Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | January 11, 2018

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has said he’s had evidence that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was a phony document for a while now. After an interview on CNN, however, he doubled down saying no one in the mainstream media wanted to cover the evidence found.

Arpaio announced Tuesday that he is running for the Arizona United States Senate seat currently occupied by Senator Jeff Flake, who is retiring from Congress at the end of his term. “No doubt about it, we have the evidence, I’m not going to go into all the details, yeah, it’s a phony document,” Arpaio said on Cuomo Primetime.

According to CNN, (which, keep in mind, is biased against Joe Arpaio, as evident in the interview) Arpaio was a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump during the campaign and was pardoned by the President in August. The former Maricopa County sheriff was convicted of defying a court order to stop racially profiling Latinos, and he has been widely criticized for his hard-line stances on immigration. Arpaio has also annoyed the biased liberal media outlet by acquiring evidence that Obama forged his birth certificate. “Birtherism” as CNN put it, was touted by Arpaio in the past, and, when speaking to CNN‘s Chris Cuomo on Wednesday evening, he once again said he has proof that Obama’s birth certificate is fake.

Arpaio even perhaps threw some shade at Cuomo. He said he does support Trump, and he “doesn’t like” how “some people” have gone after him. But Cuomo fires back asking if Arpaio no longer “agrees to profile Latinos.”

“Was the “birtherism” a mistake?” asks Cuomo. “Oh, now you’re bringing that up?” Arpaio replies. “Let me tell you something,” he continues. “I started this because a fake document, a government document; I didn’t care where the president came from, I didn’t care at all. And we have the evidence. Nobody will talk about it, Nobody will look at it and anytime you wanna come down here, anybody, we’ll be glad to show you the evidence.

Cuomo pressed Arpaio again on the topic: “So you believe that President Obama’s birth certificate is a phony?”

“No doubt about it,” Arpaio said.


Originally Published @ SHTFplan.com


SHARE:


Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | January 6, 2018

If this doesn’t show you how crooked the federal judicial system is, nothing will.

Ammon Bundy’s attorney in the Oregon Malheur Wildlife Refuge case, Marcus Mumford, had criminal charges filed against him after he was tased and tackled by federal marshalls for simply arguing for his client’s release in court.

Listen to his account of what happened.

Judge Anna Brown said that Mumford was issuing a threat, and that is why he was charged.

Back in April 2017, The Oregonian reported:

Attorney Marcus Mumford, who last month had criminal charges dismissed against him stemming from his arrest on the day his client Ammon Bundy was acquitted of conspiracy in federal court in Portland, now faces more legal challenges.

Oregon’s Chief U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman is seeking to revoke Mumford’s ability to practice law in any federal court in the District of Oregon, a rare move.

In a court filing Wednesday, Mosman cited Mumford’s repeated failures or refusals to observe court rulings in the Bundy trial last fall, repeated instances of Mumford arguing with the judge with a raised voice and sometimes in the jury’s presence, inappropriate commentary on a witness in the presence of a jury, his arguing for Bundy’s release from trial after his acquittal “without a good-faith basis to believe that the pre-existing custody order” from Nevada was not still in effect and his yelling at the court when he objected to the trial judge’s rulings.

Mosman also alleged that Mumford failed to timely disclose to the trial judge that Rick Koerber, who served as part of Bundy’s defense team, was also a client of Mumford’s in an unrelated, criminal proceeding.  In 2014, a federal judge in Utah tossed out 18 charges against Koerber that had alleged he operated a giant Ponzi scheme through his real estate company, but Koerber was recently re-indicted on 18 charges in January.

The judge filed 25 exhibits with his order, mostly transcripts from Bundy’s trial to support his move to revoke Mumford’s admission to practice in federal court in Oregon.

For Mumford’s part, he simply responded in an email, “My initial reaction is ‘the Empire strikes back.’ I know of no court order that I violated, and no reason to impose some kind of lifetime ban to practice law in Oregon.”

Mumford then filed an 11-page memo in which he wrote about the challenges against the court he raised during the trial.

“In these matters, I do not necessarily intend to argue in each instance that I was right and the court was wrong,” Mumford wrote.  “As Judge Brown pointed out, there were several instances over the course of the trial where we likely just misunderstood each other.”

“There should be no mistake that I think the Court is gravely mistaken to even issue its (order to show cause),” Mumford added. “Nevertheless, I take this matter seriously.”

However, NextRush Free reports, “Judge [John C.] Coughenour agreed to a request by federal prosecutors to drop the criminal charges after Mumford’s lawyer asked for communications between the marshals.  Mumford’s legal assistant and other defense lawyers said the federal marshals in the courtroom were antagonistic towards him.”

As of today, Nextrush Free reported, “In a series of rulings Judge Coughenour has ruled against Mumford including this latest request for a delay citing a new lawyer representing him and the presence of witnesses in Nevada this Monday January 8th (in connection with the Bunkerville Standoff case).   Marcus Mumford also brought up personal and financial issues in his filing with the judge.”

