Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks


Gay Agenda Attack Plan Results

 

Intro to ‘Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks

Edited by John R. Houk

Essay by Mychal Massie

May 13, 2016

 

As a Christian Right kind of guy I usually condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a Biblical ungodly act. God’s Word settles that for me regardless of how many Leftists, Multiculturalists and homosexual activists call me a bigot.

 

Leviticus 18:22New King James Version (NKJV)

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Leviticus 20:13New King James Version (NKJV)

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans 1:26-27New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9New King James Version (NKJV)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites,

 

1 Timothy 1:9-10New King James Version (NKJV)

knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 26-27; 1 Corinthians 6: 9; 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 NKJV – h/t Homosexuality is Condemned in the Bible!)

 

Like I said, the Word of God works for me.

 

Thanks to Donald Moore of the Blind Conservative private group, I found a fantastic essay that goes beyond the Word of God. Mychal Massie analyzes the Civil Rights Act showing how he disagrees with homosexual activists that the Constitution AND the Civil Rights Act guarantees civil rights for homosexuals (a lifestyle choice not biology). The Civil Rights Act secures equal rights for American citizens of women, creed, race and/or religion.

 

JRH 5/13/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks

Civil Rights Movement banner 

By Mychal Massie

May 12, 2016

The Daily Rant

 

The following is my [i.e. Mychal Massie] syndicated column dated June 5, 2013. I present it again as a favor to a subscriber. It is also a reminder that the battle is ongoing.
**************************

 

Homosexuals try to pawn their perceived struggle for complete and total acceptance of their chosen lifestyle as being synonymous with what blacks went through to achieve civil rights. But their attempts to equate their radical agenda with discrimination as defined in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is blatantly false and without merit.

 

Blacks were prevented based on the color of their skin alone in many domiciles because of prejudice and by codification of segregation, to vote, to purchase property where they chose, eat wherever they desired, attend events, ad nauseum.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically defines the act as same. It reads:

“An Act: To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”

 

The Act was intended to put “teeth,” if you will, into the 14th Amendment.

 

Homosexual activists are dishonest when they attempt to convince the public that rejection of homosexual marriage is tantamount to the culture of apartheid that opposed interracial dating and marriage. It is not.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to end, prevent, and address discrimination – discrimination against men and women regardless of their race and/or color.

 

While discrimination based on sexual preference is not specifically mentioned, I believe it is logically included in the Act. A woman cannot be discriminated against because she has a dating preference for gargantuanly obese men. A person cannot be discriminated against because they have an attraction to short people. A person’s choice of sexual interest as long as it is legal is protected, and it should be.

 

But I believe and argue that the Act is an appliance that guards against discrimination, its [sic] not to be used as cover for a malicious agenda that prescribes the redefining of our social construct. Christian organizations must hire homosexuals and I find that fair (after all what better place for those in need of Christ). But being employed by a Christian organization doesn’t give the employee the constitutional right to change the policies and dogma of said employer. The employee had a choice to seek employment elsewhere.

 

There are logical exceptions. A morbidly obese person cannot favorably present the image of certain companies, but a person’s color does not affect same (allowing the employer isn’t the Ku Klux Klan). A church has the right to have strict, inflexible standards for ordination and for licensing of their clergy.

 

Homosexuals argue they are denied certain other entitlements that everyone else enjoys, and they cite the inability to make life and death decisions for those they co-habit with, etc. This too is a specious and fallacious argument. Heterosexuals co-habiting outside the bonds of marriage do not have the right to make such decisions either.

 

That is why responsible people living outside the bonds of marriage make living wills. They take responsible measures to ensure their wishes are carried out and to allow for the person of their choice to make decisions for them in the event of one or the other becoming unable to make the decision for themselves.

 

Two men can purchase a property together; they can get health insurance and life insurance policies naming one another as beneficiaries, and so on. Their sexual preference doesn’t matter. Their ability to repay a mortgage, etc., isn’t affected by their sexual preference any more than that of heterosexuals.

 

I could go on, but suffice it to say the homosexual agenda isn’t about civil rights; it is about their desire to change the social construct by redefining marriage and family.

 

Legislating an employment and social environment that codifies the ability of an employee to present themselves in ways that are detrimental to the welfare and health of the company is ludicrous. I speak specifically of cross-dressing and exhibiting inappropriate behavior.

 

It is maddening that a person can be discriminated against pursuant to employment and home renting because they smoke cigarettes. But nothing is said to address the fact that the Centers for Disease Control paint a horrifyingly high incidence for deadly disease with respect to the practice of homosexuality – including a staggeringly high rate of breast cancer incidences among lesbian women juxtaposed to heterosexual women.

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control report on HIV incidence, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. That rate means that as 1-4 percent total of the population they’re as much as 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV. Women with a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men. (American Journal of Public Health; ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126)

 

I would submit it makes more sense for homosexual activists to tell people to flea [sic] the practice than it does to claim they are being denied civil rights.

_____________________

About Mychal Massie

 

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. … Read the entire Bio here

 

The Daily Rant – A Mychal S. Massie Publication

 

Support Link for The Daily Rant 2016

 

One Liberal Justice Away


Dem Ass gun to American Uncle Sam

Justin Smith writes of the dangers to America’s Constitutional Republic as created by our Founding Fathers, if Obama successfully places another Left Wing Activist Justice on the Supreme Court. This is an awesome Editorial!

 

JRH 3/10/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

One Liberal Justice Away

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/10/2016 12:00 PM

 

Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”  – Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

 

So much more than the Office of the U.S. President is at stake in the November election. The direction of a partisan U.S. Supreme Court is also a consideration, since the next president will quite likely select two or three of the next Justices; and if the Progressive Democrats and their unconstitutional and anti-constitution agenda control the Court, the future for our children will be damaged and liberty in America will be in grave danger.

 

Too many Justices from years past to the present have abandoned objective reason and impartial arbitration concerning our fundamental law, and they have consistently produced rulings that were distorted by their own personal feelings and prejudices, especially in cases seen as representing some aspect of “social justice.” This has resulted in the Supreme Court overstepping its own Constitutional authority by creating new de facto law through its rulings. And, when the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot read the same law in the same way on the same day from the same Constitution and U.S. legal code, splitting along party lines in almost every case, we no longer have a court of law — we have an elitist body politic.

 

For thirty years, Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the judicial activists of the Supreme Court, until his death in February. He rigorously defended the U.S. Constitution in all areas, irrespective of the issue. His strong adherence to the fundamental law of the Constitution stood in stark contrast to those who viewed the Constitution as an infinitely malleable “living document”, and he opposed all who attempted to turn the latest left wing fads into the law of the land.

 

In past years, Democrats have called on Supreme Court nominees to accept Roe v. Wade as a super-precedent more fundamental than the Constitution itself. But in a 2009 interview, Scalia suggested that state constitutional amendments may take precedence to prevent abortions, effectively overruling Roe v. Wade; he also noted that nothing in the Constitution, especially in light of the 9th and 10th Amendments, specifically delegates the power to fund abortions to the federal government. So under what constitutional authority does the federal government mandate abortion policies over the states?

 

To paraphrase Senator Ted Cruz, America is one liberal justice away from having Her religious liberties erased and from the Supreme Court forcing us to violate our religious conscience upon pain of a fine or imprisonment. America is one liberal justice away from open abortion on demand — one liberal justice away from the Ten Commandments being erased from the countryside and from every government building wherever they are found — one liberal justice away from our Second Amendment being eradicated and one liberal justice away from U.S. law becoming subservient to The Hague and international law. [Bold Italic emphasis is Blog Editor’s]

 

Under the Leftist agenda, homosexual “marriage” is sanctioned by unelected judges, the innocent unborn can be murdered, gun ownership is only for the government, healthcare penalties to coerce behavior are taxes, religious liberty only protects private belief and the president can rewrite U.S. law at will.

