subject to federal laws no matter where they go. State citizens are under no such obligation or oppression.

---

Spot on Ares....spot on!

The definition to "United States" and "state" in the IRC proves this.
The word "includes" is an expanding term to include the territories and insulars...........DC and all the "State of XXXX" aren't mentioned because they are the main subject to "UNITED STATES" and don't need mentioned.
STATE is the same way.............state not only includes the federal "STATE of XXX" states but the territories as well.
When you start reading the IRC in that way everything comes into view....all the court cases begin to make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

I'll give you that Ares but lets be smart about this.....we don't know for sure Oregon didn't. I bet Oregon accepted some federal money, privilege, ect in return.
Legislatures were a hell of a lot more keen on government operation back then than they are today.
Civics class was taught back then.....not today with this government (federal government) class.

---

I don't doubt it, I just haven't been able to find it where the legislature of Oregon consented to it. It may not be online, and would require someone going to the Oregon legislature archives to look through the logs to see if its there or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

Stop drinking the cool aid!!!
Federal law and all acts of Congress (when applicable) apply to "US citizens".
That article you posted about a judge spilling the beans says international law applies to "US citizens"....every state has laws on their books specifically stating so.
Why because US citizens are subjects to Congress and Congress only has jurisdiction over what the Constitutions allows....international affairs and territories and such.
The "State of Iowa" is federal territory, the union state Iowa is not a territory....two different jurisdictions.
US citizens reside in "The State of Iowa" ...."We the People" inhabit the Union state of "Iowa".

Most GSUS'ers don't have a clue about this and believe they are awake when in fact they are sleeping just like the sheeple are.

---

http://www.mindserpent.com/American_...rp/rule_54.htm
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 54(c)

"Act of Congress"
c) Application of Terms.
As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.


The State of Iowa is a body politic. It has no territory. Iowa State is geographical and does have territory.

Federal jurisdiction is territorial as in geographical. You must have commited the crime in their geographical territory of The District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or an insular possession, not in their body politic "State of Oregon".
But you must also understand this by knowing who you are and where you are domiciled. Like Palani, in his watershed.

They have jurisdiction over you while you are in their federal courthouse which stands on federal land, but if you didn't commit the crime in their jurisdiction they don't have jurisdiction to try you for the crime. Jurisdiction is territorial.

What article about what judge spilling the beans? I don't recall posting that

It's really scary how many people, err Leftist zombies are calling for the actual death of these protesters. I check my Facebook at there are those zombies. I don't even comment on Facebook, just observe the idiocy.

A lot are arguing about how great it is that White people did this since if brown people did it they would be called terrorist, but the media is somehow in defending these people since muh Michael Brown. They actually believe in their twisted minds they are rebels going against the establishment when their entire world view is shaped by the Establishment media, universities, and so on.

I hate White anti-Whites. They are the lowest scum in the world. They are the only people in the world I truly hate.

http://s10.postimg.org/b0bls6afd/1444076984114.jpg

I saw that last night when I was watching Pete Santilli's livestream. You are correct refering to them as protesters. But there timing is completly totally wrong.

The zombies don't have a clue. Really sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

I saw that last night when I was watching Pete Santilli's livestream. You are correct refering to them as protesters. But there timing is completly totally wrong.

The zombies don't have a clue. Really sad.

---

I agree. I think the protesters are justified since the Hammonds were wronged by the Federal government, but the way they are going about it is probably not going to end well for the Hammonds or the patriot movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

I saw that last night when I was watching Pete Santilli's livestream. You are correct refering to them as protesters. But there timing is completly totally wrong.

The zombies don't have a clue. Really sad.

---

If it was left to the people, we'd still be a British colony. Very few people actually fought during the American Revolution. Something on the order of 3% or less actually cared enough to fight. So take 97% of the population and cut it in half and you are left with one half loyal to the crown, the other half didn't care either way. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Not exactly, we have compact laws in America. The states are considered a union with the District of Columbia being the federal seat. So it would make sense that if you declare yourself to be a citizen of the District of Columbia that the laws passed in the District of Columbia would apply to you in other states. Remember the Federal Government is the only entity allowed to cross state lines. Other states are not allowed nor have jurisdiction in other states. The Federal Government does, but with permission. It's citizens are subject to its laws and since the Feds have a presence in every state their citizens are subject to federal laws no matter where they go. State citizens are under no such obligation or oppression.

