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

Nullifying Obama’s Gun Executive Order


John R. Houk

© January 22, 2016

I was raised through High School and College in eastern Washington State (to distinguish from the predominantly Left Wing west side). However, I have lived in Oklahoma for about 25 years (give or take). I am probably more akin to Okie Conservative voters than I am to Washington State voters.

In saying all that I am quite pleased with a State Senate bill that will officially be introduced at the beginning of the Oklahoma State legislative session beginning on February 1, 2016.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) will introduce the Second Amendment Preservation Act to be filed as SB1123. The bill is sure to cause controversy with America’s current Leftist-in=Chief President Barack Hussein Obama. Currently Obama is making another end-run around the U.S. Constitution and Congress by forcing Americans to live with unconstitutional restrictions against the Second Amendment restraining American citizens from guns that the Second Amendment guarantees to possess.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. (Bold emphasis is Blog Editor’s – Second Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

You should be able to guess that Obama does not support the “individual right theory” but rather is a “Living Constitution” advocate of “the collective rights theory”. Whenever you see the word “collective” the political objective is Leftist-Marxist in orientation. (Living Constitution vs. Originalism See ‘Our Constitution: Absolutely Not A “Living Breathing Document”’ and “Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society”)

Let’s be clear on Obama’s early January 2016-gun control push. Some of the Dem President’s actions have the appearance of targeting gun purchases that probably should not have occurred. For example, people with mental health issues and expanded background checks.

BUT every time a Leftist politician puts forth well intentioned laws or bureaucratic rules with the enforcement of rule of law behind it, the toe is in the door for slow yet widening restrictions on individuals with more and more authority placed into the top-to-bottom grasp of government intrusion on individual rights.

The administrative steps will include a crackdown on gun dealers who bill themselves as “collectors” or “personal sellers” but are actually engaged in the business of firearms sales, including transactions online, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will require more of these dealers to obtain federal licenses, at the agency’s discretion, necessitating background checks on their sales.

The administration also will propose $500 million for expanded access to mental health services and, in a move that could raise privacy concerns, will seek to include’ mental health information on background checks for gun purchases.

The FBI will hire 230 examiners — an increase of 50 percent — to conduct the background checks on gun purchases. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year received 22.2 million requests for background checks, including about 3 million in December alone.

“We intend to make this system more efficient. The goal is keeping bad actors away from firearms,” Ms. Lynch said.

Mr. Obama’s budget for fiscal 2017 also will call for 200 more ATF agents to enforce existing laws. Beefing up the department’s budget has often met with a lack of enthusiasm in Congress.

The president also will require background checks for gun purchases conducted through a trust or corporation. Officials said the number of applications for such gun purchases has risen from about 900 in 2000 to more than 90,000 in 2014.

He also directed the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to conduct research into “smart gun” technology, “to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.”

On the mental health aspects of the president’s actions, the White House said the Social Security Administration will begin the rule-making process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons.

The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove legal barriers preventing states from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing guns for specific mental health reasons. (Obama’s new gun regulations to require more background checks on purchases; By Dave Boyer; Washington Times; 1/4/16)

Background checks are good; however, background checks can be abused to the point of making it impossible to purchase a gun. Mental Health restrictions are good, but what if the Mental Health rule restrictions include something simplistic as agoraphobia, a fear of heights, a fear of being raped, a fear of home invasion and so on. Leftist abuse is ripe for the toe to kick down the entire door of constitutional individual rights.

Ergo thank GOD for Oklahoma and a bastion of voters that stick up and elect people with strong American values. State Senator Dahm’s Second Amendment Preservation Act is a constitutional State’s Rights implication of nullifying Federal intrusion of extending the arm of Big Brother over an issue best left to each individual American State to decide as per the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People; U.S. Constitution)

So let’s take a look at the article that made me pleased to reside in the great State of Oklahoma from the Tenth Amendment Center.

