Obey Tyranny Or Die

“Obey federal authority, or die”, that’s the clear message delivered to Americans this week.

The protesters occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge on January 2nd, and over the course of 23 days, those protesters came and went from the town of Burns, and had unfettered access to the refuge, interacting with the people of Burns, and winning some support.  The FBI and federal government could have closed off the refuge at any time, causing those present to become discouraged and leave but did not do  so.   But on the 24th day they closed off 40 miles of highway to create a lethal trap.

The government clearly did not want a peaceful resolution, it wanted to send a clear message.

Yesterday the FBI released aerial drone footage of operations by the FBI and OSP involving the “traffic stop” ambush of persons heading from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to a scheduled public meeting at the Senior Center in the town of John Day, at the invitation of Sheriff Palmer of Grant county, to peaceably discuss the issues surrounding the occupation of the Wildlife Refuge, and work towards a resolution.

Is the footage complete and unedited?

It should be noted up front that this drone footage, which the FBI itself labels as  “Complete, Unedited”,  is in fact heavily edited, and edited for a deliberate purpose.   Despite the focus of the footage being LaVoy Finicum’s white truck, there is no footage of Ryan Payne sticking his head out of the passenger window of Finicum’s truck to communicate with authorities and being shot at, nor is there any footage of Ryan Payne later exiting Finicum’s truck, laying down, and being taken into custody.  There is likewise no footage of the surrender of the occupants of the Jeep, driven by Mark McConnell, with Ammon Bundy and Brian Cavalier as passengers.  There is only periodic footage of that Jeep motionless on the road,  without  even  any authorities visible anywhere around it.

Jn fact the FBI version titled the “Edited Version of FBI Video” interrupts the video footage at 00:29:53  with the screen message, “There is a passage of approximately 3 minutes 47 seconds while the truck sits not moving.”   The deliberate implication of this message is that there had been no activity from the occupants Finicum’s white truck during this entire time, yet we know from the two eyewitness reports that Ryan Payne exited the vehicle and surrendered during this period.   When the Edited Version resumes at 00:33:41, Finicum’s truck immediately proceeds down the road toward the roadblock.

Meanwhile “Complete, Unedited” FBI footage only shows the initial stop of Finicum’s white truck and then  Finicum later going down the road to the roadblock.  By the footage presented, the FBI would have us believe that no other interaction occurred between the occupants of Finicum’s white truck, or other Jeep, prior to Finicum’s fatal shooting. However following Finicum’s shooting, they do show the remaining passengers from the rear seat of Finicum’s truck being taken into custody: Victoria Sharp, Ryan Bundy, and Samantha Cox.   Given that Ryan Payne was nowhere among those surrendering at the time of roadblock, it’s undeniable that Payne previously exited the vehicle and surrendered to authorities.

The perspective provided by the tailored presentation of this heavily edited footage is that everything ended up well once Robert LaVoy Finicum was removed from the equation by abruptly ending his life. However Finicum wasn’t in any way the source of the problem, and there is a high probability this will become even more evident by future events.

By the unmistakably heavy editing of this video footage, contrary to the titling by the FBI as “Unedited”, it is apparent that the federal authorities intend to present a skewed perspective of events so as to bias the viewer in favor of the action taken, and to justify the murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum in cold blood.

The reason this ambush took place outside the compound, is that LaVoy Finicum was the able spokesperson for the group’s motivation by the terms of the Constitution, and Finicum never, ever left the Malheur Wildlife Refuge compound… except to attend the public meeting that day.   The Feds wanted to remove the group’s voice of unity, LaVoy Finicum, and thereby cause the occupiers to disband.    It’s as simple as that.

Since when do we have the death penalty for Trespass, and peaceful protest?  What happened to the Redress of Grievances? None of those persons taken into custody were violent felons, not-a one was a modern day Bonnie of Clyde.  Every one of those persons taken into custody is charged with the federal offense of “Conspiracy to Interfere” with a federal government employee engaging in their duties,  a felony with a six year prison sentence, which is unmistakably the gross misapplication of that law — further highlighting the federal tyranny.   It’s not as if the federal government has any sort of urgent need to take care of the wildlife, in the middle of Winter.

Public Discussion & Peaceful Resolution

They were on their way to a public discussion at a Senior Center to address the very real and valid grievances against the federal government as a result of the prolonged and deliberate violations of the Constitution.

