Obama has quietly signed his most unconstitutional Executive Order ever.
These maniacal unconstitutional orders, enacted by the stroke of Obama’s hand without any input from Congress, set a dangerous precedent which will allow Obama or any future dictator to ban firearms ownership for anyone he deems “unfit.”
- The Truth behind Executive Orders and Martial Law
- Rothschild Zionists Attack Dominate Christian America: All Wars Are Started By Lies, Myths, Propaganda And De-Humanizing The So-Called Enemy.
Executive Orders By Whatever President ‘Past Or Future’ Is Against The Law Of The United States Constitution
Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.
The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).
BILL OF RIGHTS
The Foundation of America’s Constitution
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…all men are…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. This acknowledgement was the very foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America.
What are those unalienable rights with which we are endowed? They may be described in many ways, but English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1766, “.these may be reduced to three principal articles:
- the right of personal security (life);
- the right of personal liberty; and,
- the right of private property..”
America’s written Constitution was to protect and secure God-given individual rights to life, liberty, and property. If we ever allow this foundation to be eroded and lose faith that these rights are a gift directly from God to each individual, then we lose the basis of the greatness of the miracle of America.
The Second Amendment states that your right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
It is not negotiable and cannot be done away with, just because Obama believes that private citizens should not own guns.
Congress must stop Obama’s freedom-killing Executive Orders!
One of the Executive Orders that Obama signed last week strikes down portions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
HIPAA makes your personal medical records completely private and forbids anyone but you and your doctor from snooping around in your records.
But Obama’s Executive Order will allow the FBI to have access to your records for background checks, so they can determine whether you are “mentally fit” to own a firearm.
Don’t you see where this is going? A total police state.
- Russia Tells United States Citizens Not To Give Up Your Guns
- States Hold Supreme Court Justices aka; Employees In Check!
- 86% Of U.S. Police Officers Stand With Bill Of Rights & Against Gun Control
- U.S. Sheriffs Are The Beacon Against Over Reach By Federal Or State Authorities: There Is No Authority Higher!
Once again, you are expected to believe that no government official would violate your personal, private information because of a “common sense” measure that will “protect the children.”
The second Executive Order that Obama signed last week is even worse!
It redefines the law so that anyone who has ever sought treatment in a mental health institution is now classified as having been “committed to an institution,” even if they were unjustly, involuntarily or illegally committed.
This is dangerous for multiple reasons. One is that it will obviously target returning veterans who seek treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or any other issue that might be a TEMPORARY condition! They will be permanently banned from firearms ownership, even after they recover from their ailment.
I am a combat veteran and know that virtually no one leaves the field of combat, with death and destruction going on, without some mental scarring. Thus, this Executive Order is designed solely to disarm our American veterans and alone is enough to make vets rise up against him if this stands.
The second is that it sets a precedent which allows Obama, and Obama alone, to determine who can or cannot own a firearm!
These unconstitutional orders proclaim that only government officials can own firearms, which is the exact opposite of the reason the Founding Fathers said that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
To Obama and every gun-grabbing socialist who wants to destroy our country and enslave us, we say, “Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teaches my hands to war, and my fingers to fight!” (Psalm 144:1)
- Deadly Deception Of Andrew Napolitano: Out Of The Closet For NWO!
- Clinton Official Arrested In Egypt As Member Of Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood
- Egyptian Legal Authorities Charge Obama And Hillary Clinton: Criminal Conspiracy With Muslim Brotherhood.
- EGYPT Imprisons Obama Muslim Brotherhood: Takes Action Against Terrorist Conspirators Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton!
Obama is NOT a king and he cannot pick and choose who gets to own a firearm!
Also, call your Representative and Senators directly at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to stop Obama’s illegal anti-freedom, anti-2nd Amendment executive orders!
- States Have The Power To Render All Obama’s Federal Actions Unenforceable.
- Mandatory 2014 Debt Forgiveness: Rothschild Federal Reserve Absconding/Transferring U.S. Precious Metals Using Artificial Gold/Silver Derivative Paper!