JRH 1/22/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify in Practice All New Federal Gun Control Measures

By Mike Maharrey

Posted January 21, 2016 10:27 pm

Tenth Amendment Center

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 22, 2016) – An Oklahoma bill prefiled for the 2016 legislative session would prohibit state cooperation with the enforcement all future federal gun control measures, effectively nullifying them in practice within the state.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) prefiled Senate Bill 1123 (SB1123) this week. Titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, the legislation would prohibit any state or local agency, along with their employees, from knowingly and willingly participating in any way in the enforcement of any future federal act, law, order, rule or regulation issued regarding a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition. The bill would also ban the use of state assets or money in the enforcement of future federal gun laws.

Any local government found to have assisted in the enforcement of such federal gun laws in violation of the act would lose all of its grant funds the following year. State or local employers would face criminal penalties for knowingly violating the law in their official capacity.

SB1123 would effectively withdraw all state cooperation from the implementation or enforcement of future federal gun laws.

The legislation does not require any determination of constitutionality. It doesn’t attempt to physically interfere with federal enforcement of its own laws, but instead simply directs all state agencies to simply stand down. By removing resources and assistance that the federal government relies upon to carry out enforcement, these federal gun laws would be blocked in effect.

EFFECTIVE

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun laws. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”

LEGAL BASIS

SB1123 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Language in the bill refers to this universally accepted principle.

“Pursuant to and in furtherance of the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, the federal government may not commandeer this State’s officers, agents or employees to participate in the enforcement or facilitation of any federal program not expressly required by the Constitution of the United States.”

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1123 will be officially introduced on when the 2016 legislative session begins on Feb. 1. At that time it will receive a committee assignment. It will have to pass out of committee by a majority vote before moving on to the full Senate for consideration.

TAKE ACTION IN SUPPORT

In Oklahoma: follow all the steps to support this bill at THIS LINK

All other states: contact your state legislator and encourage them to introduce similar legislation to stop federal gun control at this link.

_______________________

Nullifying Obama’s Gun Executive Order

John R. Houk

© January 22, 2016

______________________

Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify in Practice All New Federal Gun Control Measures

About the Tenth Amendment Center

Starting in 1767, in response to the Townshend Acts, John Dickinson, often referred to as “the Penman of the Revolution” wrote a series of 12 essays known as “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.”

In his first, he spent time discussing the last of the acts, the New York Restraining Act, which was punishment for the Assembly of New York, suspending its legislative powers for failing to fully comply with orders from the crown. He wrote:

If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.

He continued to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other assemblies to have passed a non-binding resolution informing parliament that the act was a violation of rights and that it should be repealed.

Why? His answer came through clearly in his signature, where he wrote the Latin phrase, Concordia res parvae crescunt.

Small things grow great by concord.

Clearly, the Penman of the Revolution was right – and small things did grow great in the coming years.

In many ways, today’s federal government has suspended the legislative power of state assemblies by assuming control over powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. In recent years, this country has seen small things grow great once again – the simple introduction of non-binding resolutions affirming the 10th amendment has grown into a movement…

The Tenth Amendment Center is a national think tank that works to preserve and protect the principles of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power as required by the Constitution.

About the Tenth Amendment – click here

Please don’t hesitate to contact us with questions or comments.

Every Patriot’s Resolve


Intro to ‘Every Patriot’s Resolve’

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted: 1/7/16

By Mark Alexander

During the two terms of George Washington’s Presidency there really no organized political parties as we see now in the present. There were Federalists that supported the passage and formation of the U.S. Constitution giving more political authority to a national government and the Anti-Federalists who believed the U.S. Constitution took on too much authority over the individual states that became the United States of America.

