Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust

Please be careful who you listen to, who you trust. Even be careful with what I say, use your own intuition. After all we are blessed with intuition and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. I would even expect you to question me and what I say, even though I know I would never intentionally lie to you.

The reason why I bring this topic up, is because there are infiltrators and provocateurs out there that are casting huge nets with which to build lists of names of individuals to be used later when larger scale “round ups” of liberty minded patriots begins.

The ones that are the ones that you should suspect first are those who close channels of communication rather that keep them open by responding and communicating with fair, open, and responsive communications. Those who do not respond or respond with slander, orders, negativity, or even just remaining silent are all signs that they may not be someone that you can trust. After all, these agencies and officers of government are only supposed to be there to serve and protect the rights and property of the people. There is no other reason for government, except perhaps defense of the homeland.

These agent provocateurs will also try to keep you in a narrow viewpoint about the situation, and not only will they express a narrow viewpoint, they will usually always try to influence you in a particular way. Sometimes they will try and convince you to not trust a particular individual, sometimes they will exhaustively promote particular individuals or groups.

These plants and government shills also commonly won’t give you a straight answer when you ask them a simple question, and their favorite response is to imply that there is a defect with the complainant to sidestep the actual complaint.

When I talk about those who should be suspected and placed under further scrutiny and background review, I am not just talking about individuals, there may also be shill groups, or organizations. And the ones that should be scrutinized the MOST are those who claim to either be actively affiliated with or employed by government, or those actively promoting ideologies claiming that the government is fair, just, honest, or unbiased.

13133243_244191322636622_309713294813844185_nNaturally those working for the government or benefiting from the government in some way are highly suspect, because they stand to lose the most by withdrawing or losing their support for the broken corrupt system. They are dependent on the government, why challenge it? They will also contradict themselves; for example they may express sympathy and support for the protesters, but at the same time will express support for the government and the “court system” in particular. Like the fox guarding the hen house, they will usually be slick talkers as well. But will rarely offer citations or evidence to prove their claims.

While we are on this subject, I would like to talk briefly about lawyers. And I have more information here if you are interested in learning more. But who has more to lose from the government than a lawyer? Not just any lawyer, but a lawyer that makes his living by arguing cases in government courthouses?

Don’t you think that the government would want to make sure that there were “attorneys” to defend the protesters? Keep them in the casino, where their chances are not good. And by not just any attorneys, but maybe even an attorney from the “Top 100” list of all trial attorneys to prepare their defense. One who has worked their whole career arguing in support of subjects of government who were mainly charged with “code” or “statute” violations. A vast majority of them without a victim, like DUII cases, and other trumped up “code” violations.

I don’t know about you, but after doing years of research on this topic. I have never found in the founding documents where the founders of this country ever suggested or implied that the people were bound by any “code”, “statute”, “rules”, “regulations” or “policy” of government. As a matter of fact the Declaration of Independence says exactly this: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” Continue reading “Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust”

A Simple Request…

” Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—”  Oregon constitution; Article One, Section One.

I have been having an exchange with the entity on Facebook that is doing business as “ARNOLD LAW FIRM”, and I have been trying to get him to answer one simple question… Why wouldn’t you challenge jurisdiction?

I think that asking for evidence of jurisdiction would be a great idea, and I bet you will too once you read this previous article I posted a few months ago which provides evidence that the feds really do not have jurisdiction to prosecute these men and women from the Malheur, Oregon or Bunkerville, Nevada events.

(See chapter 2 of my book “How to Reclaim Your Power” for much more on this topic and related topics. Also have a look at this article.)

I am afraid that it would not be such an easy question for a representative of ARNOLD LAW FIRM to answer the question, because to give a direct, responsive, straight answer would be to reveal a huge fraud that has been perpetrated and subsequently stolen the lawful authority on this land from we the people. (Notice in the screenshots below: I get one straight answer out of him and it allows me to expose quite a bit, then he refrains from offering anymore straight answers because I am not messing around and he knows it. Every straight answer he gives will lock him in even deeper.)