 

In this political environment, the Republicans are well within their rights to reject all of Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court, since Obama treats jurisprudence as a weapon of political warfare. In 2006 and well before the midterm elections, Obama, then a Senator, filibustered Justice Samuel Alito and demanded a 60-vote threshold; and, since his election in 2008, Obama has brazenly abused executive power and ignored Congress, in his race to embed his hard-left agenda within our American culture and force a fundamental transformation away from our Founding Principles.

 

Let’s not forget that then-Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and 21 colleagues joined Obama against Alito. Let’s not forget Obama’s explanation that the Constitution requires “an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record”, as he criticized Alito as “somebody who is contrary to core American values.”

 

Nobody is more “contrary to core American values” than Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama nominee, who advocated for the acceptance of the integration of some aspects of Sharia law into the U.S. jurisprudence in 2006 when she was the Dean of the Harvard School of Law.

 

Does anyone really believe that Justice Sotomayor exemplifies “core American values”?

 

The Democrats are two-faced, when it concerns the Supreme Court, they fight dirty and they fight for keeps. They have two standards for judicial appointments – one for themselves and another for Republicans, but now they are crying “foul.”

 

So what if the Democrat controlled Senate under Pres. Ronald Reagan confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy on February 3,1988? They only did so after excoriating and brutally impugning the honorable reputations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg.

 

Obsessed with identity politics and social justice, make no mistake, the brawlers in the Democratic Party, such as Senators Schumer and Reid, would be blocking Republican nominations, if the situation was reversed. In fact, they did filibuster one of Bush’s federal court nominees, Miguel Estrada, in 2003, simply because they thought he might make it to the Supreme Court one day. And more significantly, Obama voted against John Robert’s nomination because of Robert’s “overarching political philosophy.”

 

It is also worth noting that despite the Democrats’ insistence that Justice Scalia’s seat must be filled quickly, the Court is designed to function with very few Justices, if necessary, and it has throughout history. In 1789 there were only six Justices, but a quorum of four was required to do the Court’s business. In 1801 there were five Justices; ten existed in 1863 and Court held seven in 1866: There is no such thing as a rule of nine.

 

Think of all the narrow 5-4 decisions in recent history that upheld fundamental rights such as religious liberty, freedom of speech and the Second Amendment, and one will see this 2016 election to be an historic juncture of the utmost importance to America. Therefore, U.S. Senators have the obligation to the American people to prevent the confirmation of any liberal justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, who would use the Court like a continuing constitutional convention. They are obligated to defend the U.S. Constitution against all who would dismiss our rule of law in favor of their own arbitrary, arrogant and authoritarian rule of men, and this requires U.S. Senators to reject any of Obama’s radical judicial activists for a lifetime on the Supreme Court: Senators have the duty to advise and consent, not to say “yes.”

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are the Editor’s.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

The Totalitarian Blueprint: William J. Murray’s New Book Documents the Horrors Unleashed by Utopian Dreamers


Utopian Road to Hell bk jk

To my readers: I have been overcoming a horrible cold which is still lingers but is thankfully departing. Ergo I am a bit behind in my daily blog studying and posting. In an effort to reboot my posting let me share an interesting book plug email I received from WND today.

 

WND Books is plugging “Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World with Central Planning” By William J. Murray, son of former atheist apologist Madalyn Murray O’Hair. O’Hare is the gal responsible for contributing to the Left Wing transformationist agenda of removing Christianity from America’s public forum in which the Supreme Court found a case to reinterpret the Original Intent of the First Amendment.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment – U.S. Constitution; FindLaw.com)

 

Atheists like Madalyn Murray O’Hair convinced a majority of Living Constitution-believing Justices that “… make no law respecting an establishment of religion” meant a government/public forum separate and without religion. Incidentally, “religion” as understood by the Founding Fathers meant “Christianity”. The word “separate” or “separation” is NO Where found in the U.S. Constitution in relation to faith.

 

Phrasing was originally and should be now, the People shall not have the government impose a religion (specifically – establish a State Church) but the People shall be free to exercise their faith in private OR public as in and on the auspices of government.

 

Consider this my intro to the WND Books plug for William J. Murray’s book “Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World with Central Planning”.

 

JRH 3/7/16

Please Support NCCR

**************************

The Totalitarian Blueprint: William J. Murray’s New Book
Documents the Horrors Unleashed by Utopian Dreamers

 

WND Books

Sent: 3/7/2016 11:45 AM

 

WASHINGTON — Utopian dreamers are deceived and deceiving. Their “fight for the people” rhetoric may sound good at first, but history proves the egalitarian governments and cultures they try to create destroy freedom, destroy creativity, destroy human lives, create poverty and misery and often spread beyond their borders to bring others under slavery. They believe that through their own personal brilliance a better society can be created on earth. When the belief in man as a creation in the image of God is completely rejected, the use of slavery and mass execution can be justified in the name of the creation of a utopian state for the masses. Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, together these so-called visionaries through their fanciful policies are responsible for the death of millions of people.

In Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World with Central Planning, William J. Murray, son of former atheist apologist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, describes the totalitarians throughout history and the current utopians who are determined to engage in social engineering to control the lives of every person on earth. From Marx to Hitler, Murray explains the progression of socialist engineering from its occultist roots to the extreme madness of the Nazi’s nationalistic racism. From Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the rebellious desire to be free from morality drives the “at-any-cost” campaigns such as abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, overreaching government provisions. From Woodrow Wilson’s “living document” distortion of the Constitution and his income tax to FDR’s New Deal to Obama’s executive orders, those who seek centralized power typically do so by proclaiming some utopian scheme that they claim will perfect mankind and eliminate competition, greed, poverty, and war.

To be released by WND Books on March 8, 2015, Murray’s Utopian Road to Hell masterfully educates us of the utopians’ swath of destruction in history and warns us of the dangers of present-day utopians fighting to hold power today. We must heed the warning of George Washington when he said in his 1796 Farewell Address that it is important for those entrusted with the administration of this great and free nation, “to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.” We must reclaim the freedom of the individual to avoid the continued path down the utopian road to hell.
William J. Murray is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition in Washington, DC. For more than three decades he has been at the forefront of social conservatism. He has appeared on ABC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC News and has authored hundreds of columns, which have appeared online and in print. William J. Murray continues to work for the rights of Christians in America and persecuted Christians around the world and is the author of eight books.

Utopian Road to Hell will be in bookstores nationwide on March 8, 2016.

_____________

WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006 | 571-612-8600

 

ABOUT WND BOOKS

 

Welcome to WND Books.

 

Founded in 2002 by WND’s Joseph and Elizabeth Farah, WND Books made an immediate impact with its first No. 1 New York Times bestseller, Michael Savage’s The Savage Nation. Several more bestsellers from the upstart rocked the publishing world. Within two years of its launch, every major U.S. publisher had created imprints to compete head-to-head with WND Books in its niche for edgy, controversial current events titles. After partnerships with Thomas Nelson and Cumberland Press, WND Books established a strategic alliance with Los Angeles-based World Ahead Publishing. In early 2008 WND acquired World Ahead, bringing WND Books in-house, as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

 

WND Books specializes in adult nonfiction titles with an emphasis on current events, politics, and history. Like WND, WND Books is “fiercely independent,” telling the stories that other publishers won’t.

 

With multiple New York Times bestsellers to its credit, including The Late Great U.S.A: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada by Dr. Jerome Corsi and Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists, and Other Anti-American Extremists, WND Books prides itself on providing to the reading public important, timely, and entertaining books that impact the public debate.

 

WND Books are distributed to the trade through Midpoint Trade Books and are available at major bookstores, online, and at WND*SUPERSTORE.