In a Mark Alexander post that I sense is a response to President Barack Hussein Obama’s usurpations exerting more authority over ‘We the People’ than even the Constitution intended with its Checks and Balances paradigm via Executive Orders (EO). Obama’s usage of Eos to by-pass Congress unconstitutionally has been a misuse of Executive power nearly from the beginning of the current President’s Administration now stretching to the end of his second term in Office. The most recent egregious EO as of this posting is the imposition of the President’s desire to control America’s guns way beyond the scope of the intentions of the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (2nd Amendment – FindLaw.com)

Frankly much of the teary-eyed press conference on his gun control EO was something I could agree with when it comes individuals purchasing guns. BUT my concerns are the details on individuals that would limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves according to the Second Amendment. Also Obama did not provide a lot of details on the sellers of guns especially as it pertains to Joe American selling or giving a gun to a family member or to the next door neighbor Bubba American.

I listened to Judge Napolitano on Fox News tell some rules pertaining to an individual who doesn’t have a gun business but sells a gun. And I read a Napolitano article at Townhall.com about the requirements from doctors who listen to their patients talk about a gun. From that article:

He has also decreed that any licensee who fails to perform a background check on the person to whom the licensee has transferred a gun shall be guilty of a felony. Give a BB gun to your nephew on his 16th birthday without a federal license and you can go to prison.

By requiring physicians to report conversations with their patients about guns to the DHS, the president will be encouraging them to invade the physician-patient privilege; and I suspect that most doctors will ignore him.

Under the Constitution, fundamental liberties (speech, a free press, worship, self-defense, travel and privacy, to name a few) are accorded the highest protection from governmental intrusion. One can only lose a fundamental right by READ ENTIRETY (Quote from page 2The Constitution, the President and Guns; By Judge Andrew Napolitano; Townhall.com; 1/7/16)

I am convinced there are more unconstitutional threats to the Obama EO that I haven’t been able to find – yet. I wonder if Obama intends to bury the EO details under Executive Privilege.

Here is Mark Alexander’s post that shows respect for the Constitution, Patriotism and if you pay attention you will realize the Founding Fathers’ intentions about the Federal government and religious faith.

JRH 1/7/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Every Patriot’s Resolve

Timeless Advice for 2016

 

By Mark Alexander

January 6, 2016

The Patriot Post

“Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.” –Benjamin Franklin (1772)

This past week, my family’s ancestral grandfather clock rang in its 266th new year. This early American instrument, which towers above our dining room table, was set into motion in 1750 by its maker, Benjamin Chandlee, the eldest son of the first immigrant in my maternal family line.

That same year, Benjamin also completed an almost identical clock for Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee, a cavalry officer in George Washington’s revolutionary army, who bequeathed that clock to his son, Robert E. Lee. It now stands in the president’s house at Washington and Lee University. (In addition to being among the earliest and most respected American clockmakers, the Chandlees also produced George Washington’s surveying instruments.)

I mention this clock by way of making this point: Our New Year’s Eve celebration was not defined by celebrity fanfare in Times Square, but in the rich context of American history and the legacy of our family and Founders.

That legacy frames the mission of The Patriot Post’s advocacy for individual Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. As my friend Cal Thomas says, “The Patriot Post interprets current issues in the conservative context of American history — the immutable context of American Liberty.”

Unlike the now-ubiquitous Internet publications and blogs, every word of analysis our Patriot editors have posted since our inception has been tempered by historical context. That distinguishes The Patriot Post from every other news, policy and opinion source on the Web, with the exception of our friends at The Heritage Foundation, who were instrumental in our launch 20 years ago. That is also why we have been on the Web longer than virtually any other publication.

Today, we are charging into 2016. As anticipated, this year began with yet another leftist assault on American Liberty and its most fundamental assurance, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Barack Obama’s faux tears when announcing his latest constitutional insult would not have passed even the worst B-movie standards.

Of course, Obama and his Socialist Democratic Party statists know that, in the words of James Madison, “[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any.”

Those words ring truer today than ever — and it is precisely that “barrier against the enterprises of ambition” that leftists would most like to demolish.