The United States Constitution, even as currently amended:

1)  provides NO  constitutional authority to the federal government to own lands within a State upon statehood, except forts, Arsenals, (military bases), dock-Yards, and “other needful buildings”, detailed in Article 1 Section 8.  The “Property Clause” in Article IV, detailing the relationship between the federal government and sovereign States, provides the federal government no further award of authority over any lands beyond A1S8, and addresses the need to write needful rules to the lands recognized in Article 1,Section 8.  In that Property Clause, the indication of capital-T  “Territories”  is a Proper Noun, having specific meaning and not just a general reference to “territory”, is specifically referencing only unconsolidated Territories that have not yet become States;

2) The Constitution provides no authority to the federal government to write laws directly applicable to the people of the several States  The federal government only has authority to write laws to those limited lands detailed in A1S8, and the District of Columbia itself;

3) The Constitution recognizes the unalienable right to petition the government for redress of grievances;

At the initial stop of Finicum’s vehicle,  Ryan Payne was allegedly shot at when he only stuck his head out of the vehicle to communicate with officers — an unwarranted use of lethal force, with this unmistakably being the cause of Finicum’s subsequent actions, flight down the road to the roadblock, and there exiting the vehicle saying “just shoot me.”  The entire ambush itself was the illegitimate and unnecessary use of obscene amount of force for the sole purpose of the Federal Government demanding its usurped authority be recognized without question – brutal Tyranny.

LaVoy Finicum’s Last Moments

From the video footage, Robert Lavoy Finicum exited the vehicle with his hands up in surrender, and then stepped away from the vehicle in a non-threatening direction, traveling up the bank, entirely exposing himself to the authority of the officers. Finicum’s every action was indicating surrender. He did not “charge” anyone, as has been reported.

The first shot to strike Finicum was NOT from the officer immediately in front of him, but rather the office Finicum had nearly sideswiped as he tried to bypass the roadblock. That officer had reloacted to  the tail end of the dark truck and fired, hitting Finicum as he was traveling up the hill with his hands raised. The firing officer immediately retreated to those behind him.   Then while  Finicum’s  hands were  again extended in surrender, the footage shows that Finicum was shot the second time by the officer immediately in front of him.

At this point Finicum dropped his hands to his abdomen, which may have been from either of the two shots to strike him, and with both hands at his stomach, Finicum staggering backwards, one foot behind him, and then turned away from the roadblock and away from any officers, facing down the road, his back turned even to the approaching sniper in the woods.   If Finicum was intending the aggressive act of drawing a weapon, as it is alleged,  then having his back to every one of those officers is obviously not the position in which to engage the use of that firearm.  Robert Finicum’s life was abruptly ended by a sniper comping from the woods behind him, no more than 20 feet away, shooting Finicum from behind.

LaVoy finicum was not first shot while he was allegedly reaching for a gun, but rather he was shot twice beforehand, first while exiting the vehicle and traveling up the bank, and then again by the officer immediately in front of him, while his hands were raised, causing his hands to drop to his stomach.  Upon realizing the gravity of his wound, Finicum then turned his back to the officers, in a feeble effort to flee for his very life, whereupon Finicum was executed from behind.  Finicum was never reaching for a gun, and the occupiers never fired a shot.

Added: Listen to KrisAnne Hall’s description of LaVoy Finicum’s shooting, from the perspective of Finicum himself, starting at the 25m 13s mark.

The indication from the FBI is that Finicum  was shot while reaching for a semi-automatic pistol in his “waistband”.    This is rather curious given the fact that one’s waistband is a rather inconvenient and uncomfortable location for a pistol, particularly for someone bent at the waist while while driving a vehicle.  In fact Finicum was not known to carry a semi-automatic  pistol, but rather was never seen without a revolver, which he lawfully carried in a shoulder holster.

In fact no shots were fired by any one of the persons taken into custody, despite the overwhelming barrage of bullets discharged at them by federal agents.

Robert Lavoy FInicum was murdered in cold blood by federal agents exercising an obscene excess of illegitimate authority in support of the illegitimate federal claim of property within the State, that  came about from the gross violation of the only legitimate authority provided that federal government by the Constitution

Yet these federal authorities would have us believe that this institutionalized corruption is legitimized by its own precedent, which is once again the hallmark of Tyranny.

The occupation of the Malheur Nature Preserve came about precisely because of longstanding federal abuses, as  well as the sentencing of the Hammonds under the Federal 1996 Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act, which has no legitimate application to the controlled burn of lands that has gone in open range land for nearly a century, and is employed by BLM itself.  However BLM  has repeatedly started its own burns with the deliberate intent of terrorizing ranchers, and to cause harm to their ranches, cattle, and fences, even burning down their homes.

Those officers involved in the ambush and killing of Finicum are guilty of  Conspiracy to deny rights, as well as denial of rights under the color of law,  and given a death occurred by their hands, the death penalty is applicable to those officers,  as indicated by the federal government’s own statutes, Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 241 & 242.

