5
427windsorman 5 points ago +5 / -0

There is no President of the original jurisdiction United States, but there are original jurisdiction Governors of several States. Unfortunately, the man who was organizing this passed away recently. I am not sure if anyone took this work over after his death.

https://teamlaw.net/Government/usmap.htm

If it is true that the WH's are restoring the original jurisdiction government, then I am all for it.

5
427windsorman 5 points ago +5 / -0

The local police, at least, the ones in lake Lure / Chimney rock, were going to arrest a couple of volunteers rescuing survivors in a helicopter. The Fire chief told them to cease and desist, or they would be arrested.

4
427windsorman 4 points ago +4 / -0

Or they need to ignore him, and go on with their rescue efforts. If he continues to impede their efforts, then lock him up or remove him from the equation. He, and any other government stooge who is interfering with rescue / recovery has shown they are an enemy of the constitution and the people.

The government, especially locals, should be assisting in the rescue / recovery operations, as well as dealing with actual looters.

8
427windsorman 8 points ago +8 / -0

Thank you for volunteering to help with the relief efforts. That is admirable! Perhaps the government folks, both federal and local, have stopped being impediments to the rescue and recovery efforts?

17
427windsorman 17 points ago +17 / -0

There are plenty of locals and people who volunteered to go help that have been reporting FEMA is confiscating donations of money and goods in North Carolina. Perhaps they are taking it, and then redistributing it as though they supplied it?

Perhaps Kamala is going to use it to fund her generous $750.00 payment per affected family in the impacted area's?

Both FEMA and local government have threatening volunteers with arrest and fines if they do not cease and desist in the help they are providing. Volunteers who are flying helicopters trying to rescue people, and drop in supplies, have been threatened stop immediately and leave the area. One pilot recounted how he rescued a woman from a rooftop, but had to leave her husband when he was threatened with arrest if he went back for him.

This is not the act of a government serving the needs of its citizens. This is the actions of an enemy waging war on us.

8
427windsorman 8 points ago +8 / -0

There are plenty of locals and people who volunteered to go help that have been reporting FEMA is confiscating donations of money and goods in North Carolina. They are not using what they are taking to help the locals, it is simply being taken and disappearing.

Perhaps Kamala is going to use it to fund her generous $750.00 payment per affected family in the impacted area's?

Both FEMA and local government is threatening volunteers with arrest and fines if they do not cease and desist in the help they are providing. Volunteers who are flying helicopters trying to rescue people, and drop in supplies, have been threatened stop immediately and leave the area. One pilot recounted how he rescued a woman from a rooftop, but had to leave her husband when he was threatened with arrest if he went back for him.

This is not the act of a government serving the needs of its citizens. This is the actions of an enemy waging war on us.

2
427windsorman 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have not been able to log into my mobile app and am only able to log into my online banking intermittently with Navy Federal Credit Union. This has been going on for almost 2 weeks. First they said it was due to maintenance (a lie) and now are saying the hurricane is responsible.

2
427windsorman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Only as long as we allow them. If the Jury prevents the judge and jury from convicting, and also nullifies the unconstitutional law, the government has no recourse but to let them go free. That is what the jury is meant to do, be the last check and balance against government taking anyone's liberty.

5
427windsorman 5 points ago +5 / -0

FEMA was never a great idea, and is not authorized by the Constitution. FEMA has been corrupt from about the time they established it.

This isn't a dereliction of duty, it is more unconstitutional activities taken tot he next step in the ongoing agenda of government waging war on its masters.

1
427windsorman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, snipers are definitely a possible threat, but can be countered quickly with a trained and prepared force. Obviously, this would be using old school, but proven, methods. Think WW2 and Korean War tactics when air strikes or artillery were not available.

I think a lot of the news headlines involving terrorist attacks over the last couple of years will help identify some of the threats we might encounter. Knife attacks, machete attacks, firearms attacks, suicide bombers, IED's, etc.......

Combat veterans may be able to spot some of these, but they are going to be hampered with the being at home mindset vs being in an actual combat zone. That can give a sense of security from the type of threats they faced in combat zones simply due to being home and not looking for those potential threats in our home environments.

Hopefully, people will be expecting the unexpected, and have their heads on a swivel, and be aware of their surroundings. Especially since we have been invaded by plenty of enemy personnel over the last 3.5 years.

2
427windsorman 2 points ago +2 / -0

True, but patriots have found ways to do so for centuries, even when their governments or invaders were actively attempting to infiltrate their ranks. The Irish, Scottish, French, and others from history come to mind.

When there is a will, there is a way. Historically speaking.

11
427windsorman 11 points ago +11 / -0

If there is an attack, or numerous simultaneous attacks, similar to those that occurred in Israel last October, we would have a hard time responding and repelling the attackers. Yes, we have more armed citizens than any other country, but we do not have local militia's anymore. We would need to be able to muster a sizable force working collaboratively and with good communication in order to effectively respond to an attack of this nature.

We need to seriously start considering forming local militia's in every community around America. If you look in the mirror, you will see exactly who comprised the militia in the days of our Founders. Of course that is if you are a man. I am not saying we do not allow women today, but back in the founders time, it was exclusively men.