And, as Madison’s Supreme Court appointee, Joseph Story, confirmed in his “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

As we set about laying the foundation for real change in 2016, I’ve chosen some wise words of advice from a few of our Founders that best serve as a beacon to all American Patriots!

From George Washington: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. … Do not conceive that fine Clothes make fine Men, any more than fine feathers make fine Birds. A plain genteel dress is more admired and obtains more credit than lace and embroidery in the Eyes of the judicious and sensible. … Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence; true friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks and adversity before it is entitled to the appellation. … Your love of Liberty – your respect for the laws – your habits of industry – and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness. … We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times. … The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. … Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind! … We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.”

From Thomas Jefferson: “Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing. … It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition. … It is a happy circumstance in human affairs that evils which are not cured in one way will cure themselves in some other. … Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence.”

From Thomas Paine: “Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. … These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. … I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. … The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. … The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. … What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”

From Benjamin Franklin: “Have you something to do tomorrow; do it to-day. … Strive to be the greatest man in your country, and you may be disappointed. Strive to be the best and you may succeed: he may well win the race that runs by himself. … A Spoonful of Honey will catch more Flies than a Gallon of Vinegar. … Sloth, like Rust, consumes faster than Labour wears; while the used Key is always bright… Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that’s the stuff life is made of. … Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. … Wish not so much to live long as to live well.”

The foes of Liberty should take note of these words from the Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms (1775): “With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves.”

Patriots, in this presidential election year, I invoke this timeless wisdom from George Washington’s farewell address (1796): “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” Indeed, there are among even the ranks of Republican presidential contenders some pretenders. Caveat Emptor! The future of Liberty hinges on the ability and willingness of grassroots Patriots to distinguish between the genuine article and the false prophets.

Finally, a word from Ronald Reagan, the man who lifted me, when a young college student, from the liberal abyss, and called millions in my generation into reverence for the fundamentals of American Liberty: “Live each day to the fullest. Live each day with enthusiasm, optimism and hope. If you do, I am convinced that your contribution to this wonderful experiment we call America will be profound.”

Thank you for sustaining The Patriot Post’s advocacy of Liberty by your support of our mission and operations budget in 2015!

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

__________________

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2016 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

© 2016, The Patriot Post.

About The Patriot Post

About Mark Alexander

Donate Online

Stand Up to Anti-Constitution & Anti-Christian Multiculturalists


John R. Houk

© January 2, 2016

Nearly a month ago Attorney General Loretta Lynch told a group of Muslims in a public speech that the Department of Justice would go after anyone that used anti-Muslim rhetoric. After being busted publicly Lynch walked back her anti-Muslim rhetoric speech in a slight of hand clarification saying she meant those who followed rhetoric with acts of violence.

You know after the example of her predecessor Eric Holder looking the other way when the New Black Panthers intimidated voters at a polling station, sent a Federal investigation to Ferguson to manipulate the law on exonerated Officer Darren Wilson as just a few examples. Lynch has just kept rolling along with questionable Constitutional actions.

And yet when the Ferguson riots occurred, More New Black Panther intimidation, Black Lives Matter hatred of local law enforcement, Islamic terrorism more often noted as work place violence and so on; America has endured SEVEN years of a do-nothing Obama and DOJ.

Here is a relevant thought at HotAir.com:

To be honest, I’m not sure my headline captures what she’s saying. Watch the clip and ask yourself if she’s talking about hateful acts or hateful speech. Not so clear, is it? She mentions speech and rhetoric and the First Amendment but she keeps coming back to prosecuting actions. If all she’s saying is that she’ll charge anyone who acts violently towards Muslims, that’s not newsworthy. That’s her doing her job. If what she’s saying is that she’ll charge anyone who speaks violently about Muslims, that’s something else. (Loretta Lynch: We will prosecute hateful rhetoric about Muslims that “edges towards violence”; By AllahPundit; Hot Air; 12/4/15 4:01 PM)