To Article V or not to Article V


US Map- Reagan on Convention of States

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (Bold Text by Editor:  U.S. Constitution – Article V; National Archives, Federal Register)

 

When an Originalist talks about preserving the U.S. Constitution from the Leftist ideology of a “Living Constitution” you will rarely hear the subject of an Article V States originated Constitutional Convention. The reason for that is the interpretation of the parameters of an Article V Convention are a matter of controversial disagreement between the pros and the cons.

 

The pros from my perspective: Politics are too polarized for Congress to propose Amendments that shore up more completely the Rights of the Bill of Rights Amendments. Thus litigation and an Activist Court primarily of the Living Constitution interpretation has diluted what I believe is the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers’ vision for a limited Constitutional Republic. Such political gridlock thus can only be effective with a States called Constitutional Convention circumventing Leftist ideology and Special Interests money.

 

The cons as I understand them: There is a huge concern that a Constitutional Convention would rewrite a new Constitution rather than specific Amendments to the current Constitution that will eradicate America’s foundations that have made America an exceptional and great nation. Part of that concern is that Special Interest groups will vie for Left Wing change and Right Wing preservation or too far to the Right change that will still transform the American political process that will still be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers’ original vision.

 

Now that Justice Antonin Scalia has died under what I consider to be mysterious circumstances, Obama’s seven years of Executive Order abuse that legislative processes have failed to challenge in a Constitutional manner and the Dems demonstrating a propensity to fix the election process to allow an obvious crooked politician as Hillary Clinton to win the Dem nomination via Superdelegates; it is my humble opinion that the only shot to save America as a Christian influenced nation under a limited government is by a Constitutional Convention. Otherwise, another bloody civil war is in America’s future between America’s Conservatives who wish to preserve the Founding Fathers’ vision with Christian morality as the foundation for the government standard AND Liberals-Leftists-Progressives who believe the eradication of Christian influences in favor a Living Constitution social and political transformation. The Leftist vision will lead to Big Brother top-to-bottom management of the lives of Americans.

 

The inspiration for these thoughts are based on an email I received from the Oklahoma State version of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE) called the Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OCFE). The OCFE email I received is definitely against an Article 5 Constitutional Convention fearing some of the “cons” I wrote above. I am cross posting the email below so you can take an honest look. But first let’s look at a cross post from the Convention of States website.

 

JRH 2/19/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

  1. The Problem

 

VIDEO: The Convention of States Project is Here!

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Oct 11, 2013

 

Michael Farris, head of the Convention of States Project, explains why the federal government is broken and how a Convention of States can fix it.

 

http://www.conventionofstates.com

 

We see four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government.

 

These abuses are not mere instances of bad policy. They are driving us towards an age of “soft tyranny” in which the government does not shatter men’s wills but “softens, bends, and guides” them. If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming nothing more than “a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840)

 

  1. The Spending and Debt Crisis

 

The $17 trillion national debt is staggering, but it only tells a part of the story. Under standard accounting practices, the federal government owes around $100 trillion more in vested Social Security benefits and other programs. This is why the government cannot tax its way out of debt. Even if it confiscated everything, it would not cover the debt.

 

  1. The Regulatory Crisis

 

The federal bureaucracy has placed a regulatory burden upon businesses that is complex, conflicted, and crushing. Little accountability exists when agencies—rather than Congress—enact the real substance of the law. Research from the American Enterprise Institute shows that since 1949, federal regulations have lowered the real GDP growth by 2% and made America 72% poorer.

 

  1. Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

 

For years, Congress has been using federal grants to keep the states under its control. Combining these grants with federal mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than respecting them as truly independent republican governments.

 

A radical social agenda and an invasion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While significant efforts have been made to combat this social erosion, these trends defy some of the most important principles.

 

  1. Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process

 

The Founders believed that the structures of a limited government would provide the greatest protection of liberty. Not only were there to be checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, power was to be shared between the states and federal government, with the latter only exercising those powers specifically granted in the Constitution.

 

Collusion among decision-makers in Washington, D.C., has replaced these checks and balances. The federal judiciary supports Congress and the White House in their ever-escalating attack upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states.

 

We need to realize that the structure of decision-making matters. Who decides what the law shall be is as important as what is decided. The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated.

 

Washington, D.C., does not believe this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken practice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed a challenge to the federal spending power despite acknowledging that power had grown far beyond the bounds envisioned by the Founders:

 

This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role.  –New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).

What Does this Mean?

 

This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power—no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.

 

The problem is big, but we have a solution.  Article V gives us a tool to fix the mess in D.C.

 

II. The Solution

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance.

 

The correct path can be found within Article V of the United States Constitution.

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. –– Article V, U.S. Constitution

 

Watch the video below, created by our Convention of States team in Alabama, for an excellent overview of the Article V process.

 

VIDEO: Convention of States – Alabama

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Dec 31, 2013

 

Check out this awesome video from our COS team in Alabama! If you live in Alabama, check out their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/COSProjectAL

 

Written by Amanda Read (www.amandaread.com)

Produced by Matthew Perdie (www.perdie.com)

 

Like Article V says, there are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.

 

  1. Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution at any time if 2/3 of both houses of Congress agree.

 

  1. A Convention of States can propose amendments if 2/3 of states submit applications for such a convention. These applications must all deal with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government).

The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is Article V. Article V gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

 

By calling a convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.

 

After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 states for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified.

 

Congress has no authority to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that.

 

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

Which path will we choose?

 

III. The Strategy

Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations:

 

  1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

 

  1. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state’s legislative districts. We believe this is very doable. But only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.
Our Solution is Big Enough to Solve the Problem

 

Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

 

A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.

What Sorts of Amendments Could be Passed?

 

The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

 

  • A balanced budget amendment

 

  • A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)

 

  • A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)

 

  • A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States

 

  • A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)

 

  • Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court

 

  • Placing an upper limit on federal taxation

 

  • Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

 

Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.

 

The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.

The Grassroots

 

The leadership of the COS Project believes the success of a convention of states depends to a large extent on the American citizens. Our plan is as follows:

 

  1. We seek to have a viable political operation that is active in a minimum of 40 states.

 

  1. Our goal is to have local leaders–District Captains–in at least 75% of the districts in these states.

 

  1. District captains will organize at least 100 people in each of these districts to contact their legislator to support a convention of the states, and turn out at least 25 people per district at legislative hearings.

 

Legislators must know that our grassroots team will have their backs if they support a convention of the states. A widespread grassroots organization has been missing from the Article V movement. CSG’s President, Mark Meckler, was the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots—one of the largest tea party groups in the country. Michael Farris is the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. As such, he brings with him over 30 years of grassroots leadership and activism in all 50 states. We are rapidly building both a staff and a network of like-minded coalition members who will support this project once they see it up and running.

 

We believe that our unique application strategy combined with strong grassroots support will guarantee the success of this Project.

 

Only one question remains. Will you help us?

 

+++

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

02/16/2016 04:09:51 GMT

Email Sent by: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

Dear Concerned American,

 

Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature.

 

These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk and I need your help to stop them.

 

Some well-meaning Article V supporters think calling a constitutional convention will help create new “limits” on the federal government.

 

And many believe a constitutional convention can be limited to certain types or categories of changes.

 

But that simply is not true. Article V itself does not back up any assertions that a convention can be limited — and noted constitutional scholars agree.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills.

 

Did you know the various special interest groups pushing different Article V Convention measures have formed a coalition?

 

All of these special interest groups claim to be working toward a convention limited to their own issue, yet they are working together behind the scenes.

 

Groups like Convention of States — who claim to want a convention to limit the federal government — are working with groups like Wolf PAC — who want to limit YOU.

 

Lawrence Lessig — a friend to Wolf PAC and former advisor to the Obama campaign — is also on the list of people pushing hard for an Article V Convention.

 

Lawrence Lessig advocates for legislation forcing you to fund the campaigns of candidates you don’t support by making campaign financing a mandatory, taxpayer obligation.