Mumford’s hearing is scheduled Monday morning January 8th at 10am.

Now, contrast that with Bundy Ranch Standoff prosecutor Steven Myhre.

Myhre engaged, and has a history of engaging, in multiple Brady violations to rig the case in his favor, which could have led to wrong convictions in the first trial, intimidation that led to plea bargains in the first two trials and definitely led to a mistrial in the last one.

And what happened to Mr. Myhre?

Well, first, he was not arrested and charged with a crime, which he should have been.

Second, he was then allowed to actually file to retry the Bundys and Ryan Payne after his “willful” violation of federal law and the rights of the defendants.

Third, following a look into the matter by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Myhre was not fired and brought up on charges.  He was simply demoted and another man took his place.

Does anyone see the glaring injustice here?

One attorney merely argues for his client’s release which is not criminal and another attorney willfully violates federal law.

One had charges against him but were dropped when his accusers were called on it.  The other has had no charges against him.

One is facing disbarment.  The other continues to have a job in Nevada where he can continue to violate the law and the rights of the citizens.

This is not equal protection under the law, friends, nor is it justice.

This is how tyranny works.


Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.


SHARE:


Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | Nov. 25, 2017

It really is so predictable how the criminally minded operate when it comes to being servants of the people and a mass shooting takes place.

The gun grabbing Democrats and the establishment RINOS are all too willing to violate the Second Amendment and your God-given rights to make it appear that they are doing something to stop such crimes when the reality is that they are doing nothing to stop them.

Following the Las Vegas shooting, we heard the un-American notions of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) call for bans on bump stocks, which she acknowledged the very next day would have done nothing to stop the Vegas shooting and furthermore, would not stop anyone from bump firing a semi-automatic rifle.

However, since that time, Democrats have put forth a blitz attack on the Second Amendment and the rights of the people with 21 new measures to rob you of your rights.

On October 11, just a week and a half after the Vegas shooting, Democrats in DC put forward these 9 bills.

1 Ban on Bump Stocks – Sen. Dianne Feinstein is pushing this with her Automatic Fire Prevention Act. She admits that bump stocks are an accessory—that they do not convert semiautomatics into automatics—but she wants to ban them anyway. Her bill explicitly bans any accessory that allows an increase in rate of fire in short bursts but does “not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.”

2 Ban on Trigger Cranks – Sen. Feinstein’s bill bans trigger cranks too. Like the bump stock, trigger cranks are another novelty that gun owners can use to achieve short, rapid bursts of fire. Such cranks allow a gun owner to mimic automatic fire yet do not convert a semiautomatic gun into an automatic one.

3 Ban on Semiautomatic firearms – Sen. Feinstein voiced support for this ban during her appearance on Face the Nation, and the Washington Post pushed for such a ban two days later.

4 Implementation of Universal Background Checks – Sen. Chris Murphy used his appearance on State of the Union to stress that a bump stock ban is only the beginning for Democrats. They plan to follow that ban with the implementation of universal background checks, which means private gun sales would require a background check just like retail sales. Democrats claim these checks would save lives, yet Sen. Murphy and others ignore the fact that the Vegas attacker purchased his guns via background checks, as did so many attackers before him. The real reason Democrats want universal background checks is because such checks require a gun registry to be enforceable. Therefore, the implementation of such checks would immediately lead to one more gun control: a gun registry.

5 Ban on “Assault Weapons” – Sen. Murphy also mentioned an “assault weapons” ban, suggesting it would be next in line after background checks. The Los Angeles Times called for an “assault weapons” ban as well.

6 Ban on “High Capacity” Magazines – The Los Angeles Times also called for a ban on “high capacity” magazines, describing them as one of the most dangerous aspects of “assault weapons.” The Times points to attacks like ones on Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and the San Bernardino County Building as justifications for an “assault weapons” ban that contains a “high capacity” magazine ban. In so doing, the Times overlooks the fact that all three attacks—Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and San Bernardino—occurred in gun-free zones. This means the attackers had no threat of armed response and could take their time, reloading as often as needed. In such scenarios magazine capacity is a moot issue.

7 Opposition to Concealed Carry – Breitbart News reported that Sen. Feinstein took time to argue against concealed carry for law-abiding citizens during her Face the Nation appearance. Speaking of concealed carry she said, “I don’t believe it’s protected by the Constitution.”

8 Opposition to National Reciprocity – Sen. Feinstein also voiced opposition to the national reciprocity legislation currently pending before Congress. She said, “Well, my opinion of that bill is it’s terrible. … [Do] we want every American to feel comfortable packing a concealed weapon around the country?”

9 Australian-style Gun Ban – On Tuesday the Washington Post suggested it is time for such a ban.

Again, not one of these would stop a mass shooting, but don’t take my word for it.  Take Senator Feinstein’s.