VIDEO: TRUNEWS VIDEO: AG Loretta Lynch to Prosecute ‘Anti-Muslim Speech’

 

Posted by TRUNEWS with Rick Wiles

Published on Dec 4, 2015

WWW.TRUNEWS.COM
Attorney-General Loretta Lynch To Prosecute ‘Anti-Muslim Speech’

TRUNEWS anchor Kelly Sloan files this report on comments that US Attorney-General Loretta Lynch made at a recent Muslim Advocates meeting, saying that in addition to prosecuting violent actions, she fully intend to go after those that speak ‘anti-muslim rhetoric’. In the comments, she boasts about the number of actions already taken by the Obama Administration.

See AG Lynch attempt to dial back her comments at a later event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4-szKATbN4

Islam by its own nature needs to be ridiculed because its precepts and concepts would not stand up to the U.S. Constitution. That is unless some Leftist Multiculturalist invokes the Living Constitution fallacy that the Constitution must be interpreted by what the State calls culturally common rather than the Founding Fathers Original Intent.

Here is an example of the Quran telling its adherents to act toward non-Muslims who Insult Allah, Mo or Islam:

The Qur’an:

Quran (6:93)“Who can be more wicked than one who invent a lie against Allah?” If the death penalty is prescribed for lesser crime, then it stands to reason that it should be imposed for the most “wicked”.

Quran (33:57)“Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and has prepared for them the doom of the disdained

Quran (33:61) – [continues from above] “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” (Insulting Islam; The Religion of Peace)

On a personal level will not be pulling back from what Islam stands for; viz., calling Christianity and its ungodly for being a religion that believes Jesus Christ was the Son of God, crucified to death and arising bodily in a glorified body in the Lord’s Resurrection.

Jesus called Himself the “Son of God” throughout the Gospels, (John 3:16-18), and the disciples also identified Him as the Son of God in their writings, (Rom 1:3).

Further, Jesus identified Himself as God revealed in the flesh, (John 8:58), and His disciples identified Him as God, (John 1:1, Phil 2:5-11). How could Jesus be The Son of God, and God at the same time? What does this term – “Son of God” mean? And if Jesus is the Son, in what way is Jesus God’s Son? Did God have physical relations with Mary and get her pregnant?

Many Muslims do not understand what this term, according to Christian theology, actually means. They have asked me these or similar questions. This paper focuses on what the term “Son of God” signifies in Christian theology with respect to Muslim understanding.

MUSLIMS AND THE SON OF GOD

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, misunderstood what the term “Son of God” meant with respect to Christianity. He thought of it only in terms of sexual reproduction, i.e. that God fathered a child through sexual intercourse with Mary. Therefore he spoke out against it.

Christians also reject that God had physical intercourse with Mary, but we understand Christ being God’s Son as an analogical term. We believe that the eternal Son of God, one with the Father from all eternity, united to Him in one Spirit, “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and took “the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7). We believe in the incarnation of the Son of God.

Muhammad did hear the Christians proclaim Jesus the Messiah as God’s Son, but understanding or not, he specifically denied that Jesus was the Son of God. He said in the Quran, … (JESUS THE “SON” OF GOD; By Silas; Answering Islam)

And here is one example of many in the Quran denying the Son of God in Jesus Christ:

29

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30 The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
32 Fain would they extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
33 It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

34

O ye who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of Allah. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah: announce unto them a most grievous penalty- (Quran 9: 29-34 Search Truth Quran)

This makes Islam an antichrist religion and will continue to criticize the theopolitical religion. By the way, denying Christ as the Son of God is just one example of Islam’s anti-Christian nature.