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
- China’s Coming $23 Trillion Default Beginning January 31, 2014: China Removing Rothschild ~ Half Of U.S. Stocks Are Rothschild Counterfeits!
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
- 2014 Rothschildism’s Puppet Of The Year: Banker’s Council On Foreign Relations Controls US Media Propaganda!
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
- – You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
- – You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
- – If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
- – You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
- – Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.
- -You cannot be punished for refusing to answer a question. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to answer questions. In general, only a judge can order you to answer questions. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
- $100,000 compensation in unlawful arrest case!
- New Global Challenge: Can We de-Rothschild The World? Pravda.Ru
- China’s $23 Trillion Rothschild Credit ‘Debt’ Bubble Is Starting To Collapse ~ China Hanging Bankers: While U.S. Is $6 Trillion Less At $17 Trillion.
- GMO’s Deadly Facts: The Rothschild Cabal’s Audacity To Depopulate ~ Minimize Blowback From The World’s Citizens For Wealth Distribution To ‘THEIR’ NWO Vaults.
The Right To Resist the ‘Duty To Submit’
Recently by William Norman Grigg: Militarists, Drug Warriors, and Heresy-Hunters: The Anti–Ron Paul Axis of ’Decency’
Anne Dekins was a loud-mouthed party girl – or at least, that’s what the arrest warrant suggested. Whatever she may have done in the past, Miss Dekins was quietly minding her own business whenOfficer Samuel Bray found her on the street and began to haul her away.
Dekins wasn’t inclined to go quietly, and she put up a struggle. Her cries for help attracted the interest of several armed men led by an individual named Tooley, who confronted Bray and demanded to know what he was doing to the frantic woman. The officer produced his official credentials and insisted that he was making a lawful arrest for “disorderly conduct.” When witnesses disputed that description, Bray called for backup.
Tooley and his associates ordered Bray to release the woman, and then took action to enforce that lawful order. After Bray’s partner was killed in the ensuing struggle, Tooley and his associates were arrested for murder. The trial court threw out the murder charge, ruling that the warrant was defective. Since the arrest was illegal, the court pointed out, Dekins had a right to resist – and bystanders likewise had a right, if not a positive duty, to assist her. The defendants were eventually found guilty of manslaughter, but quickly pardoned and set free.
By trying to enforce an invalid warrant, Bray “did not act as a constable, but a common oppressor,” observed the trial court. Tooley and the other bystanders were properly “provoked” by the act of aggressive violence against Anne Dekins, and their forceful but measured response – first demanding that the abductor release the hostage, then exercising defensive force to free her – was entirely appropriate.
Lawless violence against the helpless “is a sufficient provocation to all people out of compassion” in any circumstance, observed the court, “much more where it is done under a colour of justice, and where the liberty of the subject is invaded….” In fact, an act of that kind carried out by a law enforcement official is nothing less than “a provocation to all the subjects of England.”
Every Englishman “ought to be concerned for Magna Carta and the laws,” concluded the Queen’s Benchin the 1710 case Queen v. Tooley. “And if any one against the law imprison a man, he is an offender against Magna Carta.”
Roughly forty years earlier, the same court had issued a similar opinion in Hopkin Huggett’s Case. Huggett and his friends had come to the aid of a man who had been arrested by a constable named Berry. Huggett demanded to see the arrest warrant. When Berry produced a clearly spurious document, Huggett drew his sword and demanded the prisoner’s release. Berry refused, and finished second in the ensuing swordfight.
The wrongfully arrested man in that case (who was threatened with impressment into the military) did nothing to resist his abduction. It wasn’t clear that Huggett knew the man, or had even met him prior to the incident. Yet the Queen’s Bench ruled that Huggett’s actions were justified, since a situation in which a “man [is] unduly arrested or restrained of his liberty … is a provocation to all other men of England, not only his friends but strangers also[,] for common humanity’s sake.”
In addition to codifying the Common Law right to resist arrest, Hopkin Huggett’s Case and Queen v. Tooley recognized that this right inheres not only in the victim, but in citizens who interpose on the victim’s behalf.