Have a look at this excerpt my recent exchange on Facebook with ARNOLD LAW FIRM.
Have a look at this excerpt my recent exchange on Facebook with ARNOLD LAW FIRM. Click image to view larger version.
After some of my comments, ARNOLD LAW FIRM decided to start diagnosing mental disorders.
After some of my comments, ARNOLD LAW FIRM decided to start diagnosing mental disorders.
Continuation of the above thread by ARNOLD LAW relating to DSM-5 diagnosis.
Continuation of the above thread by ARNOLD LAW relating to DSM-5 diagnosis.

Seems like no matter how you spell it out for them, it still falls on deaf ears. These guys thought they would be able to label and dismiss the people that they are supposed to be serving. The more they say, the deeper a hole they dig. This is why they have resorted to diagnosing people with mental disorders… because this is much easier for them than telling the truth.

In case you didn’t know… The ABA and the SPLC and the ADL are all FOREIGN AGENTS acting as FOREIGN TERRORISTS, calling Americans DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. They fool only those who don’t know B.A.R. has no lawful or legislative authority to even walk into a courtroom. According to the Statutes at Large when Black’s Law dictionary was claiming that Lawyers had legislative authority, they did NOT. Then they claim they have licenses to practice law, when they do NOT. Then there is no lawful authority for B.A.R. Attorneys to hold offices of Trust. The B.A.R. has no ability to satisfy the requirement within the Naturalization Act of 1802, as they are all foreign agents. They’re members of a closed union, and a monopoly in violation of the Clayton Trust Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Smith Act. All Crown Temple B.A.R. Agents are of the Middle Temple, the Inns of the Court, in City of London, which is owned and run by the Jesuit Bankers.

In simpler terms, the I.B.A., the A.B.A., and the London Lawyers Guild are a big bunch of lying Pirates, pushing the U.N./I.M.F. Agenda. As a matter of fact, they’re Foreign Terrorists, committing barratry, land-piracy, and press-ganging, and they’re making fun of people who KNOW IT. It seems to me they should get on their knees and beg for forgiveness BEFORE the rest of the population figures out they belong behind bars. They’re bringing Admiralty-Maritime Law of the sea onto land to rob everyone’s Estate Trust, to Attorn it to the Crown. When an Attorney calls you a Sovereign Citizen, you call him a Foreign Agent, without a license. The STATE doesn’t give them a license. The B.A.R. gives them B.A.R. Cards. Imagine! Everything they do is a lie!

Legal: The undoing of God’s Law.

They deal in DEBT, the JOHN H. DOE. There is no Judge over living men, since 1789. Read Article XI from the Bill of Rights. They’re foreign Crown Agents. They enforce COMMERCIAL CODE upon people. To: Arnold Law Firm

Comment from Glenn that explains why ARNOLD LAW FIRM is prohibited from giving me a straight answer.
Comment from Glenn that explains why ARNOLD LAW FIRM is prohibited from giving me a straight answer.

It seems that Glenn may really be on to something here, but if my comments don’t get deleted, I will have a chance at hopefully helping many others to learn about the grand deception that is occurring here in the land of the free… home of the brave.

The Corporate Overthrow of the American Government and People

For the last two weeks or so, I’ve been going back into the C-Span Archives to watch programs concerning the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) that was created by Executive Order 12852 in 1993.  I was doing that as a part of my research on the Bureau of Land Management related to the Bundy Family, the Hammond Family, the Yantis Family and countless other ranching families that the federal government declared war on.

Ammon Bundy and the Malheur Occupiers called attention to the BLM’s war on ranchers and for that I, as an American citizen am grateful because the issues they exposed are just the tip of the iceberg.   They have done a great service for this nation that goes well beyond the war on ranchers.

The second meeting of the PCSD was held on October 18, 1993.  The meeting was hosted by the Department of Commerce.  Ron Brown was the Secretary of Commerce.   He was the first speaker at the meeting.