John’s Gospel 3

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a]14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John 2

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 John 4

1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (John 3: 12-18; 1 John 2: 22-23; 4: 1-3 NKJV)

This TRUE Word of God illustrates Islam as a demon’s spawn religion. I will thus not fear to criticize Islam due to its threats and will stand against Leftist spewing unconstitutional threats as from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

I finish with the little over a minute passion of the Joe Walsh Show toward AG Lynch.

VIDEO: Loretta Lynch: “Prosecute Me”

 

Posted by The Joe Walsh Show

Published on Dec 5, 2015

More at http://www.walshfreedom.com
Facebook page at http://facebook.com/joewalsh
Follow on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/walshfreedom

The day after Muslim terrorists killed 14 Americans, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed to prosecute anyone who uses “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

What the hell does that mean? I have a 1st Amendment right, Ms Lynch, to say whatever I want about Muslims.

You want to try and prosecute me for what I say? I dare you. Here goes:

Most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law. They are our enemy. I don’t want them in America. Any Muslim that won’t assimilate should get the hell out of America. Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If “Moderate” Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country. I hope there is a backlash against Muslims because Islam, as practiced by most Muslims, is not a religion of peace, and all of us who do live in peace should do whatever we can to defeat Islam.

There Ms Lynch. As an American, I have a right to say everything I just did. And I will continue to speak the truth about Islam in the hopes that others will wake up to this truth and do what we can to defeat this evil in our midst.

Is that “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence”. Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.

JRH 1/2/16 (Hat Tip: Apollo farsyker

American Infidel Alliance)

Please Support NCCR

 

HUGE Free Speech Victory for SIOA


You do realize Left Wing Multiculturalist thinking has hampered Counterjihad writers and/or organizations to utilize proper legal protections for their brand, right? Well, that might actually be ending soon.

Simon Shiao Tam won his appellate case that will force the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register trademarks for organizations that may have a name that a race or group of people may find offensive. In Mr. Tam’s case it was to register the trademark “Slant” as representative of his Asian-American dance rock band. A whole slew of Conservative civil rights organizations joined Mr. Tam’s suit because the outcome affected many others denied a trademark by the USPTO under a Federal Law prohibiting trademarked names to include disparaging words as defined by the government.

One of those beneficiaries of the suit won by Tam was Pamela Geller who was a bit miffed when the USPTO rejected the SIOA and AFDI registered trademark names fighting the civil rights abuses that Islam’s Sharia Law does to Western Rights and the American Constitution in particular. Below is Geller’s victory dance post celebrating the Tam decision in a Federal Circuit Court.

JRH 12/24/15 (Hat Tip: Marlene of Out Spoken Patriots Google + Group)

Please Support NCCR

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

HUGE Free Speech Victory for SIOA: Federal Circuit Court Reverses 70-Year “Unconstitutional”

By Pamela Geller

December 22, 2015

PamelaGeller.comAtlas Shrugs

Longtime Atlas readers are quite familiar with our First Amendment trademark case. We have been fighting to trademark SIOA (Stop Islamization of America) but were repeatedly refused because it considered “disparaging” to Muslims. It was, in effect, an application of sharia law (‘do not criticize Islam.’)

Today we had a big victory against this fascist-style ban. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed 70 years of holdings that said there is no First Amendment protection in trademark cases. In reversing, it held as unconstitutional the “disparaging” prohibition, citing SIOA first and frequently.

What a wonderful Christmas miracle :)

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement pro- scription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional.

The USPTO had rejected AFDI’s trademark application [bad link] based on the following analysis:

“Islamisation” means converting to Islam or “to make Islamic;” and (2), “Stop” would be understood to mean that “action must be taken to cease, or put an end to, converting or making people in America conform to Islam.” Thus, the trademark, according to the “Office Action” ruling, disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism. (AFLC)

The court concludes that “Stop the Islamization of America” mark, as used by its promoters, is likely to be understood as “disparaging to a substantial composite” of Muslims, whether “Islamization” refers to conversion to Islam or to “a political movement to replace man-made laws with the religious laws of Islam.”