 

Like Wolf PAC, he wants a constitutional convention to pass an amendment that would limit your political speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

 

The Congressional Research Service quoted Lawrence Lessig in a recent report on Article V:

 

“The beauty of a convention is that it would provide a forum of possibility for conservative Tea Party types… as well as progressives.

 

The only requirement is that two-thirds of the states apply, and then begins the drama of an unscripted national convention to debate questions of fundamental law. It would be a grand circus of democracy at its best.”

 

A “grand circus” indeed!

 

Concerned American, it’s critically important you take action to stop this train wreck before it’s too late.

 

Call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then be sure to forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Elected governments at all levels are trampling on your rights every day and it’s up to you and me to stop them.

 

But an Article V Convention would only add fuel to the fire.

 

As pointed out above — a convention CANNOT be limited, so proposals from the likes of Lawrence Lessig would be fair game.

 

And once everything is said and done, every existing amendment could be utterly dismantled.

 

Even if “conservatives” managed to propose an idea or two, it would be open season on the Constitution — nothing would be off-limits.

 

And what “conservative” victory could possibly justify new restrictions on your First or Second Amendment rights?

 

You’d think with views like Lessig’s, conservatives wouldn’t even be caught in the same room with him.

 

But he’s spoken at multiple conferences alongside conservative “leaders” in the movement — all promoting an Article V Convention.

 

These “conservatives” are working with liberals like Lessig, who want to use an Article V Convention to restrict your rights, yet they claim there is no reason for you to oppose a convention!

 

Literally hundreds of progressive organizations, such as Sierra Club, Code Pink, Alliance for Progressive Values, MoveOn, and “Occupy,” have been pushing for a convention since 2009.

 

Do you trust THEM to fall in line and rein in the government?

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Some argue if a convention results in proposals to gut our Constitution, it would still take 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify.

 

We can’t even get 1/4 of the states to stand against Common Core.

 

Politicians involved in the convention process will be working double time behind the scenes to ensure their pet amendments get ratified.

 

And there’s no predetermined time limit for the states to ratify amendments unless the U.S. Congress proposes one, so politicians could have an untold number of legislative sessions to work toward their goal.

 

Don’t fall for it. Those holding power will stop at nothing to get what they want.

 

These bills simply MUST be stopped; please take action right away!

 

For Freedom,

 

Theodore A. Patterson

Executive Director

Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

P.S. Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature. These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

And after you call your state legislators, please help us mobilize a rapid defense against these bills by chipping in an emergency donation of $10 or $25 right away.

 

__________________

To Article V or not to Article V

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

________________

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

National Leadership

 

Michael P. Farris

 

Citizens for Self-GovernanceSenior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, head of Convention of the States Project

 

Michael Farris is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the founding president of each organization. During his career as a constitutional appellate litigator, he has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, eight federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of thirteen states.

 

Farris has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over thirty years and is widely respected for his leadership in the defense of homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. A prolific author, Farris has been recognized with numerous awards, including the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship by the Heritage Foundation and as one of the “Top 100 Faces in Education for the 20th Century” by Education Week magazine.

 

Farris received his B.A. in Political Science from Western Washington University. He later went on to earn his J.D. from Gonzaga University School of Law, and his LL.M. in Public International Law, from the University of London.

 

Mike and his wife Vickie, have ten children and 17 grandchildren.

 

Mark Meckler

 

Citizens for Self-GovernancePresident

 

Mark is one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists. After he co-founded and was the national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, he founded Citizens for Self-Governance to revolutionize American government. Founded in February 2012, this grassroots initiative expands and directs the ever-growing, bipartisan self-governance movement. Mark appears regularly on wide variety of television outlets, including MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He is the co-author of “Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution,” and writes regularly on Breitbart, the American Spectator, and SelfGovern.com. He also is an attorney who specializes in internet privacy law.

 

Mark and his wife live in Northern California with their two teenage children where they share their love of the outdoors, mountain-biking, soccer and horses.

______________________

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

 

Please note: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OkCFE), paid for this communication and is solely responsible for its content. OkCFE is a project of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE), an IRS 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions.

 

101 Washington Street Falmouth, VA 22405 | (540)693-0737

www.NationalCouncilforFreedom.org

 

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

 

About NCFE

 

The National Council for Freedom and Enterprise is a 501c(4) dedicated to preserving the American way of life through defending the Constitution and free market system.

 

Americans are frustrated with an out-of-control federal government that treats the Constitution as a suggestion, and acts as though our liberties and freedoms are privileges granted by government that can be revoked at any time for any reason.

 

The American public understands that a government that governs least, governs best. And a government that is restrained and limited in scope allows for the free market system to flourish, creating liberty and prosperity for all.

 

We are tired of a government that taxes too much, spends even more and threatens our liberty at every turn.

 

Through educating every day Americans about the political process and the virtue of liberty and constitutional government, NCFE will affect real change.

 

Tony Newbill on Federal Land Grab Conspiracy


Warning Fed Property - BHO

The standoff in Oregon between Ranchers (that came from all over the Western U.S.) and Federal and Oregon State government for all intents and purposes has ended with the arrest of its Nevada leader Ammon Bundy and the murder of fellow leader LaVoy Finicum. And recently Ammon’s father – Cliven Bundy – was arrested for leading a dispute protest of ranchers with the Federal government over what should be free-range grazing.

Sadly the Bundys and the Hammonds (thrown in jail for letting a back-burn started on their property to stop the BLM burn from destroying the ranch) dispute with the Federal government is being painted as domestic terrorism by the Mainstream Media and as lawbreaking by even many pro-gun enthusiasts. What the media fails to inform YOU is the reason these Western USA state Ranchers and Farmers are upset enough to take on the resource of the Federal government. Tony Newbill takes on the project of disseminating info you probably won’t see on TV or read in your newspapers. The central theme is: the Federal government has acquired HUGE amounts of land from the Western states as a condition for statehood and now the Federal bureaucracy is telling Ranchers and Farmers what they can and can’t do including charging fee usage of what should be considered public land at the least for grazing and water issues.

JRH 2/12/16

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Tony Newbill on Federal Land Grab Conspiracy

Sent: 2/2/2016 2:04 PM

At this point I trust our State National Guard to enforce state Constitutional authority over the Federal takeover of state rights more than the State Legislative branch and here why. This is the consolidator of states rights if it gets activated. And a coup by the states’ National Guard to restore the states rights against this, would be the only way back. So we need to bring this to the attention of the people and make it clear that this will THREATEN FOOD SUPPLIES with the ideology that will be implementing this Waters Rule:

http://agwired.com/2016/02/01/wotus-biotech-trade-top-farm-bureaus-2016-strategic-plan/ Continue reading

Murdering an American Patriot


There are a significant amount of pro-gun enthusiasts and Conservatives that have spreading speculation about the murder of LaVoy Finicum in an armed police shooting gallery. These people who may have been on the side of the Rancher standoff believe Finicum was reaching for his vest gun and that was when the police emptied a volley of bullets into Finicum.

Primarily due to the lack of sound in the aerial video taken of Finicum being shot, I am not convinced he was reaching for a gun in his vest. Many witnesses have established the vest reach was to Finicum’s torso point of a bullet impact. Then after Finicum was down, witnesses cowering in fear of the designs of the Oregon State Police and the FBI assert Finicum’s downed body continued to be shot. Was he already dead or were the police making sure he was dead? Witnesses claim Finicum exited his truck so the police would shoot him rather than the ladies with him in the truck. Until proven by documentation rather than the word of the police involved in shooting Finicum, I believe the witnesses rather than the police or the significant amount of pro-gun enthusiasts willing to throw Finicum under the bus. Yes, I AM STILL OUTRAGED! (A version of this paragraph was written hastily an update the post, “I AM OUTRAGED BY THE SHOOTING OF LaVoy Finicum.”)