 

 

In four minutes, Ron Brown laid at the strategy for what was a coup d’etat on the American government and the establishment of a system to facilitate the development of a global commercial crime syndicate.  Here are the main points from Ron Brown’s four minutes of truth:

  • Department of Commerce was the Department of Sustainability
  • Sustainability is the confluence of three areas
  • Trade
  • Technology
  • Environmental Policy
  • NIST & Technology Administration (Office of Technology Administration) were developing technologies(public money spent for private profit through technology transfer under the heading of “research”).
  • Bureau of Economic Analysis – Developing Green Accounting – Green GDP
  • International Trade Administration – selling environmental technology around the world
  • Elimination of boundaries – working across government and private sector boundaries – Ron Brown alluded to elimination of national boundaries with his reference to region in front of country.   (Note:  Tim Wirth actually talked about “arbitrary lines” in reference to borders.
  • The Plan was dependent upon “reinvention of government”

Clinton appointed Katie McGinty to head up the Office of Environmental Policy.  On April 21, 1994, McGinty held a press conference with three cabinet officials – Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, Hazel O’Leary, Secretary of Energy and Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.  The title of the briefing is Global Environmental Briefing.

I took a brief clip of Katie McGinty and Bruce Babbitt.  McGinty was the perfect person to put in charge of the Office of Environmental Policy.  She was too young and clueless to understand the treachery of the people she was working for.   I’m including this clip here for two reasons.  Katie McGinty tells you about the coordination of government agencies toward a single mission of “sustainability”.  In other words, it was the centralization of power for the purpose of setting coordinated government policy across all agencies of government.  That means the Economic Development Administration (EDA), HUD, HHS, BLM, USFS, Department of Ag, Department of Energy – and worst of all, the Department of Education to propagandize and indoctrinate our youth – turning them into terrified little eco-fascists.

Bruce Babbitt tells you about the establishment of regional management plan to manage entire regions – “landscape management” aka eco-management.  He mentions the Bay Area and Sacramento Delta.  The regional governing structure, Plan Bay Area is the subject of a lawsuit brought by Michael Shaw and Rosa Koire.    For the record, Idaho is participating in an unconstitutional regional organization that includes Canadian provinces.

The forest management plan mentioned by Babbitt that includes a region from Washington to northern California.  The regional commission over that area is shutting the dams down in Northern California.  Debbie Bacigalupi’s family is a ranching family in Northern California.  The regional commission is attempting to put farmers and ranchers out of business throughout California by shutting down the essential element they need – water.  It will make what is very valuable and productive property virtually worthless – until the water is turned back on after the farmers and ranchers lose it.  Fighting this issue has turned Debbie into a full time activist opposing Agenda 21.

 

Eco-Fascism

The point I’m getting to is that what the “reinvention of government” was – was a government overthrow of the people.   Bill Clinton and Al Gore established a fascist government (merger of corporate and government power) that operates behind the façade of environmentalism.  That’s the meaning of the term Eco-fascism.  The environmentalism is not real environmentalism.  It’s simply a tool to steal your property if they want it – and to control every aspect of your life.  They corporatized our government and designed technocratic systems of control for us.

————————
By: 
SOURCE

We must dispel myths surrounding Oregon protest

It is time to dispel a few myths about what is going on.

Oregon To Begin Recreational Marijuana Sales Early
Oregon To Begin Recreational Marijuana Sales Early, in direct opposition to federal law.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown sat in her office Jan. 20 and drafted a letter to the U.S. attorney general and the director of the FBI. She wrote that negotiations with the “radicals” occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge had failed and insisted on a “swift resolution to this matter.”

Local officials, including Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, made similar demands. On Jan. 26, they got what they asked for.

Authorities, including the FBI, ambushed and arrested Ammon Bundy and others on their way to a meeting in neighboring Grant County. They shot LaVoy Finicum dead. He was not holding a weapon.

Awful. Grasty and Brown knew what might happen should the FBI decide negotiations had failed. Few have forgotten the stand­offs at Waco and Ruby Ridge and that “swift” federal action often means people die — in many cases, indiscriminately.

It’s ironic, but the behavior of the judge and the governor goes a long way to make the refuge protesters’ case for them. Blind devotion to federal authority is terribly dangerous to lives and to liberty.

The protest in Harney County will certainly not be the last over federal overreach. Here is hoping people find reason next time, before demanding dangerous federal intervention.

To that end, it is time to dispel a few myths about what is going on.