Now that Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has held as “unconstitutional” the disparaging prohibition we are going to move forward with getting our trademark.

government enacted this law—and defends it today— because it disapproves of the messages conveyed by disparaging marks. It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys. That principle governs even when the government’s message-discriminatory penalty is less than a prohibition.

Courts have been slow to appreciate the expressive power of trademarks. Words—even a single word—can be powerful. Mr. Simon Shiao Tam named his band THE SLANTS to make a statement about racial and cultural issues in this country. With his band name, Mr. Tam conveys more about our society than many volumes of undisputedly protected speech. Another rejected mark, STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA, proclaims that Islamisation is undesirable and should be stopped. Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communi- ties. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech.

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement pro- scription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional. Because the gov- ernment has offered no legitimate interests justifying § 2(a), we conclude that it would also be unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny traditionally applied to regulation of the commercial aspects of speech.

This is a big case – and it won’t only affect us but the Washington Redskins, the rock band

Here are some of the salient pssages in the finding:

Importantly, every time the PTO refuses to register a mark under § 2(a), it does so because it believes the mark conveys an expressive message—a message that is dis- paraging to certain groups. STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA is expressive. In refusing to register the mark, the Board explained that the “mark’s admonition to ‘STOP’ Islamisation in America ‘sets a negative tone and signals that Islamization is undesirable and is something that must be brought to an end in America.’” Geller, 751 F.3d at 1361.

We limit our holding in this case to the constitu- tionality of the § 2(a) disparagement provision. Recogniz- ing, however, that other portions of § 2 may likewise constitute government regulation of expression based on message, such as the exclusions of immoral or scandalous marks, we leave to future panels the consideration of the § 2 provisions other than the disparagement provision at issue here. To be clear, we overrule In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981), and other precedent insofar as they could be argued to prevent a future panel from considering the constitutionality of other portions of § 2 in light of the present decision.

A disparaging mark is a mark which “dishonors by comparison with what is inferior, slights, deprecates, degrades, or affects or injures by unjust comparison.” Geller, 751 F.3d at 1358 (alterations omitted). To deter- mine if a mark is disparaging under § 2(a), a trademark examiner of the PTO considers:

Trademark Manual of Exam. Proc. (“TMEP”) § 1203.03(b)(i) (Jan. 2015 ed.) (citing Geller, 751 F.3d at 1358). If the examiner “make[s] a prima facie showing that a substantial composite, although not necessarily a majority, of the referenced group would find the proposed mark, as used on or in connection with the relevant goods or services, to be disparaging in the context of contempo- rary attitudes,” the burden shifts to the applicant for rebuttal. Id. If the applicant fails to rebut the prima facie case of disparagement, the examiner refuses to register the mark. The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure does not require an examiner who finds a mark disparaging to consult her supervisor or take any further steps to ensure the provision is applied fairly and consist- ently across the agency. Compare TMEP § 1203.03 (no discussion of action to take if examiner finds mark dis- paraging), with TMEP § 1203.01 (requiring examiner who finds a mark scandalous or immoral to consult his super- visor). A single examiner, with no input from her super- visor, can reject a mark as disparaging by determining that it would be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.

Second, the disparagement provision at issue is view- point discriminatory on its face. The PTO rejects marks under § 2(a) when it finds the marks refer to a group in a negative way, but it permits the registration of marks that refer to a group in a positive, non-disparaging man- ner. In this case the PTO refused to register Mr. Tam’s mark because it found the mark “disparaging” and “objec- tionable” to people of Asian descent. Tam, 2013 WL 5498164, at *6. But the PTO has registered marks that refer positively to people of Asian descent. See, e.g., CELEBRASIANS, ASIAN EFFICIENCY. Similarly, the PTO has prohibited the registration of marks that it found disparaged other groups. See, e.g., Pro-Football, 2015 WL 4096277 (affirming cancellation of REDSKINS); Geller, 751 F.3d 1355 (affirming rejection of STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA); Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215 (refusing to register KHORAN for wine); Heeb Media, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (refusing to register HEEB); Squaw Valley Dev. Co., 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1264 (refusing to register SQUAW VALLEY for one class of goods, but registering it for another). Yet the government registers marks that refer to particular ethnic groups or religions in positive or neutral ways—for example,

NAACP, THINK ISLAM, NEW MUSLIM COOL, MORMON SAVINGS, JEWISHSTAR, and PROUD 2 B CATHOLIC.