Added: Attorney KrisAnne Hall, in her January 29th video addressing the FBI footage, compares Finicum’s shooting to December 5, 1775, the Boston Massacre.  I respectfully disagree with KrisAnne on this.  If anything is comparable to the Boston Massacre in effect, it would more likely be the unjust imprisonment of the Hammonds, that resulted in the Malheur Refuge occupation.  I believe that history will likely view Robert LaVoy Finicum’s cold-blooded murder as being on par with the first shot fired at Concord’s North Bridge,  April 19th, 1775, the “shot heard round the world”.    I agree that Americans may not be ready for another 1776, but then this country’s founders could never have sufficiently ready to take on the world’s greatest power.     Readiness is irrelevant to the urgent and immediate need to remove this unrestrained abuse of illegitimate authority.

Contrary to what the federal government apparently hoped, the deliberate murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum was not the end of the standoff, but rather is very likely only the beginning of something far bigger.




Cold Blooded Murder in Oregon

Further eyewitness video Testimony about Oregon shooting, below.


Last night I was closely following the developing events in Burns Oregon, even before they happened, due to an ongoing disagreement from the previous day between Mark Connors and Pete Santilli.

What happened last night was nothing short of the cold-blooded murder of LaVoy Finicum,  a man, a father, a husband, a grandfather – someone standing up peaceably for everyone’s liberties.

LaVoy Finicum was doing nothing more than  traveling to a public meeting with Ammon Bundy and others,  to discuss the issues and express the cause for the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.   They were going to this peaceful meeting arranged by the Sheriff, and they were stopped for a “traffic stop” by that same Sheriff and  the FBI.

Did they have  a headlight out, or perhaps they came to a rolling stop  at a stop sign?

No, it was a deliberate ambush on a desolate road that had no cell service due to surrounding canyon walls.  According to the eyewitness report of Victoria Sharp, there were even snipers in the trees awaiting them, and as many as 40 law enforcement vehicles involved, all for a “traffic stop” of people only going to a peaceful public meeting, which the Sheriff and FBI were fully aware of in advance.   It was unmistakably a planned ambush.

The claim it was a  “traffic stop” is nothing but the gross misrepresentation of fact to pretend legitimacy under the color of law.

The media is reporting that there was a “shootout”.  For there to be a shootout, there has to actually be shots fired from both sides, yet none of those traveling with Ammon Bundy fired a single shot.  There cannot be any sort of shootout when one side does not fire even a single shot.  Reuters, MarketWatch, The Guardian, Institute for Public Accuracy (oh, irony).

The media is reporting  only three shots being fired,  resulting in the death of LaVoy Finicum, yet the eyewitness report is that approximately 120 shots were fired at the vehicles and occupants, with numerous shots into the vehicles.

The media would have us believe that these occupiers of the Nature Preserve have no legitimacy, and are nothing but terrorists.  Despite the fact these occupiers have  inadequately conveyed the legitimacy of their actions, the inescapable fact is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to claim ownership of any lands within a State, beyond forts, arsenals (military bases), dock-Yards, Post Offices, and other “needful buildings”.

Only a day before this lethal traffic stop, in a video interview, LaVoy Finicum  had indicated the need for more dialog, and was alarmed by the abrupt change in “tone and tenor” of the federal authorities, leading  to this grossly unwarranted abuse of lethal force.  It is clear that the intent was to shut down this disobedience, and do so in such an excessive fashion that it limits further uprisings by overwhelming intimidation.

LaVoy Finicum had surrendered with his hands in the air,  and was indicating his desire to speak with the Sheriff, and was shot repeatedly, his life brutally ended when he was only traveling to public meeting so as to engage a dialog to find a peaceful resolution.   Additionally Ryan Bundy was shot three times, and another was wounded as well.

Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered in cold blood by federal agents only one day before his 56th birthday, today.

Every single federal agent and the  Sheriff officers that fired their weapons last night, need to be taken into the people’s custody, pending an autopsy and ballistic analysis on Finicum, as well as the shots into the vehicles.

At that point,  all officers  that fired their weapons should be charged with First Degree Murder.   Conspiracy to Commit Murder,  the Denial of life and rights under the color of law, and numerous other charges,  and prosecuted by a jury of their peers to the fullest extent of the law, with the death penalty being applicable.

When man can no longer rely on the rule of law, then he becomes subject to the rule of men – tyrants – and we no longer have a civil society.

Yet what is the LEAD BANNER on Drudge?    Rubio surging in Iowa!

On  Breitbart?    Trump and the debates!

On FOX  News? A plea for the PROTESTERS to be reasonable!

Last week  KrisAnne Hall gave a lecture in Burns Oregon on the Constitution, and she had a security detail accompanying her while there.  That security detail was not  because KrisAnne had  any fear of the protesters occupying the nature preserve, by her own statement, but rather because she was afraid of our own federal government, and did not want to be taken into custody, without anyone knowing her whereabouts.

This is not the America we are promised, nay, guaranteed by the Constitution!  However that Guarantee will never be honored if we do not demand it.