---

You are probably going to force me to read some more.

If you were in a D. C. resident in Ohio and you robbed the bank in Clevland you would be tired in the state court having jurisdiction in Cleveland. You are still subject to all the state laws of Ohio while you are visiting there. If you robbed the Post Office or the mail while visiting in Ohio you will be prosecuted by the feds. Or commited some crime that violated the interstate laws such as kidnapping and transporting across state lines.

I think it would be difficult for the District of Columbia to prosecute you for committing an act that would violate one of their laws while you are visiting in Ohio. Remember, jurisdiction is territorial as in geographical. There is a lot of case law to support this.

You can be extradited from one state to another or to the District of Columbia if you flee to avoid prosecution.

Is it not fraud when the US deceives you into declaring under the penalty of perjury you are a citzen of the District of Columbia (U. S. Citizen) when in fact you are not?

Are fraudulent actions against you not null and void?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shami-Amourae

It's really scary how many people, err Leftist zombies are calling for the actual death of these protesters.

---

We need to quit referring to them as leftist liberals, when in all actuality they are death dealing communists, that's the difference between 60's and now. I am not surprised by their "nationalism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

We need to quit referring to them as leftist liberals, when in all actuality they are death dealing communists, that's the difference between 60's and now. I am not surprised by their "nationalism".

---

http://s15.postimg.org/ki5nvfjsb/1451922915807.jpg

http://s15.postimg.org/yd3ydwe7f/1451926476547.png

The original contract that was ratified is the Constitution of 1787. Everything "our" Federal Govt did after 1862 is fraud, changing the meaning of words by legislative fiat is fraud, adopting amendments by legislative fiat is fraud.

The whole Federal govt has been and is a fraud since 1862.

You can see a couple of video interviews here at the Malheur Reserve. You need to create an account, they only ask fo an email address and a name.

http://livestream.com/accounts/13464...deos/107582691

http://livestream.com/accounts/13464...10169/archives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_3blaPsHds

In the Repugs camp, Cruz is the only to come out against it all others are "distant".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...egon-standoff/

Story is getting twisted out in MSM land...

WTF Is Happening in the Oregon Militia Standoff, Explained

Dozens of white, armed American militants have gathered in the state to take a stand against government "tyranny"


By Tim Dickinson January 3, 2016



http://assets.rollingstone.com/asset...-484181309.jpg Cliven Bundy's son, Ammon — pictured here, in 2014 — appears to be leading the takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. George Frey/Getty On Saturday night, dozens of white, armed American militants stormed a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon seeking to take a "hard stand" against federal government "tyranny." It's a wild story. Here's what you need to know.
Sidebar

http://assets.rollingstone.com/asset...erguson_17.jpg
The Oath Keeper Who Wants to Arm Black Lives Matter » Q: Where is this?

A: The building seized by the militants is at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge — a remote, marshy oasis in Oregon's high desert famed for its spectacular migratory bird populations. The standoff is in the remote southeast of the state — far closer to the Nevada line (124 miles) and Boise, Idaho (217 miles), than to Portland (305 miles). The closest city is Burns, Oregon, population 2,800, 30 miles to the north.

Q: What sparked the militia takeover?
A: The answer here is complicated. In short, the militants are outraged about a mandatory minimum sentence received for arson by a local rancher and his son.

The ranchers, Dwight Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son Steve, 43, were convicted of federal arson charges, stemming from a pair or fires on federal land near their ranch. The first was reportedly set in 2001 to cover up their illegal poaching of a deer on government property. It burned 139 acres. The second was reportedly set in 2006 as a defensive measure, to protect the ranch from an approaching lightning-sparked wildfire. That arson reportedly endangered volunteer firefighters camped nearby. The government would seek $1 million in damages. (For a deep dive of the backstory read this piece in The Oregonian.)