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on First Amendment Protection on Trademarks by Pamela Geller

[Blog Editor: The above link is to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision entitled, “Federal Circuit en banc opinion In re Simon Shao Tam rejecting 2(a) trademark disparagement”. Below is the embed from Scribd of that decision.]

 

In re Tam Fed Circuit en Banc Opinion by Jennifer Elgin

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/293858228/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-O7jMDbriKAQhSbs24JVn&show_recommendations=true

UPDATE: Here’s our law firm’s take:

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Finds First Amendment Applies to Trademarks and Rules that “Disparaging” Cannot Be Used to Deny Expressive Trademarks Like “Stop Islamisation of America”

As a kind of Christmas present to liberty and the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc (the entire court), today reversed more than 30-years of jurisprudence by holding that trademark registration under the Lanham Act deserves First Amendment protection. The import of this holding is that trademarks may no longer be rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) just because the USPTO believes the mark to be disparaging.

In the case In re Tam, the federal court, which specializes in patent and trademark cases, found that the USPTO’s rejection of the musical group name “The Slants” because it disparaged Asians was unconstitutional because there was no “compelling state interest” to censure the viewpoint of the trademark owner. As a result, Simon Tam will now be able to register his band name as a federal trademark, thus allowing him to protect the name and products and services sold using that name against encroachers and counterfeiters.

What made this decision possible was the recent litigation waged by the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) on behalf of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to register their trademark, “Stop the Islamisation of America” (“SIOA”). Like the Slants trademark, the USPTO rejected the SIOA trademark on the ground that it disparaged Muslims and even Islamists by suggesting they should be “stopped.” AFLC argued the case before a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court, which upheld the USPTO ruling of disparagement.

However, on the heels of the SIOA decision, by the time the Slants case found its way to the important Federal Circuit Court, the appellate judges were apparently ready to reverse their prior rulings which rejected any First Amendment arguments. Indeed, the court’s opinion starts off referencing the USPTO’s rejection of the SIOA trademark as a rejection aimed improperly at censuring important expressive speech. The court went on to reference SIOA, and the underlying case of In re Geller, no less than seven times.

 

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel, noted:

 

“This demonstrates an important adage about good lawfare and good lawyering.  Even when you lose initially you may still ultimately prevail because good, hard-fought lawfare has a way of exposing bad law and bad judgments.  This is one of those rare instances where a federal court has emphatically and quite properly reversed itself.  You can be certain that our clients will now proudly seek federal trademark registration.”

 

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel, added:

 

“At the end of the day, this was a complete victory for the First Amendment and an absolute defeat for political correctness.  Our SIOA trademark case paved the way for this important decision, reaffirming that hard work, determination, and some good lawyering can create a favorable sea change in the law.”

 

___________________________

Pamela Geller Biography

 

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, with Robert Spencer (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton) (Simon & Schuster) and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books). She is also a regular columnist for World Net Dailythe American ThinkerBreitbart.com and other publications.

 

Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech against attempts to force the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws, and against Sharia self-censorship by Western media outlets. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora. Her free speech event in Garland, Texas led to the capture or killing of several murderous jihadists, smoking out terror cells, leading to an increase in the threat level to BRAVO and to the consequent arrests of jihadists in several states.

 

Geller has also led awareness campaigns in READ THE REST

 

Contribute to the fight!