If we do not all rise up NOW, and demand these federal agents be prosecuted, and the Federal government returned to its only legitimate “box” within the District of Columbia, then we are lost as a nation.   God help us, because  if we do not do so, we are doomed to be nothing but serfs, slaves to tyrannous government dictating every aspect of our lives.

T. J. McCann, III
Valley Forge


Beyond Victoria Sharp‘s video statement, there is a second eyewitness video description of the events  from the driver of the other vehicle, Mark McConnell.   McConnell only witnessed the Finicum vehicle’s original stop approximately 200 yards head of him, and was then able to see a person he was unable to identify exiting that vehicle and being taken into custody, which would be Ryan Paine.

McConnell does not provide any indication of shots at that other vehicle prior to Finicum driving it further down the road and into the snow drift.

In the video statement, McConnell claims that Finicum exited his vehicle and “charged” at the law enforcement officers, resulting in Finicum’s shooting.   However McConnell indicates this claim was provided to him second hand by Shawna Cox, a passenger of Finicum’s vehicle, while they both were in police custody. This claim that FInicum exited his vehicle and charged law enforcement officers is specifically contradicted by Victoria Sharp’s own video interview, in which Sharp indicated of Finicum, when specifically asked by the interviewer, that “he (Finicum) was just walking with his hands up.”   Sharp further indicated that Finicum’s hands were still up when he fell.

Without direct confirmation from Shawna Cox, it is quite possible that McConnell has misinterpreted something Cox told him, and that there is no actual witness claiming that FInicum charged toward the law enforcement officers.

Furthermore, Victoria Sharp’s statement about Ryan Payne and the Finicum vehicle being shot at by law enforcement at the initial stop, would serve to justify Finicum having driven further down the road, as well as him stating to law enforcement “just shoot me” upon exiting the vehicle, without this being any sort of death wish on Finicum’s part. Finicum’s responses become far more legitimate given the fact that he was originally shot at without cause. However Mark McConnell’s own video statement provided no indication of there being shots fired when the Finicum vehicle was originally stopped and within his sight.

Ryan Bundy was reportedly wounded in the shoulder by the enormous rain of bullets and gas canisters shot at Finicum’s vehicle, following Finicum being shot dead.

The lead vehicle  – driven by LaVoy Finicum, with Ryan Payne in the passenger seat, and in the rear seat was Ryan Bundy (L), Victoria Sharp (C), and Shawna Cox (R).

The trailing vehicle – driven by Mark McConnell, with Ammon Bundy and Brian “Buddha” Cavalier as passengers.

Given this, to further establish the events immediately resulting in LaVoy Finicum’s death, we  need to obtain direct testimony from Ryan Bundy and/or Shawna Cox regarding the final moments, and from Ryan Payne to establish that there was indeed shooting by law enforcement officers at the original vehicle stop.


KrisAnne Hall on the Oregon Events

Cruz Lies to America!

On January 14th, 2016 the FOX Business Network hosted the GOP Debate in Charleston, South Carolina.   Neil Cavuto, anchor and managing editor of the Business Network, was a moderator, along with Maria Bartiromo.

During the debate, under the spotlight of a live national broadcast, Cavuto asked Ted Cruz about Cruz’s qualification to hold the office of President, given the Constitution’s requirement to be a natural born citizen, as a result of Cruz’s birth in Canada.  Up front Cavuto recognized that Cruz’s citizenship was not in question.

See Video below (Time Stamp: ~2:02 )

Cruz began his answer by indicating that John McCain was born abroad in Panama and was able to run for president, and that Mitt Romney’s Dad was able to run for President  despite being born abroad, because of their parents being citizens.   Here Cruz subtly misrepresents the Constitution’s demand as “being able to  run for President”,   despite the fact that requirement only prohibits those not being natural born from holding the office.  The requirement for President says nothing whatsoever about “running for office”.

Quite obviously those who have previously run for office, including McCain and George Romney,  are not necessarily natural born citizens as a result of having run for that office.   This also applies to  Roger Calero, who was on the  ballot in 5 States in the 2008 Presidential election, and yet Calero was not even a U.S. Citizen.

By  Cruz’s  reference to  those who “ran for office”,  implying they were qualified to hold that office as natural born citizens, it should now be apparent that Cruz began a calculated dishonesty intending to confuse and manipulate the ignorant American voter from the very start of his response to Cavuto’s question.

Cruz then indicated the following further practiced, deliberate falsehood:

“.. the birther theories, that Donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones, insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified,and interestingly enough Donald J. Trump would be disqualified… because.. because  Donald’s mother was born in Scotland.”

WRONG!  As consistently recognized in  5 separate Supreme Courts decisions over this country’s history, the terms of natural born ONLY require that the parents must be CITIZENS at the time of birth, in addition to the  offspring being on the country’s soil! 