Q: So some Oregon ranchers got busted for arson. Where's the tyranny?

A: The ranchers' case became a cause celebre in the patriot/militia movement because the pair were sentenced for their arson crimes under a provision of a law called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. And they were oddly sentenced twice.

The federal law in question doesn't just deal with terrorism. It created a five-year mandatory-minimum sentence for arson on federal land: "Whoever maliciously damages or destroys... by means of fire...any...real property...owned or possessed by...the United States...shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years…"

The first federal judge to handle the case concluded that the mandatory sentence was too stiff and gave the pair far lighter sentences, which they served. But the U.S. attorney in the case called foul; the federal government took the rare step of appealing the sentence. In October 2015, the Ninth Circuit imposed the mandatory minimum, ruling that: "given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense." The ranchers are due back in federal prison Monday to serve out their five years each.

But this odd re-sentencing, under a statute that makes it sound like the cattlemen were being prosecuted for terrorism, inflamed the paranoid passions of the anti-government patriot and militia movements, and brought the militants to Burns for a rally on Saturday.

Q: The Bundys are involved in this, aren't they?

A: Yup. Tensions between Western ranchers and the federal government have been running at a fever pitch since an armed standoff between supporters of Cliven Bundy and the federal Bureau of Land Management. Recall that Bundy does not recognize the claim of the federal government to the land that his cattle roam in Nevada. He owes more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees and fines. The feds briefly seized his cattle back in 2014, leading to an armed standoff that the feds chose to de-escalate rather than risk provoking another deadly showdown like occurred at Waco or Ruby Ridge in the 1990s.

Q: So Cliven Bundy is in Oregon?

A: No, but at least two of his sons are. Ammon Bundy appears to be leading the takeover. In a video posted to Facebook, he declares: "We have basically taken over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. And this will become a base place for patriots from all over the country to come and be housed here and to live here. And we're planning on staying here for several years." Calling his group "the point of the spear," Ammon Bundy called on like-minded militants to "bring your arms."

Q: What do the militants want?

A: In a phone in interview with The Oregonian, another Bundy son, Ryan, laid out the militants' demands: that the Hammonds be released and that the surrounding federal lands be ceded to local control. "The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area... will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," Ryan Bundy said. He added, "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."


Q: Has the federal government reacted to this latest Bundy provocation?
A: Not yet.

http://s15.postimg.org/yd3ydwe7f/1451926476547.pnghow you like your bacon cooked pig f head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

In the Repugs camp, Cruz is the only to come out against it all others are "distant".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...egon-standoff/

---

Cruz

Quote:

---

"Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others," Cruz told reporters in an icy parking lot before a campaign stop at a Christian bookstore."

---

I haven't seen any use of force, heard any threats of violence on others, actually it is quite the opposite.

I Studied Oregon’s Militia Movement. Here’s 5 Things You Need to Know

Spencer Sunshine | January 3, 2016

---

‘Patriot’ groups are a spinoff cult of white supremacists.
5800
SHARES
FacebookTwitter


While the news of the Bundy gang forcefully taking over a federal building in Oregon may come as a surprise to some, the occupation is part of a larger pattern for those who have studied far-right political movements. Here are five points that provide a greater context for why this is happening, who the occupiers are, and who actually supports their radical viewpoints.
1. It’s actually a land grab — with guns

Despite the talk about supporting the Hammond family in Burns, Oregon, the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters is actually part of a long-standing campaign by radical right-wingers to dismantle federal land ownership in the West. Some elected officials are working through mainstream channels to get lands transferred to state or county governments, or to allow them equal say over their use. But the Malheur takeover seems to be an attempt to spread a tactic of armed federal land takeovers. These armed groups are part of the “Patriot movement”—the successor to the 1990s militia movement—which has seen a rebirth since the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
2. The paramilitaries are powered by conspiracy theories