Justin Smith shares some of his thoughts in his submission below.

JRH 2/8/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

Murdering an American Patriot

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: February 7, 2016 6:59 PM

“You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war … Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is a sin.” — The Book of James

On a lonely stretch of U.S. Highway 395, Robert LaVoy Finicum, spokesman for the Bundy group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a grandfather, rancher and an American patriot, was murdered by federal authorities and Oregon State Troopers on January 26th, after repeated FBI assurances that he and his fellow protesters would be given safe passage to leave at any time. The murder of LaVoy, who was peacefully protesting the incarceration of Dwight and Steven Hammonds and in defense of the U.S. Constitution and our sacred rights, ever mindful of the fact he was armed as was his right, spilled the kindred blood that flows in the veins of all American patriots.

Their cause is just, true and righteous, and they accurately note that the federal government was limited by the Founders, under Article I, Section 8 and Clause 17 in regards to buying large parcels of State land and awing the State into an undue obedience to the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to own 50% of the land west of Kansas, 65% of Utah, 56% of Oregon, or, as in this case, 76% of the 10,000 square miles that comprises Harney County and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

These men are not “domestic terrorists” as alleged by the government. They are small business owners, military veterans and authors simply standing against the incredible over-regulation enacted by an unconstitutionally empowered Bureau of Land Management, which is acting on its own arbitrary agenda and strangling the efforts of private citizens to make use of their own private land to the best advantage for their lives and convenience — to subdue and hold dominion over their land as commanded by our Creator.

In a Pacific Patriots Network interview, Susy Pearce, a rancher who drove 6.5 hours from Plumas County, California to join the protest on January 2nd, said: “We feel the same way they do about the overreach of the federal government. If you’re a rancher, you get taxed, fined and … overregulated to death.” And then she teared up as she spoke of Finicum, who she knew and respected, calling him an “amazing man … smart and honest” and naming his death an “outrageous, uncalled-for murder.”

Dwight Hammonds and his son Steven were charged with nine separate federal charges in connection with the 2001 and 2006 planned burns on their own property to eradicate invasive juniper trees. Although the fires burned about 140 acres of BLM land, the damage was primarily to open range land; and, the over-zealous prosecution of the Hammonds on arson charges and their subsequent 5-year sentence was unfounded and malicious, especially in light of all the facts.

Incredibly, the Hammonds lost their appeal before District Chief Judge Ann Aiken last October and they were ordered to finish their five year sentences. How could the Ninth Circuit Court ignore the fact that the Hammonds and the BLM had simultaneous fires ongoing with numerous smaller fires caused by lightning strikes? How could Judge Aiken find them guilty of arson, when they had received permission from the BLM to light the fires, as sworn by Dwight’s wife Susan?

Many range conservationists, technicians and watershed specialists, such as Erin Maupin and Rusty Inglis, testified that the Hammond fires were beneficial and improved rangeland conditions. It is also important to note that the 2006 “arson”, the Krumbo Butte Fire in the Malheur Refuge, started with lightning strikes, and Steven Hammonds only started a back fire in an attempt to save his ranch’s winter feed.

Deeper investigation reveals that the Hammonds were the last hold-outs standing in the way of the Oregon Natural Desert Association’s and the BLM’s plan for a 100,000 “cow-free wilderness”, by which many ranchers traded their BLM permits and private property in the Steens Mountain area for land on the valley floor. They felt this was the only way to prevent a pending monument designation after the fashion of the 2000 Clinton/ Babbitt designation.

Rusty Inglis, with 34 years in the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, stated: “The Hammonds are not arsonists. They are number one … They know their land management. It’s become more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch.”

This is the very sort of federal abuse of power foreseen by many respected American leaders in the early 1800s and written about by Justice Joseph Story in 1833 in his ‘Commentaries’. They believed too much land in the hands of the federal government would enable the growth of tyranny from these lands, and “a system of laws (BLM regulations) incompatible with the nature and principles of a representative democracy, though not likely to be introduced at once, may be matured by degrees, and diffuse its influence through the states, and finally lay the foundation of the most important changes in the nature of the federal government.”

By all accounts, LaVoy Finicum was headed to a meeting in order to secure a peaceful resolution to this standoff, when he and Ryan and Ammon Bundy and two female passengers and Ryan Payne encountered the roadblock ambush, in which the FBI fired the first shots after Payne looked out the passenger window. Without returning fire, LaVoy announced his intentions to confer with the Sheriff, according to eyewitness and passenger Victoria Sharp, and as he drove away a hail of FBI bullets followed; it was at this point LaVoy veered off the road and exited the vehicle with his hands up.

Moments later, as seen in an FBI video, LaVoy drops his hands and makes several side-to-side movements. Without any accompanying sound, it is not readily discernible if LaVoy’s actions were a result of him being shot first or if he was in fact reaching for his pistol: This case has an eerily similar dark cloud accompanying it, as the events that surrounded federal criminal wrongs in relation to the Randy Weaver case and the murders of his family members.

“It was an assassination”, said Harney County resident Monte Seigner. “He had his hands up. He didn’t have a gun in his hands, and he wasn’t threatening no one.”

Susy Pearce said, “I don’t think they (the Feds) intended for any of them to survive”, as she referred to the occupants of Finicum’s vehicle, including 18-year-old Victoria Sharp. “I think he sacrificed himself to save them.” [Bold emphasis by Blog Editor]

Arianna Finicum Brown, 26, one of Finicum’s 11 children, said: “My dad was such a good man, through and through. He would never want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved.”

A few days before he and the Bundy brothers were ambushed by federal agents using excessive, unprovoked and unjustified force, Robert LaVoy Finicum stated in an interview “some things are more important than life, and defending liberty is one of them.”

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Tony Newbill on BLM Land Grab Conspiracy


Compiled by Tony Newbill

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted 1/24/16

Tony Newbill points out that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the bureau arm of the Executive Branch that has nefariously stolen land from farmer, ranchers and even miners in the Western USA to take the wealth out of private hands and into the hands of Big Brother. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

You have to realize this stealth robbery conducted by the BLM affects and has affected ranchers and farmers for some time; however, the Bundy standoff in Nevada and the Bundy-led standoff centered around the Hammonds in Oregon have gotten the attention Western families.

Tony begins with the Oregon standoff which include two rather lengthy Youtube videos that recording of what was then live streaming of Pete Santilli’s web-show. It is apparent to me that Santilli is boldly trying to cover something that the Mainstream Media has for the most part ignored except to vilify the ranchers and that the Federal government has actually taken lengths to block the public from receiving the full picture of BLM land thievery.

JRH 1/24/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

We have never seen anything like this before in the history of the USA!

Mon 1/11/2016 8:06 AM

http://tvoinews.com/sponsors/featured/the-fbi-meets-real-americans/

The FBI Meets the Idaho III% in Harney County

Posted by Becky

Jan 10, 2016

The Voice of Idaho News (TVOI News)

Yesterday in a historic event, the Idaho III% dropped by the FBI stronghold in Burns, Oregon to introduce themselves and to explain to the heavily harmed agents, exactly what they were doing in Harney County. The first few minutes were tense as the surprised FBI agents sought to figure out what was going on.

TVOI News gives a standing salute to the Idaho III% for their boldness and to the FBI Agents for remaining calm in what was no doubt a first for them.

The video of the meeting was shot by Michael Emry, owner and cameraman for The Voice of Idaho News (TVOI News).

VIDEO: Historic Militia Moment! Heavily Armed Idaho 3 Percenters Roll Up On FBI Compound Burns Oregon

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Streamed live on Jan 9, 2016

IMPORTANT UPDATES: Please go to our Facebook page to receive ongoing updates from on the ground in Burns, Oregon http://facebook.com/guerillamedia (PLEASE LIKE & COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK PAGE!)