According to Cruz’s explanation, those five distinct Supreme Court decisions, as early as 1814 (The Venus), must necessarily be “birthers” as well, which is obviously untrue!  These terms have nothing to do with those “birthers” at all, however tagging the issue as “birther” is a good way for Cruz to dishonestly impugn the issue by false association with those birthers. There is actually no existing claim made by anyone conversant in the actual facts, that the parents must be born on the soil as well as the offspring.  

This falsehood was no mere mistake by Cruz, but rather a calculated and practiced lie promoted by Cruz, done to rely, again, on the ignorance of the American voter, while simultaneously using that dishonesty to make it appear as if even the front-runner, Trump, might not be qualified.

Cruz then went on, saying, “On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I’m not going to use your Mother’s citizenship against you.”   This was obviously a very poor yet calculated attempt to echo Ronald Regan’s famous response (video) during the 1984  Presidential Debates regarding Mondale, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Once again we have clear evidence that this response by Cruz was practiced and deliberate.

Throughout Cruz’s answer, the Cruz supporters were cheering, showing that they actually had no  awareness that Cruz was lying to them, as well as no knowledge of the Constitution and its terms for natural born.  Yet it is these same supporters who insist that Cruz is our salvation, asserting that he is a constitutional conservative, which he clearly is not.

Finally Cruz ended his answer by reducing the qualification for President to being simply American, saying they are “all Americans on this stage”, and by this entirely dismissing the stringent demand stipulated by the Constitution for the office of President, showing no real regard for the Constitution overall.  Instead, Cruz continued, he wanted the selection of a GOP candidate to be by who is most qualified candidate, as adjudged by the voters, yet again entirely discarding the fact that there is any constitutional mandate limiting those qualified to hold the office.  That’s some constitutional conservative there!

Cruz cannot be that stupid for this clearly practiced answer to be a legitimate mistake. If he is that stupid, Cruz doesn’t belong in the office of President. Cruz just believes that we Americans are that stupid.  Are we?

Sure, Cruz went to law school, but they don’t  teach the Constitution in Law school,  they teach Constitutional Law, and certainly don’t teach the meaning of natural born.   On his own, Cruz could have researched  those five Supreme Court decisions over this country’s history that recognize natural born to  be “birth in the country to parents who were citizens”, along with numerous other qualified references.  Yet Cruz would have us believe he did not do so, no staffer did so, and that if caught in this lie,  it might just be dismissed as a legitimate mistake.

At minimal, Cruz undoubtedly has heard these terms accurately related by others, heard that they require the parents to have been citizens (only) at the time of birth, yet he chose to misrepresent these terms for his own benefit.

Cruz’s response was clearly choreographed by Cruz campaign staffers and consultants, and is unmistakably a very practiced, deliberate lie intending to rely on the ignorance of the American electorate.

I cannot, and will not ever, vote for Ted Cruz because he is not a natural born citizen, and neither is Marco Rubio, nor Bobby Jindal, nor was John McCain.   Donald Trump however is a natural born citizen.

An enormous number of Americans now want this election to turn out well because they are desperate to restore this country, and legitimate government by the terms of the Constitution. However what Cruz is showing is only more of the same smarmy  Washington corruption and disregard for the Constitution, all while abusing the American people themselves.

Overall, Cruz’s answer to Cavuto’s question clearly demonstrated that Cruz puts his personal ambition ahead of country, Constitution, and even his own integrity,

Ted Cruz is not the answer.  The question is whether  you’re smart enough to not be sucked in by Cruz’s series of calculated lies.


J.B. Williams – Endless Natural Born Nonsense

In a recent January 16 Article on News With Views,  writer J.B. Williams has penned yet another article addressing natural born citizen titled, “TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE ENDLESS NATURAL BORN DEBATE.”  Unfortunately nowhere in Williams article is there anything resembling facts, much less truthful ones.

Williams’ article actually misrepresents the #1 terms for natural born citizen, when it is solely own distorted cherry-picking of Vattel’s writing, in which Williams entirely bypasses Vattel’s  explicit and clear definition of natural born stated in  § 212 of Law of Nations, and instead extracts only the immediately following reference to paternalism, and the father determining the citizenship of the offspring.  It is this reference that Williams represents as the legitimate definition of natural born, despite it being one recognized by only Williams himself.  Talk about “truth”…

As far as the actual definition provided by Vattel, Williams presents this as his #3 recognition of natural born, but dishonestly impugns this as only the “birther” definition. Williams then proceeds to blame those birthers for focusing on McCain, and thereby allowing Obama to remain unchallenged in office.   Notably, by this specious rationale, Williams has revealed the motivation for his extensive abuse of Vattel as being  an underlying prejudice to validate only one individual – John Sydney McCain.