Myth 1: The armed people at the refuge were threatening violence. You wouldn’t know it by watching TV news, or reading Brown’s hysteric letter, but the refuge wasn’t an armed compound full of violent people. To find that, you needed to drive by the airport in Burns, Ore., where federal agents staged behind fences and a flood­lit perimeter, with military vehicles, equipment and weapons.

Yes, the occupants at the refuge were armed and reserved the right to defend themselves. The difference between them and any other citizen claiming their Second Amendment right is they did so from inside public, and previously unoccupied, federal buildings.

They got little credit for doing virtually everything possible to minimize threats and interruptions to the community. They could scarcely have chosen a more remote location.

It was more like an open house than a compound. Locals could, and did, visit to see what the stand­off was about. The protesters invited anyone who wanted to have an honest conversation.

For Oregonians, the much larger threat is their high officials writing letters and urging the feds to “swift” action.

Myth 2: Only nutty, right-wing militias from outside would stoop to such tactics. Brown and Grasty must know the protest included state and local residents. Plenty of community people were sympathetic enough to bring food and supplies. The storeroom overflowed, and locally grown beef had to be kept frozen in a snow bank outside for lack of adequate freezer space.

If they had visited, they would have found people there ready to talk calmly, rationally and intelligently about the issues. Tragically they felt there had been too much talking already. Now one of the most calm and rational leaders in the group is dead.

Federal supremacists like to marginalize anyone advocating local control as radical and dangerous. They want you to believe these people are motivated by crazy ideology.

They don’t talk much about history. These issues have been simmering for decades. The Sagebrush Rebellion made headlines in the 1970s and ’80s. There are smart folks stretching back to the nation’s founding who question the legitimacy of federal control over public lands.

Given how economically devastating the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service management has been for rural communities around Oregon, Brown and Grasty should be asking questions, too.

Myth 3: Anyone opposed to federal control of lands hates conservation. The philosophy of the national conservation groups is irrational. They insist the best way to protect public lands is to put unelected bureaucrats headquartered thousands of miles away in charge. That position is hard to fathom. Many conservationists see the value in “buying local” when it comes to food and services. Local is great, except when it comes to government?

It is a bit reminiscent of war. The propaganda department dehumanizes the enemy, branding ranchers and loggers as foolish and blinded by greed. And local citizens as if they are too inept to stand up to them and govern responsibly.

The truth is, there are wise people who care for the environment living right in Harney County. Included among them are cattle ranchers and forestry professionals. Many simply believe management decision-making would be better if it was done much closer to home.

Myth 4: Ranchers just want a free ride​. It would be far more accurate to say ranchers want fair, not free. Many Western ranches have a federal grazing allotment attached. Most of the time ranchers acquire the permit when they buy a ranch, though they can also buy and sell them independently. The point is, cattlemen pay big money upfront for a right to the grass.

On top of that, they pay grazing fees annually. Some argue the fees are set way below the market rate to rent private pasture. But they don’t account for ranchers maintaining fences and water systems. These are key differences versus renting private pasture.

In any event, practically no rancher is complaining about the dollars involved.

They object to paying federal agencies who have a long history of treating them like tenant farmers and disrespecting legitimate property rights. Most support the idea of paying fees locally, and getting more accountable range management in return.

Myth 5: The federal government’s prerogative to own and manage the majority of lands in Oregon is beyond question. Now we get to the crux of the matter. Everyone raised in the U.S. is taught federal laws are supreme. What’s more, we learn the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on whether a law is constitutional. Those arguing for state and local control of lands had their day in court. They lost. Case closed.

Not so fast. What we were all taught is nonsense. In fact, the States (capital S) are sovereign and supreme. They have the power ­— make that the sacred duty — to nullify unconstitutional laws and defend the liberty of citizens.

The kicker is that Brown herself already acknowledged this truth in another context. She signed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana last summer, in complete disregard of federal laws. She didn’t send a letter to Washington begging for federal storm troopers to batter the doors in at pot dispensaries. On the contrary, she determined Oregon’s authority trumps federal dictates and acted accordingly.

What a “radical.” May she and Grasty find that spirit of independence before calling on the FBI to crush the next protest.

Clint Siegner is a director at Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals dealer in Eagle, Idaho. He grew up in a cattle ranching family in Fields, Ore.

Source: http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2016160219969