Historic: Heavily Armed Idaho 3 Percenters Roll Up On FBI Compound (Pacific Patriot Network) – VIDEO CREDIT : Embed Reporter Michael Emery of The Voice of Idaho (http://tvoinews.com)

This is the very first time in U.S. History that the Federal Bureau of Investigations has ever been confronted by heavily armed members of the Patriot community. The leadership team of the Pacific Patriot Network rolled up on the FBI compound with approximately 20 vehicles and entered into firm, but diplomatic dialogue with FBI agents.

Again, to emphasize the significance of this historic event; the Constitutional Crisis at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is being peacefully resolved with direct intervention by the PPN.

More updates, analysis and coverage will follow this important report. PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH MEMBERS OF THE ENTIRE PATRIOT COMMUNITY……especially Stewart Rhodes and other nay-sayer fake-triots who lack the capacity to lead our republic to a Constitutional Restoration.

To all those who only participate in Patriot events they can win — in advance — you are witnessing the courage & leadership.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OUR MISSION ON THE GROUND HERE IN BURNS OREGON BY CONTRIBUTING AT: http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate

The second video is an interview between Pete Santilli and Brandon Curtis concerning the Idaho III% meeting with the FBI and their purpose for being in Burns, Oregon in the County of Harney.

VIDEO: Brandon Curtiss

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Streamed live on Jan 9, 2016

++++

Tue 1/19/2016 11:12 AM

Please read the link: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

Property Clause

The Heritage Guide to The Constitution

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…. -ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)

The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and wasteland managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.

The primary constitutional authority for the management and control of this vast real-estate empire is the Property Clause. The exact scope of this clause has long been a matter of debate. Broadly speaking, three different theories have been advanced.

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.

The broadest conception, which can be called the police-power theory, regards the clause as conferring not only the powers of ownership but also general sovereign authority to regulate private conduct that occurs on federal land or that affects federal land. In default of any federal rule, state law applies. But if Congress determines that a federal rule “respecting” federal land is “needful,” it may adopt federal legislation that supersedes state law. Thus, the Property Clause gives Congress the authority to adopt any type of legislation for federal lands, including codes of criminal law, family law, and exemptions from state taxation for persons residing on federal lands.

Although most commentators have polarized around the proprietary and police-power theories, there is also an intermediate conception of the Property Clause, which can be labeled the protective theory. This conception would go beyond the proprietary theory in regarding the clause as a partial source of sovereign authority. But it would stop short of the police-power theory by limiting that authority to legislation designed to protect the proprietary interests of the United States. Under this intermediate conception, for example, the clause would permit Congress to pass federal legislation regulating the sale of federal land, protecting federal land from trespasses and nuisances, or exempting federal land from state taxation. On the other hand, the clause would not permit Congress to enact a general code of criminal law or family law, nor would it permit Congress to exempt persons residing on federal land from general rules of state taxation.

It is not certain which of these three theories corresponds with the original understanding of the Framers, inasmuch as the debates from the Constitutional Convention and the ratification process have little to say about the Property Clause. One clue is provided by the structure of the Constitution. Article I, which sets forth the enumerated powers of Congress, includes a specific grant of power over the governance of federal property. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, known as the Enclave Clause, is plainly a grant of sovereign authority—indeed, exclusive sovereign authority—over the District of Columbia and other federal enclaves acquired with the consent of the state in which they are located.

Article I is the place where one would expect to find a grant of power to Congress to exercise political sovereignty over federal lands. Article IV, in contrast, which generally deals with issues of state-to-state relations (i.e., full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, extradition, repatriation of slaves, creation of new states, protection of states against invasion) would be an odd place to put such a power. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the careful drafting of the Constitution to assume that the Framers included two overlapping grants of sovereign political authority over federal lands. These structural considerations make it READ THE REST

The whole argument over State Rights vs Federal Government police state rights can be boiled down to the fact that the state has to agree to FORMAL CESSION of sovereignty of that land designated for Federal Policing and Formal would mean that the Public was made aware that this was going to happen and that state citizenry were in agreement of such Cession , and that be with Just Compensation, so the Question would be were these things done in Oregon, or any state that has experienced Malicious actions by a Federal agency that takes land away????

+++++

Obama Treason Cheating State Citizens out of their states wealth and resources!!!!!!!!

Thu 1/21/2016 8:33 AM

The Obama Administration is allowing Foreign Entities to come in and Use State resources and Land without going through the Formal Process of Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2, and the Citizens of the states be Compensated formally for such acts by the Obama Administration of states’ citizens be in charge and make deals themselves with these foreign entities!!!!!!!

Please read the link: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

[Blog Editor: See above excerpt]

The whole argument over State Rights vs Federal Government police state rights can be boiled down to the fact that the state has to agree to FORMAL CESSION of sovereignty of that land designated for Federal Policing and Formal would mean that the Public was made aware that this was going to happen and that state citizenry were in agreement of such Cession, and that be with Just Compensation, so the Question would be were these things done in Oregon , or any state that has experienced Malicious actions by a Federal agency that takes land away????

These SEZ [Special Economic Zone] sites should have first formally been asked for by the federal Government through the process of Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 and the states cession of said location be made with Just Compensation to the state, and or the state agree on its own to allow a SEZ into their state with just compensation to the state and management being done by state policy and activity.

[Blog Editor: When I first tried to understand the acronym “SEZ” the first thing I ran into was the “Special Economic Zone” I linked to in Tony’s above paragraph. Then I proceeded to Tony’s next link which is about Solar Energy Zones. As you can see “Solar Energy Zones” can use the acronym SEZ.

Apparently “Special Economic Zone” is a Communist China innovation. It began in China as a joint venture between the Communist government and Foreign Investors. The paradigm proved a very successful venture industrializing China into the current economic giant it is today. Here is a brief excerpt description:

Success is driven by China’s strategic balance of protectionism and economic liberalism; China’s investment policy and the regional development policy; and export-oriented growth and foreign economic policy.

Two strong features of the Chinese rapid economic development are the investment-driven and export-oriented growth, based on the Chinese government’s ability to formulate an effective industrial development policy while maintaining a favourable climate for foreign investment.

In order to attract Foreign Director Investment (FDI) without threatening the growth of domestic industries, China adopted measures that include:

– Regional industrial policies and export promotion strategies; – Development-oriented and sustainable FDI regimes that promote capital inflow, joint ventures between local firms and foreign investment; and, – Adoption of coherent strategies for Special Economic Zones.

Since the 1980s, Special Economic Zones were introduced in China through careful experimentation, notably starting in Guangdong Province where the remarkable story of Shenzhen was turned from what was once a fishing village into an ultra-modern industrial city.

This model has since been replicated over the last 35 years in other parts of China, turning the country from a previously agro-based economy into one that now derives about 90 percent of its income from industrial and service sectors.

China is already supporting Special Economic Zones in African countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Nigeria and Zambia. There are some lessons that can be drawn and adapted from China’s development experience. (Africa: The Role of Special Economic Zones in China’s Development Prospects for Africa; By Munetsi Madakufamba; allAfrica.com; 11/23/15)

As you can read in the above excerpt the focus is to bring SEZ success experienced by Communist China into fragmented Africa. As far as I know the SEZ paradigm has not worked in Africa. My guess is because the various national governments probably have too much corruption to attract lucrative foreign investors other than the special interests of Communist China. But what I am seeing is that the SEZ is working in nations that have stable governments of note is India and I have noticed some Eastern European nations.