All the evidence, as provided by Williams himself,  clearly indicates Williams’ own prejudicial determination  to recognize John McCain as a natural born citizen, even while still condemning Obama, with the difference between the two being the status of the fathers. Therefore Williams reprehensibly pushed past Vattel’s clear and concise definition of natural born, onto the irrelevant narrative of about paternalism, solely for the purpose of supporting his  own preconceived agenda of vindicating McCain, and condemning Obama.  The result is a theory which is in no way resembling valid argument.

In an email exchange between myself and Williams regarding his specious claims, Williams defended his article with the following explanation:

“The column separates in total, six competing views…. Because it is those competing views that make the term unenforceable for seven years now. The “birther” definition is not the original meaning of the term, as I state. But it could be the a Founders original intent, as I also state. …  you falsely claimed that what I wrote was not true or accurate, and I assure you, it is entirely true and accurate.”

J.B. Williams, via email, January 19th, 2016

Let us proceed to examine the “truth and accuracy” of Mr J.B. Willaims’ representations regarding  natural born citizen:

In the course of an email exchange over nearly a year with J.B. Willaims about natural born, Williams has exhibited a gross ignorance of the fundamental issues, making such claims as the following:

1) The  Article 1, Section 8  reference in the Constitution to “Law of Nations” is actually a direct reference to Vattel’s treatise.  False, it is a reference to what we might recognize generally today International Law.
2) That Vattel is the source of authority for the terms presented in his treatise Law of Nations. False, Vattel only documented what was then commonly recognized.
3) That “Native” has the same meaning as “Native Born”. False, the two references have distinctly different meaning.
4) That “true citizen” mentioned by Vattel is the same as natural born, when it is only a phrase used by Vattel to indicate that the child’s following of the father  might be recognized by law, resulting in that child being an actual “true citizen” under the law, rather than one just following the father by inclination.
5) That the terms of natural born go back to the  Bible and Old Testament, when the social law Williams references in that ancient past has no more bearing on natural born than the social laws (Paternalism) of the more modern past, or the the statutory laws of the present!   Blatant ignorance across centuries having no support.

In those previous email exchanges, I have provided Williams a more thorough insight into his misunderstandings, but to little or no effect.

What follows is my own  citation of history and fact regarding natural born citizen, in contrast to Williams’ own representations, even as I conveyed them to J.B. Williams via email.  Decide for yourself which narrative provides the more direct factual references:


#1 ORIGINAL ROOT TERMS FOR NBC:   Vattel accurately recognizes the fundamental terms of natural born with his indication  in  § 212 of Law of Nations being “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” 

Over the course of this country’s history , at least 5 separate U.S. Supreme Court decisions have recognized the same terms as Vattel, with some of these citing Vattel specifically, and others only providing the definition.

1814 – The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289, (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens)
1857 – Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, (Justice Daniel concurring uses same definition and cites Vattel)
1875 – Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-681884, (same definition without citing Vattel);
1879 – Ex Parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);
1890 – United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal.) (cites and quotes Ex Parte Reynolds, same definition and cites Vattel);

By somewhat less direct argument:
1872 – Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36
1884 – Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94

Curiously JB Williams would have us believe that these cases must involve “birthers” as well.   Yet obviously even a fossil like McCain was nowhere around in those early  times, but this is the level of ignorance and corrupt representations that Williams’ article stoops to.  JB Williams is extremely fortunate that News With Views has no comments section, or else his claims would  be eviscerated by many who are not nearly so ignorant.  In truth, those who recognize Vattel’s terms of NBC  hold the actual “birthers” in tremendous disdain, along with their fixation of playing “Where’s Waldo” with the birth certificate. Yet Williams is oblivious to this as well in his corrupt intent to falsely impugn the issue as “birther.” 

There are also numerous comments identifying the  terms of natural born over this country’s history by other qualified persons, such as  John A. Bingham, co-author of the 14th Amendment, who indicated on the floor of the House, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”  (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

in 1898, thirty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Justice Horace Gray argued in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that, by  British Common Law,  “anyone born on the soil”, regardless of parentage, is not only a citizen or subject from birth, but also natural born, based on Gray’s own cherry-picking of  British Jurist  Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries.

It should be noted that to proffer this argument, Justice Gray had to inherently presume, despite the 110 years of the United States existence, that this country had no citizenship laws of its own on the books, thereby making British “common law” dictate relevant, which obviously is patently false and demonstrating gross judicial corruption.      This is the claim that current Progressives cite most often as the actual terms of natural born citizen, yet JB Williams’ article fudges these two somehow to create two separate definitions which he numbers #4 and #5, while not providing any reference at all to the corrupt Wong Kim Ark decision!

In 1881 Prentiss Webster published A Treatise On the Law Of Citizenship In The United State, in which Webster recognizes  these two schools of thought regarding natural born citizen  status, which are represented as terms #1 and #2, above.  Webster recognized the latter reliance on British common law as being feudal-monarchical dictate, entirely in conflict with this country’s founding principles.   Webster indicates, “Such a theory had its origin in the feudal law, on which the principles of this country were not grounded, and, while it may be argued that it finds place in the English common law, it must not be forgotten that “our ancestors brought with them, and claimed as their birthright its general principles, and adopted that portion of it only which was applicable to their situation.”