Simply put: When a police officer commits the crime of unlawful arrest, the citizens who intervene are acting as peace officers entitled to employ any necessary means – including lethal force – to liberate the victim.
In early 18th Century England, this was seen as a non-negotiable bulwark against what the heroicAlgernon Sidney called “the violence of a wicked magistrate who, hav[ing] armed a crew of lewd villains,” would otherwise inflict his will on innocent and helpless people with impunity. Sidney’s martyrdom at the hands of precisely that kind of degenerate, tyrannical magistrate underscored the vitality of the principle he expressed.
”The right to resist unlawful arrest memorializes one of the principal elements in the heritage of the English revolution: the belief that the will to resist arbitrary authority in a reasonable way is valuable and ought not to be suppressed by the criminal law,” observed Paul Chevigny in a 1969 Yale Law Journal essay. Actually, Chevigny – like many others – elides a critical distinction between “power” and “authority”: While a police officer may have the power to abduct or abuse an innocent person, citizens have the authority to prevent that crime.
Until the late 1960s, most states recognized – albeit grudgingly – the Common Law right to resist arrest. By 1969, that right had been transmuted, through judicial activism, into a revocable “privilege” – one that had to be dispensed with to serve the interests of the State’s punitive caste.
“The weight of authoritative precedent supports a right to repel an unlawful arrest with force…. This was the rule at common law,” admitted the Alaska State Supreme Court in a seminal work of sophistry called Terry Glenn Miller v. State of Alaska. “It was based on the proposition that everyone should be privileged to use reasonable force to prevent an unlawful invasion of his physical integrity and personal liberty.”
That admission clearly anticipated the familiar use of the magical conjunction “but” as a rhetorical reset button, and the Court didn’t disappoint:
“But certain imperfections in the functioning of the rule have brought about changes in some jurisdictions. A new principle of right conduct has been espoused” – by whom, the Court didn’t specify. “It is argued” – once again, the parties to that argument were not identified – “that if a peace officer is making an illegal arrest but is not using force” – something that could not occur, given that an arrest, by strict definition, an act of armed coercion – “the remedy of the citizen should be that of suing the officer for false arrest, not resistance with force.”
”The control of man’s destructive and aggressive impulses is one of the great unsolved problems of our society,” pontificated the Court as it destroyed one of the few effective checks on the deadliest manifestation of those impulses. “Our rules of law should discourage the unnecessary use of physical force between man and man. Any rule which promotes rather than inhibits violence should be re-examined.” That objective is not legitimately served by granting State functionaries an unqualified license to commit criminal violence against the innocent.
- Tucson Marks Anniversary Of Judge Roll’s Murder & Gifford Shootings: The Sheriff’s Judge Who Upheld The Constitution And Reversed Congress!
Four years after the Miller decision, a decision entitled Richardson v. Idaho emerged from the Idaho State Supreme Court’s emunctory aperture. John Richardson had been convicted of resisting arrest through violence and sentenced to five years in prison. The incident in which the supposed crime occurred took place at a restaurant in Idaho Falls. Richardson and his ex-wife, who were having dinner, got into an argument, and were asked to leave when the latter became loud and profane.
Two off-duty police officers escorted them outside, and then tried to arrest Richardson for “disorderly conduct” after he became annoyed by their unwarranted intrusion. Richardson kicked one of the uniformed buttinskis in the mouth, and managed to grab one of their pistols, which he fired into the air, rather than at his assailants (as he was entitled to, both morally and – under the Supreme Court’s still-valid 1900 Bad Elk precedent – legally).
Prominently citing the Miller decision in Alaska, the Idaho Court observed that “More than one state has, without legislative action, modified the traditional common law rule and has adopted the rule that a private citizen may not use force to resist a peaceful arrest,” blithely ignoring, once again, the fact that a “peaceful arrest” is a creature more fanciful than a left-handed unicorn that speaks Norwegian. “We are of the opinion that the trend is, and should be, away from the traditional common law rule, and therefore we hold that if a person has reasonable ground to believe he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is his duty to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest regardless of whether or not there is a legal basis for the arrest.”