I am a firm believer in the fact that we all have a spiritual, moral, and personal responsibility to protect ourselves, our families, our property, and our communities. Everyone should be armed, and fully trained in the use of the weapons they choose to own and use. Everyone should have emergency plans in place for their households, and should be rehearsing these plans with their families to the point that if something were to happen, everyone knows their role, and what they are supposed to do in SHTF situation.

Taken to the next level, if you have good and dependable neighbors, is a neighborhood plan to coordinate defensive actions across larger areas of responsibility. The recent events in Israel should make it very plain why this would be a wise course of action for us today.

As it stands today, our suburbs and neighborhoods are all but defenseless against these type of attacks by organized illegal invaders, unless you and your neighbors do something to change that.

We need to relearn what it is to be neighbors and build communities of people who care about each other and protect each other. Neighbors that have each others backs.

When seconds count, the government (including police) are minutes away. When tyrannical government is behind the illegal invasion, they will be even slower to respond or help. Just look at how Biden is handling the aftermath of the latest hurricane to devastate the southeastern United States.

I believe that we should form local community militias and form regional militia networks in each state. These militias would train together on a regular basis. They would support each other to protect their communities and citizens from government tyranny, invasions, etc.

With the threat of internal attacks in American communities, this is more important than ever. We are in more danger within our borders today than we have ever been at any other time in the history of our Republic. Not since the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War, have we faced the threat of attacks domestically, and within our cities, suburbs, and communities.

3
427windsorman 3 points ago +3 / -0

I would venture to guess that this violates the California Constitution, just as it does the U.S. Constitution. If so, the law is null and void.

1
427windsorman 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, she is answering her earring.

1
427windsorman 1 point ago +1 / -0

As if she has a right to make a determination like that, lol. These people need a serious education on liberty, and the penalty for infringing on unalienable rights.

4
427windsorman 4 points ago +4 / -0

Eliminate all government agencies not specifically authorized by the Constitution, and reduce taxes to only support the few left that are authorized. No more tax funding of anything but basic government services.

3
427windsorman 3 points ago +3 / -0

It is very easy to remedy. Have Congress pass a law to the effect that no foreign company, foreign person, non-US citizen, foreign government, etc., can own land in the United States, or its territories. Make it only U.S. Citizens can do so.

Each State can pass similar laws for their individual States, as well.

Any land already owned by foreigners will be taken back, like Eminent Domain, with fair compensation paid. Or it will be placed up for sale or auction.

1
427windsorman 1 point ago +1 / -0

I didn't say anything about them caring about our rights, I said they do not have the right, power, or authority granted to it to put anything in our water or food, or anything else we consume.

Although, the primary reason for the federal government being established is to protect our individual rights. Failing that, they no longer have a valid charter, and we have the right to remove them, and replace with one that is in line with the principles upon which our Constitutional Republic was founded.

3
427windsorman 3 points ago +3 / -0

Government has no right to put anything in our water or food, or anything else we consume. It doesn't matter if they had good intentions, or not. The fact is that there is no authority or power granted for federal, state, or local governments to do this.

6
427windsorman 6 points ago +6 / -0

Government has no right to put anything in our water or food, or anything we consume. It doesn't matter if they had good intentions, or not. The fact is that there is no authority or power granted for federal, state, or local governments to do this.

1
427windsorman 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Constitution does not grant government the ability to suspend elections, enact Marshal Law, or suspend the Habeous Corpus.

The U.S Constitution cannot be "enforced" on American Citizens. It is enforced upon our government. It's the contract or license granting certain specific powers to government. Anything beyond those limits is usurped or stolen powers.

Freedom loving Americans should form local community militias and form regional militia networks in each state. These militias would train together on a regular basis. They would support each other to protect their communities and citizens from government tyranny, invasions, etc. This is how you protect our Constitutional Republic in the manner intended by our founding fathers.

We have to remember, and have to remind those who serve us in government that:

“Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.” ~ Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934

The same premise applies to Constitutional Amendments. An Amendment cannot go against the original intent of the Constitution, it can only add to it in a manner consistent with the original intent at the time the Constitution was written and adopted.

There are a few paths for us to right these wrongs. One is Nullification:

Yale Law Journal Quote “The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: “It is not only ... [the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” ~ Yale Law Journal Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174 (1964).

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)

1
427windsorman 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Constitution does not grant government the ability to suspend elections, enact Marshal Law, or suspend the Habeous Corpus.

The U.S Constitution cannot be "enforced" on American Citizens. It is enforced upon our government. It's the contract or license granting certain specific powers to government. Anything beyond those limits is usurped or stolen powers.

Freedom loving Americans should form local community militias and form regional militia networks in each state. These militias would train together on a regular basis. They would support each other to protect their communities and citizens from government tyranny, invasions, etc. This is how you protect our Constitutional Republic in the manner intended by our founding fathers.

We have to remember, and have to remind those who serve us in government that:

“Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.” ~ Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934

The same premise applies to Constitutional Amendments. An Amendment cannot go against the original intent of the Constitution, it can only add to it in a manner consistent with the original intent at the time the Constitution was written and adopted.

There are a few paths for us to right these wrongs. One is Nullification:

Yale Law Journal Quote “The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: “It is not only ... [the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” ~ Yale Law Journal Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174 (1964).

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›