Webster’s 1881 recognition of the two schools of thought on natural born status does, in fact,  serve to powerfully condemn J.B. Williams’ claim that the terms of natural born recognized by Vattel are merely the result of contemporary “Birther” corruption.

Even more curious regarding Justice Gray’s representation, is that the “birth on soil” claim is not even the most current indication provided by Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries!  Justice Gray was actually cherry-picking Blackstone!  Further on in his Commentaries, Blackstone recognizes as natural born subjects those who are born outside the country.  However in doing so Blackstone recognizes that this ever-expanding definition is made by authority of the Crown,  and is statutory in nature, even providing the statute code of “25 Edw. III. st.2.” :

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

Blackstone thus recognized these allegedly “common law” terms as nothing but evolving statutory definitions, not at all constant. Yet Williams own article makes no distinction between statutory corruptions,  even recognizing yet another definition of NBC that involves only  statutory definitions, even from what are explicitly naturalization laws, despite what is stated therein having application to “citizenship” only.   Williams mistakenly elevates these irrelevant statutory definitions to his #2 “The Textual Meaning”, when they have no valid application to natural born status at all, only to mere citizenship. Williams fails to recognize that natural born citizen, even by definition,  is not the product of man-made Positive Law.

To no surprise given the progressive expansion of terms, Britain has a root-definition of natural born, which predates Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries, a definition which is the same as that recognized by Vattel, albeit phrased differently.    Thirty years prior to Blackstone’s Commentaries, British jurist Matthew  Bacon recognized the unadulterated terms of natural born to be:

“All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions.”

(Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, 1736, Vol 1, pg 77)

Not only does  Bacon indicate that the place of birth must be within the “dominion” (British territory) itself, but it also indicates that the parents must be under the “actual obedience” of the King. This emphasis on “actual Obedience” is in direct conflict with Justice Gray’s own presumed obedience of Law in the Wong Kim Ark decision.   Presumed obedience resulting from mere temporary happenstance of giving birth within the territory does not equate to the obligation of actual obedience of being a citizen, or subject, not even under British feudal doctrine.   Even the Crown had no authority to overthrow  existing allegiance and make subjects of those who are aliens.

Despite being phrased differently, this definition by Bacon actually recognizes the original terms of natural born subject to be the same as our own, and the same as related by Vattel, involving (1) the actual allegiance (citizenship) of both parents and (2) birth within the territory, or dominion.   Yet Williams entirely sidesteps and ignores the clear and succinct definition provided by Vattel, dismissing it as “birther”!

The problem is that J.B. Williams is not actually sufficiently familiar with the history to recognize false claims, including his own.  Instead of educating himself, Williams blissfully fabricates a highly prejudicial definition of natural born from gross abuse of Vattel’s text, a definition that only he recognizes.

In Conclusion, natural born citizen is not a product of statutory law, and the whole array of U.S. naturalization laws only apply to “citizen” and “citizenship”, and in no way have any relevance to the terms of natural born citizen.  JB Williams’ uninformed and superficial articles only serve to establish Willams as the poster child for ignorance on the matter of natural born citizen status, and not any sort of voice of discernment.


The Oregon Hammonds Standoff

Last night “someone” asked me what I thought about what’s going on in Oregon with the Hammond family having to report today, January 4th,  to complete the remainder of a FIVE YEAR prison sentence for a fire they set on their property that unintentionally spread from the Hammond property over to adjacent federal lands (which the Hammonds were leasing from BLM).  The Hammonds were originally sentenced under mandatory Federal TERRORISM guidelines, and then the 9th Circuit court invalidated  US District Judge Hogan having subsequently reduced the Hammond’s sentence to 1 year (max). However the 9th Circuit then insisted the federal terms must be applied, even though this was clearly not a relevant “terrorism” situation, under the 1996 Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act.  The Hammond’s fire clearly involved no such terrorist intent whatsoever by the Hammonds, certainly in no way rationally comparable to the Oklahoma City bombing of the federal building, which motivated the Act — thereby highlighting why this mandatory sentencing is blatant federal tyranny.

The contact asking my thoughts on the Hammond situation in Oregon  did so by providing a video discussion of the Oregon events made by one “Montagraph”.   I now focus on Montagraph’s video because  it really exhibits the common misunderstanding of too many Americans regarding legitimate Federal authority and the actual terms of the Constitution, even as currently amended.

Montagraph’s video commentary on Oregon situation:

Montagraph really doesn’t understand the fundamental facts of the case and this country, and shouldn’t be spouting off about the Oregon Ranch issues at all.   Montagraph is grossly uninformed, and Exhibit A as to why Americans have lost their Liberty.