The key holding in the Richardson ruling has been enshrined in the Idaho Code Judicial Instructions (ICJI 1262), which asserts that “it is the person’s duty to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest regardless of whether or not there is a legal basis for the arrest.” The obverse of this spurious “Duty to Submit to Arrest” is a police officer’s privilege to commit criminal acts for the purpose of nullifying the CONSTITUTIONAL Exclusionary Rule – something the Idaho Supreme Court acknowledged in a 2008 ruling captioned State v. Lusby.
Police paid a visit to Lusby’s apartment to investigate a disturbance. She quickly grew tired of the uninvited company – what decent person wouldn’t? – and went into her apartment, closing the door behind her. One of the officers committed an act of criminal trespass and announced that Lusby was under arrest for “obstruction” and “resistance.” At one point the bully caught an elbow in the face from the victim, a small down-payment on what he deserved – but enough to earn Lusby a charge of felonious assault on an officer. She was also charged with drug possession on the basis of evidence found in the officer’s illegal search.
Because that search was patently illegal, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss all charges against Lusby. The State Supreme Court admitted that this was the case – but insisted that Lusby’s resistance to the illegal invasion of her home retroactively legalized the unconstitutional search.
“It appears to be a nearly universal rule in American jurisdictions that when a suspect responds to an unconstitutional search or seizure by a physical attack on the officer, evidence of this new crime is admissible notwithstanding the prior illegality,” decreed the court, extracting that “rule” from precisely the same orifice from which the Richardson ruling originated.
“The rationale … [is that] a subsequent attack on the officer is a new crime unrelated to any prior illegality…. Accordingly, we hold that evidence of Lusby’s alleged batter on an officer or other forceful resistance is not suppressible … [and] evidence of paraphernalia found in the search incident to Lusby’s arrest [is] admissible.”
Buehler, 34, is a combat veteran of Kosovo and Iraq, West Point graduate, and middle school teacher. He was serving as a designated driver on the morning of New Year’s Day when he saw a woman being abused by police outside a 7-11. The costumed assailants, officers Pat Oborski and Robert Snider, were conducting what they called a DWI arrest of a woman later identified as Norma Pizana.
On this construction, a police officer can nullify the Fourth Amendment anytime he pleases, simply by claiming that the victim committed the supposed crime of resisting. This can take the form of assuming an “aggressive posture,” such as “blading” the body or even putting one foot in front of the other in what can be construed as an “attack stance.” Or, as the recent assault on Austin, Texas resident Antonio Buehler demonstrates, the “assault” can be nothing more than breathing in the face of a police officer.
To Buehler and his friends, the spectacle looked more like a gang assault.
“We hear a loud scream, and we look over, and we see the cop violently yanking the female out of the car onto the ground,”Buehler told local ABC affiliate KVUE. “She is screaming. The other cop ran up and they both sort of grabbed her arms. Her hands were behind her back straight out and they lifted her up by her arms. It looked extremely painful.”
With the help of a friend, Buehler began to document this act of “street justice” with his cell phone. That prompted Oborski to confront Buehler, who was not interfering in any way.
According to Buehler, Oborski barked, “What the hell are you taking pictures for?”
“My response was, `I am allowed to. Public official in a public place.’”
As he was trained to, Oborski started to lie in an effort to devise a cover charge against Buehler. First he claimed that Buehler was somehow “interfering with the investigation,” which was patently untrue. Then the cop assaulted Buhler by pushing the unresisting man – who would have been more than a match for the donut-grazer, had he chosen to fight back – up against a truck.
“Once he had me pinned up against the back of the truck he kept leaning in,” Buehler continued. “He kept pushing me.”
Eventually Oborski got so close that Buehler actually breathed on him – which gave him a pretext to accuse the witness of “spitting” on him. With some difficulty, and Snider’s help, Oborski wrestled Buehler (who offered only passive resistance) to the ground and handcuffed him. The cops took Beuhler to a BAT van – a patently unreliable mobile alcohol testing unit – in the hope of documenting that the witness was intoxicated, which he wasn’t. The cop finally settled on charging him with “harassing a public servant” – a third-degree felony – and “resisting arrest.”
