Podcast: Play in new window | Download () | Embed
BLM’s Acquisition Queen’s Regime
“Lands’ isn’t always supported because we’re the ‘bad guys.’ We come in, and we take this land. And we always take it for less than it’s worth.”
Commentary: https://goldrushexpeditions.com/blm-leak-stealing-from-wwii-vets/
Dual Trump Double Speak?
Reno Gazzette: http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/01/07/trump-nevada-us-need-president-who-obeys-rule-law/78422530/
Wash Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-takes-on-federal-land-control/article/2579978
Back Door Statute For Your Phones
Finally, and most importantly, understand that the backers of this outrageous legislation are NOT your friends. Their goal is not to protect your life, liberty or property. Their goal is to maintain and expand their power over you. And this makes them and their ideas very, very dangerous.
Read more at http://thegarrisoncenter.org/archives/4324#9gMTY4x0sW2EbOBr.99
Two major district attorneys are trying to get inside your smartphone. To do so, they’re enlisting the help of assemblymen in California and New York. California Assemblyman Jim Cooper proposed a bill earlier this week that would require all smartphone makers to build back doors into their devices for law enforcement.
Read more at http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/22/10815054/california-jim-cooper-encryption-district-attorney
G Edward Griffin Interviews Soviet Defector on Demoralization of America, 1986
Freedom Force International: http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
Never a Better Time to be a State Citizen, Not a US Citizen-Resident
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case of Marine Brandon Raub Who Was Arrested & Locked up in a Mental Hospital… https://t.co/1WseE4fkEa
— The Rutherford Inst. (@Rutherford_Inst) November 17, 2015
Experimental Jurisprudence
State Citizenship Does Not Meet with Any of PLF’s Board’s Objectives
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Brien P. Bartels
Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:41 PM
Subject: Pacific Legal Foundation
To Corey EibDear Mr. Eib:
Thank you for contacting Pacific Legal Foundation. We have reviewed the information in your letter of Jan. 19, 2016, and we have decided to decline involvement in this matter, as it does not meet with any of the current legal objectives approved by our Board of Trustees.
Thank you for your interest in Pacific Legal Foundation. We appreciate your understanding of the demands on our time and resources.
Sincerely,
BRIEN BARTELS
Case Review Analyst
Pacific Legal Foundation
About Pacific Legal Foundation: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=4616
Today, PLF stands as the nation’s sentry for freedom — strong, resolute and committed to the principles established by our nation’s Founding Fathers and embraced by Ronald Reagan — that Americans are granted sacred, inalienable rights of life, liberty and private property, and that they must never be surrendered or compromised to arbitrary government actions.
Texas v White Spells Out Different Definitions of State & Guarantee of Republican Form of Government
Texas v White: http://www.thirdrailblog.com/files/Texas-v-White-1868-Wallace-USReports-VolVII.pdf
I don’t recall the statute, but Corey mentioned that anyone on SS was federal personnel, and he also mentioned that no one has likely swore an oath of office.
If this is the case, wouldn’t everyone in the system be impersonating a federal agent? Wouldn’t nearly all US Citizens be criminals?
There’s a difference between being federal personnel and being a a federal agent.
And your premise is wrong: if everybody was (is) in fact federal personnel, then they wouldn’t be impersonating federal personnel/employees because they ARE federal personnel/employees.
My apologies between mixing the two wires of personnel and agents. Thanks for pointing that out.
My premise was that by using the birth certificate we claim to be federal personnel, but do so improperly by not swearing an oath. (This was assuming that the oath applied to anyone who fell under the federal banner, personnel or agents.) I by no means claim to be an expert.
Thanks for the reply! :-)
A subscribed oath of office is only for those who hold an office in which allegiance is due to GovCo. I may be wrong, but simply being federal personnel/US citizens doesn’t amount to an office. Rather, I’d put it more along the lines of indentured servitude.
Find me on Twitter to talk more: @j_frederickhall
US Title 5.552a.13
‘the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).’
Thank you for posting the code. I was looking for it the other day in the resource section.