Fundamentally the issues in Oregon are exactly the same as the previous Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada.

However, for starters,  Montagraph does not even recognize that the federal government has no legitimate authority in the States under the Constitution, which is true for both the Bundy and Hammond situations.  There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to claim any lands as federal other than forts, arsenals, dockyards and other “needful buildings”,  per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  There is no authority to write laws directly applicable to the people within the several States.  There is no authority to transfer private lands within a State to federal authority. There is no authority for federal laws above and beyond State laws.

If anyone questions these assertions, then review Article 1, Section 8 of the ConstitutionPollard Lessee vs Hagan (excerpted at bottom of this post), and the Equal Footing Doctrine.  It is standing constitutional principle that every State is to be sovereign over all the territory within its borders upon statehood, yet this ongoing principle is routinely disregarded by the federal government as it engages an illegitimate authority.

THEN Montagraph repeatedly references the currently “occupied” nature preserve area in Oregon as  being a “Honey Trap”. Well, this is thoroughly ignorant, and it’s evident he does not know even what the phrase “honey trap” means.   He says, “It’s my personal opinion that this is a honey trap, yeah, uh huh.”  Is this his rendition of Ernest P. Worrell, or what?  Montagraph doesn’t even explain why, in his view, it might be a honey trap.   There’s no “honey” in the wildlife preserve  that they’ve occupied, nothing there that powerfully attracted them to occupy that facility, so it cannot be any sort of “honey trap” situation.

If the reclamation of our enduring rights and liberties is some sort of “trap”, then by all means it is a trap in dire need of being faced and removed, or we can no longer legitimately  call ourselves free Americans.

Then Montagraph indicates the militia supporters have encroached on federal property, and by doing so those militia “occupiers” have thrown the Constitution “out the window.”  However the claimed existence of that federal land itself is the only actual violation of the Constitution!  THEN Montagraph references Posse Comitatus, and use of the military  in policing action against civilians, saying it is “in the Constitution”.  No, it’s not in the Constitution at all,  but rather came from the second session of Congress.

Someone needs to smack this Montagraph on the back of the head for each and every ignorant word he spouts in this video. Montagraph is “Exhibit A” as to why Americans have lost their freedoms, and have been reduced to only dutiful slaves to an illegitimate federal authority involving the dictate of every aspect of our lives.  Montagraph is too ignorant on the very substantial issues to even know how ignorant he is, imagining somehow that this video might have some fragment of rationality to it.

Reference: Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty ACT – 1996

I close with a very powerful and compelling video by KrisAnne Hall:


Pollard Lessee v Hagan (1845)

The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly affirmed the sovereignty of states, whether they were a part of the union initially, or brought into the union subsequent to the country’s formation.

The Court case Pollard Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama to ownership of certain partially inundated lands in Alabama.  Take note that this case tests the consideration in which the federal government might possibly have some legitimate authority over those “inundated lands”, given that those lands are vaguely associated with waterways that legitimately fall under stipulated constitutional federal authority.

The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of those lands. However rather than the Court considering this as an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States overall.

Given that the original 13 States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over even the navigable waters and the soil beneath them, provided they lay  within that State’s boundaries, the retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on a less-than-equal footing with the original States.

The Court resolved:

“To Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

“Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits … to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states … to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them.”

Notice that this excerpt from the decision involves not only a recognition of Alabama’s sovereignty, but as with “unalienable” rights, that state sovereignty is also unalienable, and cannot by changed even by agreement (“compact”) made freely by the state itself! This inherently reserved sovereignty is undiminished by the fact that Alabama was originally a territory, entirely subject to congressional control.

Given that “No compact that might be made between [any state] and the United States could diminish these rights”, then this State sovereignty remains undiminished even by entry into the union

In regard to the claim that “most states don’t have such a provision” affirming their sovereignty, as a function of the Pollard Lessee holding, the Court also indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states…. and that no state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally by other states.

*** NOTE: The Court’s recognition in the Pollard case is not limited to “partially inundated” lands, but also applies more broadly to any territory within a State which the federal government may even have purchased at some point, both prior to statehood, or after that statehood.    While the Federal government may have constitutional authority to write laws applicable to forts, and other specifically stipulated federal lands, even those lands remain within the sovereign territory of each State, upon statehood, with the federal government’s ownership of specifically stipulated portions being only as a sort of elevated tenant. “No Compact that might be made … can alter these rights <State sovereignty>”

This puts new light on not only the federal government’s act of supplying and fortifying Fort Sumter upon the secession of the South, with this fortification of Sumter at the mouth of Charleston bay actually itself being the original act of war in directly threatening to the citizens of Charleston, but also applying to the Bundy Ranch standoff, as well as the more recent standoff in Oregon involving the Hammonds Ranch.