As is always the case in incidents of this kind, Buehler wasn’t arrested for an actual crime; he was vindictively punished for “contempt of cop.”
“You don’t f*** with cops,” Oborski snarled at Buehler. “You don’t get in our f***ing way. You don’t question us, and we’re going to teach you a lesson.”
- Obama Commits Subterfuge Against The United States Citizen: ALL E.O.s ARE ILLEGAL ~ Barry Signs Another Unconstitutional “Executive Order” This Time For Cyber Security ~ Just Before His SOTU Speech.
- Breaking => Obama Issues Executive Order Allowing Seizure of Americans’ Bank Accounts: Told Bankers Today Its OK To Foreclose On American Citizens Who Bailed You Out!
Norma Pizana’s plight was strikingly similar to that of Anne Dekins, with at least one critical difference: Dekins and her rescuers were blessed to live in 18th Century England, a relatively civilized society that recognized and protected a free individual’s indispensable right to resist State-licensed criminal violence.
- 13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules!
- pResident Obama’s Illegal Executive Orders.
- Spain Surrounds Police In Anti- Austerity Protest!
- 14 United State Governors Prepare State Militia Defenses
- United States Militia Warns Obama & Congress To Back Off!
- United States Sheriffs Uniting To End State And Federal Tyranny!
- State Militias May Be Implemented To Root Out Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood.
- Illegal Presidential Executive Order Gives 84 Million Immigrants U.S. Sovereign Status.
- Gun Treatises Easily Blocked By Sovereign States When They Contravene The U.S. Constitution!
- Obama Signs His 86th. Executive Order #13575 Agenda 21: Ron Paul ~ Executive Orders Being Taken Too Far!
- Treason ~ Grounds For Obama’s Immediate Arrest: Employing The “British Official Secrets Act!” In The United States.
- Chief United States Federal Judge Rules Summary Judgement Supporting Open Carry Of Firearms In Florida!
- Remembering When Obama Surreptitiously Used Rangel In Attempting To Federalize The Bill Of Right’s State Militias
- German Police Officers Take Off Helmets & Marched With German Citizens Against Rothschild European Central Bank!
- Barack Obama aka; Barry Soetoro, Is Not The President Of The United States: He Is Not Commander in Chief of the Military!
- Remembering Obama Signed Executive Order 13489 To Block His Records: Lakin ~ A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders!
- Gun Facts & The Second Amendment: What The Bankers Fear Will Be The End To Their New World Order Scheme Of Slavery!
- BREAKING : Gun Rights Prevail Throughout United States : Supreme Court Rules 2nd Amendment Applies To All 50 States In A 5-4 Decision
- Convicted Felon Soros, While Facing More Felony Charges: Advises Obama To Increase Military & City Police Force Against American Citizens ~ Before They Do The Same To The Corrupt Banking Cabal.
- Obama Has Proven That The Executive Branch Can No Longer Exist When As A Lone Wolf He Disregards The Constitution: Petition For Psychiatric Evaluation Of Presidential Candidates.
- Breaking => Unencumbered Treason: Obama By Executive Order ~ Has Made His Biggest Move Ever To Enforce Government Tyranny Across This Nation. Petition ~ STOP OBAMA’S RURAL COUNCIL NOW!
- “We The People” Of The United States Must Assert Our Sovereignty!
- United States President Ron Paul To Repeal ALL Obama Executive Orders!
- Charter Schools: Rothschild’s System Of Corporate Governance Of Children!
- Muslim Brotherhood Documents Could Put Barack Obama aka; Barry Soetoro In Prison.
- Arizona Censures McCain For Organized Crimes Of ‘Liberal’ Record: Corrupt Senators Attend Rothschild’s Mafia Davos!
- Maurice Strong’s Global Warming Scheme Hits The Sphinx Of Egypt: Yes, Global Warming Is Just Another Banking Fraud!