My concern is Communist China has been establishing SEZs in the USA in which the foreign government of Communist China is the foreign investment and a cooperating American State is the local government:

What in the world is China up to? Over the past several years, the Chinese government and large Chinese corporations (which are often at least partially owned by the government) have been systematically buying up businesses, homes, farmland, real estate, infrastructure and natural resources all over America. In some cases, China appears to be attempting to purchase entire communities in one fell swoop. So why is this happening? Is this some form of “economic colonization” that is taking place? Some have speculated that China may be intending to establish “special economic zones” inside the United States modeled after the very successful Chinese city of Shenzhen. READ THE REST (Does China Plan To Establish “China Cities” And “Special Economic Zones” All Over America? By Michael Snyder; The Economic Collapse; 1/22/13)

Now I’m a bit suspicious of anything to do with Communism operating with government cooperation on American soil, BUT I think Tony Newbill is talking more about another SEZ – “Solar Energy Zone”. This kind of SEZ as you will read below, more about the Federal government usurping privately held land.]

http://www.solareis.anl.gov/sez/index.cfm

Solar Energy Zones

View maps and information about the 17 Solar PEIS solar energy zones (SEZs). These are the priority development areas for utility-scale solar energy facilities identified in the Solar PEIS Record of Decision. Information about the Arizona Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP) SEZ established in January 2013 is also available.

Solar PEIS SEZs

The map below shows the locations of 17 SEZs. Click the sun icons or labels in the map or follow the links below the map to learn more about each SEZ.

An SEZ is defined by the BLM as an area well-suited for utility-scale production of solar energy where BLM will prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. A discussion of the criteria used to identify SEZs is provided in Chapter 2 (Volume 1 of the Final Solar PEIS). Modifications to the originally proposed SEZs and SEZs dropped from further consideration are described in Chapters 8 through 13 of the Final Solar PEIS (Volumes 2 through 5).

Solar PEIS SEZs map

Arizona

§ Brenda

§ Gillespie

READ THE REST

This guy talks about having More Proof of the CIA, and a Canadian Co. facilitating the Uranium sale off the Hammond’s Ranch working with Hillary Clinton, and will reveal it in his next article:

https://investmentwatchblog.com/why-is-the-cia-taking-over-burns-oregon/

Why Is the CIA Taking Over Burns, Oregon?

Submitted by IWB, on January 17th, 2016

By Dave Hodges

InvestmentWatchBlog.com

Trust nobody! Personally verify everything.

The Ammon Bundy group, currently operating 30 miles outside of the Burns, Oregon, has been the victim of the most heinous and effective takeovers in the history of the media.

The Ammon Bundy group along with their presence in Oregon, threatens to expose a terrible agenda of oppression and governmental abuse being perpetrated against the American people and in particular the ranchers and the farmers in the West.

In an attempt to control the narrative, CNN and Fox News have been the only media organizations that have not either been physically taken down or neutralized through the infiltration by covert government operatives, many of them from the CIA.

To date, The Common Sense Show has been the only organization outside of Fox and CNN that has effectively covered the Ammon Bundy-Hammond Ranch controversy in a first-hand manner. And this coverage of the Hammond Ranch Affair did not occur without a severe price being paid by The Common Sense Show (CSS) and its related partners.

Katy Whelan, the Health Reporter for The Common Sense Show.

On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Katy Whelan, the health reporter for the CSS, made contact with a relative of Ammon Bundy. As many of you already know that both satellites that carry my show, the phone lines, the listen by phone option and all supportive operations of my satellite provider were taken down one minute before the scheduled interview was to begin. Adding legitimacy to this conspiracy to hide the truth behind the real events in Burns, Oregon, Ammon Bundy and his colleagues simultaneously had every form of their communications taken down at the same time. One would have to be one “helluva” coincidence theorist to not make this connection.

On the following day (January 11), the CSS and Ammon Bundy used alternative communication methods and we were able to get beyond censors of the federal government and produce the Dave Hodges/Sheila Zilinsky interview with Ammon Bundy. Below, is a link to this interview. It begins after 20 minutes into the show and lasts for almost 40 minutes. In this 40 minutes lies the only honest account, to date of what is really going on Burns and what Ammon Bundy and colleagues are really trying to accomplish.

Ammon Bundy, leading the way for the restoration of property rights for ranchers and Native Americans in the West.

LISTEN TO THE AMMON BUNDY INTERVIEW

The events are threatening to every American, not just ranchers and farmers in the West. The BLM and the EPA are starting with the ranchers and farmers but they are working their way towards all of us, even those of us who live in densely populated urban areas. All of us will soon become victims of this tyranny. The CSS will be exposing the full extent of this plot in a future article.

As an aside, when I became involved with the events in Burns, Oregon, Zuckerberg and his minions have banned me from Facebook.

The Plot to Silence the Independent Media

Pastors serving government over God.

Some involved Americans are keenly aware of how our churches have been compromised by the DHS’ plot to control pastors through the formation of the Clergy Response Team. Today, societal events that would have sent Christians into a tizzy a dozen years ago, go unprotested and largely unnoticed by Christian followers because many of the pastors are controlled by the DHS and are leveraged through tax exempt programs offered by the IRS which are designed to compromise the message of Christ. Well, the same thing is going on inside of the Independent Media.

The Independent Media Is Under Extreme Attack

There is a plot so massive, so corrupt and so well-orchestrated that nearly every member and organization connected to the Independent Media is READ THE REST

There were no Formal requests made by the Obama administration in the Public forum process under the Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 rights of the state. This can be said across the board on a variety of states’ resources according to this link:

http://tvoinews.com/featured/the-cowboys-last-stand-2/

The Cowboy’s Last Stand

Posted by Vicky Davis

Jan 16, 2016

TVOI News

I returned from Burns, Oregon last night discouraged and disappointed. Never let it be said that there was any premeditation or strategic planning for the events at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Watching the events unfold as they have, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the occupation of Malheur Headquarters – or the Harney County Resource Center may well be known in history as The Cowboy’s Last Stand. They have the media event down pat but the back half… the planning for the “now what do we do” is demonstrably lacking as the events are rolling along ad hoc. At yesterday’s press conference – which I found out about literally two seconds before I was ready to leave town, we hear that Stephen E. Grasty is preventing the occupiers from using any county facilities for holding a town hall meeting. Now that’s a surprise.

Grasty McNasty is Boss Hawg of Harney County. He is both a County Commissioner and the County Judge at the same time. He has been doing everything in his power to assist the FBI in creating a climate of fear in the town of Burns. He had the chutzpah to tell the now former Harney County Fire Chief, Chris Briels that Briels was an old man who didn’t understand what was going on and that he was the one who was creating fear when he reported that it was FBI Agents in plain clothes who were skulking around the town armory and that they lied to him when he confronted them about it. It’s well known in urban areas that the FBI brings in agent provocateurs to cause trouble giving the killers with badges the justification for their actions when Americans have had enough and protest. Now the local police and the people of Harney County know it too.