“Agenda 21” was denounced in at least one sign at the march in Burns that preceded the takeover. Agenda 21 is a non-binding UN resolution recommending sustainable ecological development. But it’s been turned into a conspiracy theory by the right, which sees a sinister global socialist agenda in things as small as building a local park. Patriot movement activists don’t see what’s happening to Dwight and Steven Hammond as an unusual-but-unfair legal case. Instead, they are portraying it as part of a socialist agenda to seize rural private land and drive predominantly white farmers into the cities. There, they believe the government will detain right-wing activists, seize privately held guns, turn the cities into concentration camps, and allow the UN (or China) to invade.
3. The ‘Patriot’ movement is a child of the White Power movement

Many of the tactics and talking points being used were popularized in the 1970s by the white supremacist group Posse Comitatus. This group promoted the “Christian Patriot” movement, advocated the formation of “Citizens Militias,” helped forge an idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution, said the county sheriff was the highest elected official that should be obeyed, and opposed federal environmental restrictions.
Over the years, these ideas took on a life of their own, even though few of the activists using these ideas today are ideological white supremacists. For example, they still try to recruit county sheriffs; the sheriff in Harney County (where Burns is located) was asked to provide sanctuary for the Hammonds from the federal government. He refused.
Activists such as Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy (who is leading the Malheur occupation), claim that what is happening to the Hammonds is unconstitutional. This view of the Constitution is based on a position promoted by Posse Comitatus. They held that the Constitution could be interpreted by individual right-wing activists in a way that allowed them to have more jurisdiction than federal courts do. The Sovereign Citizens are the best-known movement that promotes these crank legal theories today. For example, Pete Santilli, who livestreamed the Burns march and went to the Malheur takeover, promotes these ideas.
4. Federal government policies have allowed this situation to happen

Although there is no written federal rule that is publicly known, those who study the radical right largely believe that the federal government has a policy not to directly confront armed right-wing groups. The disastrous handling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges in the early 1990s apparently convinced the feds to take a softer approach. This seemed to have paid off when the Sovereign Citizens at the “Justus Township” surrendered peacefully in 1996. But after 9/11, even as the feds have cracked down hard on all kinds of radical political activity (for example, many eco-saboteurs who never killed or injured anyone were sentenced under terrorism laws), the radical right has received almost a complete pass.

The April 2014 standoff at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch—when Patriot movement activists came to the aid of a radical right-wing rancher who refused to pay his fees for grazing on public land and trained rifles on federal agents—was taken as a green light for similar actions. The federal government has not prosecuted Cliven Bundy or his allies for anything that happened there. This has apparently convinced the Bundy family (three of whom reportedly are at Malheur) that the feds will acquiesce to armed takeovers.
5. There is widespread opposition to the Malheur takeover

The takeover attempt is not popular with many in Oregon. When a convoy of Patriot movement activists heading to Burns left from Bend, Oregon on Saturday, they were met with counter-protesters from the community. In Burns, many in the town have objected to the presence of the “Bundy militia.”
The Patriot movement groups are aware of this. A number of Patriot movement activists denounced any support of the Hammonds beforehand. The Oath Keepers, a national group, refused to come to the march, saying the Hammonds had not asked for help. Furthermore, the group said that Oregon members who helped organize the protest would be reprimanded. And, although details are not known, it appears that the vast majority of activists who are taking over Malheur are largely out-of-staters from Nevada and Arizona. While they hope to rally widespread support, that doesn’t seem to be happening.

Spencer Sunshine is an Associate Fellow at Political Research Associates and studies far right political movements, especially in Oregon. Visit his website: SpencerSunshine.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

You are probably going to force me to read some more.

If you were in a D. C. resident in Ohio and you robbed the bank in Clevland you would be tired in the state court having jurisdiction in Cleveland. You are still subject to all the state laws of Ohio while you are visiting there. If you robbed the Post Office or the mail while visiting in Ohio you will be prosecuted by the feds. Or commited some crime that violated the interstate laws such as kidnapping and transporting across state lines.

I think it would be difficult for the District of Columbia to prosecute you for committing an act that would violate one of their laws while you are visiting in Ohio. Remember, jurisdiction is territorial as in geographical. There is a lot of case law to support this.