Harney County Official- P. Runnels, D. Nichols & S. Grasly

It’s not hard to figure out why Grasty McNasty would have his olfactory appendage so far up the federal rectum. Federal money flows to the counties and there is no doubt that McNasty will be rewarded for being a quisling. The only question is how much will he get for himself. The pattern globally seems to be that public officials are paid $100,000 in cash for selling out their constituents. That’s an embarrassingly cheap price for what they are selling. Why would I mention the global pattern for public officials that sell out? Because the structure of the global economy – using the United States as the example, is that our corporations invest in foreign countries and the corporations of foreign countries invest in this country. It’s a system of Creative Treason – building a deadly embrace of READ THE REST

MAKE THE FBI STAND DOWN in BURNS OREGON while this Constitutional Crisis is being worked out by Demanding protection under the CONSTITUTION RESTORATION ACT!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqEYMaYo1Yo

VIDEO: FBI CONFIRMS TRIAGE SET UP @ LOCAL HOSPITAL W/SPECIAL SURGICAL TEAM AND CALL FOR BLOOD [Best viewed in full screen]

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Streamed live on Jan 19, 2016

*** Please help support our mission in Burns, Oregon by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal acoount [sic]: peter@petersantilli.com. Please also LIKE our Facebook page to receive important updates and information from Burns, Oregon http://Facebook.com/guerillamedia **** [Blog Editor: There is more but it is primarily promotional]

The FBI is being ordered to secure the area and all areas, YOU CAN, under this Constitutional Restoration Act DEMAND the Federal Government WHO HAS MADE DEALS with Foreign Nationalists for the State Lands’ resources TO STAND DOWN! While you are working out this constitutional crisis and you can use the Courts to STOP THEM from using FORCE to take back control with this Constitution Restoration ACT ordering the Courts to tell the Federal Government to STAND DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Restoration_Act

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (originally “of 2004”) is a proposed federal law filed on March 3, 2005 by United States Senator Richard Shelby (RAL) and Representative Robert Aderholt (R-AL). It is Senate Bill S 520 and House of Representatives bill H.R. 1070. It was originally drafted by Roy Moore and his attorney Herb Titus, former vice-presidential candidate of the Constitution Party, in 1996.[1][2]

The central statement of the bill is that, after passing, “the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” In other words, the bill would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases. The bill also states that judges or other court officials that listen to cases that meet said criteria are to be impeached and convicted.

Supporters of the bills, largely conservative Republicans, claim that the legislation re-asserts the original meaning of the First Amendment and the principle of limited government power over rights of conscience and religion.[2][3][4] Opponents of the bill have expressed concern that the bill would repeal the applicability of the First Amendment to state and local governments by rendering it impossible to appeal constitutionally questionable state decisions beyond the state level. The act has been viewed by critics as an attempt to advance the cause of Dominionism by conservative evangelical Christian Republicans.[5][6][7] Roy Moore, one of the original drafters of the bill, describes its purpose as:

“The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the ‘organic law’ of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts. The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land.[1]

The bills were originally introduced in 2004 in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, but languished in committee. Reintroduced at the beginning of the 2005 congressional session, they were read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where they again languished. The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservative House members of the Republican Party, allegedly promoted the passage of “protections for religious freedom” as item #10 on their list of top ten legislative priorities of 2006. In early 2006 the proposal was endorsed by panels of both houses of the Idaho Legislature.[8] (Wikipedia; This page was last modified on 10 January 2016, at 19:06.)

It’s time to Bring a Constitution Restoration Act action against the Obama Administration Claiming Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 process was Not followed to allow Obama to sell and make agreements with Foreign Countries to own and use US State Lands!!!!!!!!!!!

+++

1/23/2016 1:00 PM

Check this out ….

http://freedomfromgovernment.org/the-secret-that-no-one-wants-you-to-know-about-the-standoff-in-oregon/#more-51

This Gold Butte actually has quite a wild history of government trying to take the land, including closing the only post office in the area so that packages could not be delivered which put a real damper on things for those trying to live in the area. Another interesting bit of information is that the wiki page for Gold Butte Ghost Town was recently updated to reflect “new” changes to a page for a “ghost town”. Why would it need to be updated? Check out this video from Dutchsinse from last April (2015).

 

VIDEO: 4/15/2015 — Gold Rush! Bundy Ranch v2.0 Reloaded — Oregon Mining town BLM takeover

 

 

Posted by dutchsinse

Published on Apr 15, 2015

Check oldmarine1 for updates on this, he’s staying on top of breaking news regarding this: https://www.youtube.com/user/theoldmarine1
_______

We all remember the BLM / Bundy Ranch standoff which occurred in 2014.

Most people don’t know, the Nevada land grab was NOT about “cattle”. It was about Gold Butte, Nevada. Gold Butte is an old dormant butte volcano, and an old GOLD MINING TOWN which was shut down by the government between 1905 -1908. During World War 1 a large majority of the copper and silver used in the war came from around this location in Clark County Nevada.

Ironically, 100 years ago is the time where Bundy claims his family began ranching the area. It is odd that the families that stayed behind AFTER the government shut down the post office (on purpose shut down to cut off supply to the town…. turned out to be ranchers — and that was 100 years ago.

Bundy, an old man now in 2015 must have been passed down a “family secret” about the Gold deposits, silver deposits, and other precious metals in the ground at Gold Butte, NV.

The whole BLM land grab in 2014 was about Gold. Which is why Harry Reid wanted to strip mine the area and build a “solar farm” on Gold Butte after they level the mountainside and get the contents of the stripped surface and subsurface.

______

Gold Butte is located about 33 miles southeast of Glendale.

Mica was first discovered here in 1873, and then gold in 1905. By the next year, a post office was built. A gold rush in 1908 brought in more people, and the townsite now had a hotel, livery stable, post office, mercantile, and several residences. Another camp named Copper City was started two miles west at the site of the short-lived Lincoln copper mine.

By 1910 the gold rush was over and most mining operations ceased. No buildings remain, only a couple concrete slabs / foundations, two graves, and several old mine shafts.

Mining is thought to have begun in the 1700’s when the Spanish left remnants of their efforts in the form of arrastras. An arrastra is a large flat rock hollowed out over which a donkey would drag another rock to crush the ore. There are four known arrastras in the Gold Butte townsite area.

In the 1800’s mica was being mined and shipped from the area. Gold was discovered in 1906 and by 1907 Gold Butte was booming with a speculated population of 2,000. By 1909 the boom went bust and the post office was removed from the townsite of Gold Butte. Mining continued in the area as the Grand Gulch copper mine produced much of the needed copper for World War 1. The wagon trails that carried the copper to the St. Thomas railroad spur can still be followed to this day. The wagon masters’ signatures in wagon wheel axel grease tell the story on the sandstone walls of Mud Wash.

______

Now move forward to 2015, and we have Galice Oregon, and a repeat situation of the BLM coming in to a Gold mining town to seize land for their own use.

Again we have locals who mine the land, who have a miners claim (by law) on land that is public use.

Just like Nevada, Bundy, and Gold Butte, in Oregon we have Gold HILL nearby.

A butte and a hill could be considered very much similar. Nearby volcanoes at each location tell the tale of the rich mineral deposits which must exist at both locations in NV, and OR.
______

http://www.friendsofgoldbutte.org/about/historical-resources/

https://www.google.com/search?q=gold+butte+nevada

https://www.google.com/search?q=gold+butte+nevada+WWI+copper

http://silverstateghosttowns.com/goldbutte.html

http://kensphotogallery.blogspot.com/2015/01/daytrip-gold-butte-town-site-gold-butte.html

 

Which brings us to “GOLD HILL” Oregon in April of last year. Do you remember that? Here is a little “refresher” for you… (The Secret That NO ONE Wants You To Know About The Standoff in Oregon; By Trent-004; Freedom from Government; 1/16/16)

So we the people need this from our states’ resource then: http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-residents-1-884-payout-oil-royalty-fund-211659963.html

Alaska residents to get $1,884 payout from oil royalty fund

By Steve Quinn

September 17, 2014 5:16 PM

Yahoo News

JUNEAU Alaska (Reuters) – Nearly every Alaska resident will soon be $1,884 richer, thanks to an annual payout from an oil wealth trust fund that has been credited with keeping many low-income families out of poverty, state officials said on Wednesday.

More than 640,000 Alaska residents will receive the payment from The Alaska Permanent Fund next month, which Department of Revenue Commissioner Angela Rodell says is the third largest since the state began paying such sums in 1982 with a $1,000 check.

The sum is more than twice the $900 paid to each Alaska resident last year and more than the collective payments from each of the last two years. But it is still off from a high of $2,069 paid in 2008.

Alaska’s Permanent Fund was established by a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1976 requiring a portion of state oil revenues be put into a savings account to be available for the distant future, when North Slope oil fields are tapped out.

The annual direct payout to citizens, derived from a formula averaging READ THE REST

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Some links are by the Editor. Text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Tony Newbill