You can be extradited from one state to another or to the District of Columbia if you flee to avoid prosecution.

Is it not fraud when the US deceives you into declaring under the penalty of perjury you are a citzen of the District of Columbia (U. S. Citizen) when in fact you are not?

Are fraudulent actions against you not null and void?

---

It wouldn't be difficult at all. Take the mattress tag as an example from earlier. The Federal Government decreed that their citizens are prohibited by law from removing it. Now if they remove it in DC, or Ohio, doesn't make a difference. They removed it, they are a citizen of DC and are subject to that law. Whether Ohio has a statue, law, or code is of no importance to the individual who broke federal law because of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. If DC wanted too, they could have Mr. John Q. Taxslave arrested and extradited from whatever state he is visiting to DC to face a criminal complaint for removing the mattress tag.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is fraud, but most people 95%+ believe that the Federal Government rules the states, and not the other way around.

Quote:

---

"Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others," Cruz told reporters in an icy parking lot before a campaign stop at a Christian bookstore."

---

- Ted Cruz


No that would be the Declaration of Independence. If you were an actual citizen of a state in this country you would know that dipshit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Gov.org sanctioned protesters, few, if any, will do jail time for their 'protesting', gov.org policy is 'hands off' -

http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/wp-c...4/11/riots.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...a_3118278k.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam...-super-169.jpg

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...iot.jpg&w=1484

UNsanctioned protesters occupy empty building, hue and cry for their demise, either imprisonment or summary execution -

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/...lqehrrxqva.jpg

Quote:

---

I Studied Oregon’s Militia Movement. Here’s 5 Things You Need to Know

Spencer Sunshine | January 3, 2016

---

Spencer Sunshine...sounds like a jew...looks like a jew...I'm surprised he's not a super hero on a Marvel TV show. :)

http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/a...psrruphhmx.jpg

Where these guys have it wrong ... you don't take over any federal property (or anybody elses property either).

Instead you find abandoned property (no name) and you prove your claim to it until a more worthy owner can be found.

You might do as one tribe of warriors from Alexanders' army remnant did. You find a villager to sell you a bushel basket of soil for, say, a hundred dollars. Then you distribute that load of dirt as far and as wide as you can and assert your claim to every place your dirt lands.

Quote:

---

we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others," Cruz told reporters

---

This from the man who wants to be commander-in-chief, who will then threaten force and violence on others. What a turd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qonm2-rKKFg

http://cdnx.tribalfusion.com/media/4...es_300x250.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick silver

http://cdnx.tribalfusion.com/media/4...es_300x250.jpg

---

Shootin blanks again Mic?

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/mz4...00c41659d25439

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shami-Amourae

Christianity yes, but White people no.

Especially once designer babies come to pass and transhumanism.

I'm not worried as much as I used to be.

Christians should be worried since their religion will go extinct in the next 100 years. When you have a religion where people think their savior is about to come any day or so for thousands of years, and shit gets worse and worse for them, their religion cannot survive.

---

We disagree on this point. The Christian church has seen persecution magnitudes of order worse than what happens in modern America. In the past during periods of persecution, many would renounce the faith, others would compromise. The church would be "thinned out." Then, strengthened by resistance to persecution, the church would experience growth during periods of relative toleration. I believe the same will happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa

Spencer Sunshine...sounds like a jew...looks like a jew...I'm surprised he's not a super hero on a Marvel TV show. :)

http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/a...psrruphhmx.jpg

---

http://www.politicalresearch.org/author/s-sunshine/

Spencer Sunshine, Ph.D. (associate fellow) is a researcher and activist. His research interests include U.S. white nationalism, post-war fascism (particularly Third Position and European New Right politics), left/right crossover movements, and left-wing antisemitism. As an activist he has worked on issues regarding anti-fascism, police misconduct, prisoner rights, global trade agreements, environmental issues, and bisexual and queer politics. Follow him on Twitter at @transform6789.

FBI blocking independent media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfqHndiNFhg

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