Awr Hawkins has updated the list of attacks on the Second Amendment to include 12 more bills from DC Democrats.  He writes:

Numerous others have flooded in since the introduction of those original nine. The newest suggested controls include regulation on single shot muzzleloaders. In fact, Gabby Giffords gun control group suggests muzzleloaders could be the next bump stock. Her group also wants gun control on “high capacity shotguns,” binary triggers, “AK and AR style pistols,” arm braces for AR style pistols, “AR pistol blade stabilizers,” .50 caliber rifles, .50 caliber ammunition, and tracer rounds for various calibers of firearms.

Giffords’ group seeks to substantiate their call for a ban on tracer rounds by writing, “Tracer rounds allow a shooter to see where rounds are tracking at night.”

Two other gun controls are being pushed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). The first of the two is a federal ban on firearms trafficking. She is pushing this ban although such trafficking is already clearly prohibited via ATF background check form 4473. LIBN reports that Gillibrand is also again pushing the Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking & Crime Prevention Act, which “would make it illegal to sell purchase, or transfer two or more firearms to someone whom the seller knows, or has reasonable cause to know, is a felon or convicted domestic abuser.”

Lastly, the 21st gun control currently being pushed is regulation on so-called “ghost guns.” These are guns that are legal to manufacture at home, but require a significant amount of know-how and equipment to accomplish. The establishment media is currently pointed to two crimes committed with “ghost guns” as justification for a new federal law to regulate the sale, manufacture of the firearms.

I believe that advancing these kinds of bills are criminal activity against the people, but I’m even more concerned about establishment Republicans are are so ready to sell us out on this issue like they have on other issues.

In the end, every single federal gun law is unconstitutional, and they know it, but they don’t care!


Originally published @ Freedom Outpost

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.


SHARE:

Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | Nov. 21, 2017

The Uwharrie Volunteer Fire Department is standing firm, and will not be taking down the Confederate flag that flies below Old Glory above their fire station. Even though they stand to lose funding over it, the fire department is holding their ground.

Unfortunately, the fire department, which is located in North Carolina, stands to lose at least $19,000 because of its refusal to remove a Confederate flag from its property. But the firefighters still won’t take it down.

The debate over the Uwharrie Volunteer Fire Department’s flag has simmered for months but complaints about it go back years, according to several news accounts. “The flag is not hurting a thing,” Lee Hudson, with the Uwharrie Volunteer Fire Department, told WFMY. “We are not a racist department. We are not in any way. Members or the department as a whole.”

The Montgomery County Commissioners want the flag to come down and are set on financially punishing the fire department should they continue to fly the Confederate flag. “The Board of Commissioners stated their position, that they did think the flag was inappropriate and requested for the fire department to take it down,” Montgomery County Manager Matthew Woodard told WFMY. 

The commissioners have even set a letter to the fire department demanding the removal of the flag, and stating the funding will be withheld until that is accomplished. The county will only be paying only for fuel and maintenance of the two county-owned trucks that firefighters operate until the flag is down. The county will also replace the Uwharrie name on the trucks with new graphics “in support of the county’s stance on equal rights and freedom of speech.” Do they mean the freedom of speech to display any flag that the fire department wants? Or no? Confederate flags must not be the right kind of speech.

The Charlotte Observer reported that the Uwharrie Volunteer Fire Department receives $19,000 a year from Montgomery County, plus $400,000 annually for fire trucks. The department was organized as a non-profit corporation in 1983.

But even with the threat of decreased funding, the fire department says the flag will stay. “We would love to work with the county and for them to support us,” said Hudson. “But, we’re not going to move on the issue of taking down the flag.”

Free speech means free speech. It means the right to offend. And if you’re offending the government, you’re probably doing something right.


SOURCE: SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

Alex Thomas | SHTFplan | Nov. 11 2017

In what many saw coming a mile away in the aftermath of both the Las Vegas Massacre and the Texas Church mass shooting, liberals in the government, with the help of their mainstream media allies, are now pushing what amounts to plans for gun confiscation, outside of normal law, for Americans across the country.

The new push for gun control from the left comes courtesy of ABC News which recently published a piece promoting the use of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) that many believe is nothing more than a thinly veiled confiscation plan that would allow a judge to “issue an ex parte order” for the direct confiscation of an American citizens firearms.

Unbelievably, the order can actually be issued without the firearm owner even being present, which would in turn end with police at the citizens door demanding he hand over his weapons or face violence from the state.

ABC’s Andy Fies, on the other hand, apparently wants Americans to see the orders differently, painting a more friendly picture of the ERPO’s while quoting two different left-wing gun control groups as seemingly unbiased experts on gun violence

As of now, only Washington, California, Connecticut and most recently Oregon have ERPO laws (while Indiana and Texas have modified risk warrant statutes). Over the past year, however, spurred by a string of mass shootings beginning with the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 in June 2016, legislatures in 19 states and Washington, D.C., have taken up 32 separate ERPO bills for consideration, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun control.

Everytown’s deputy legal director, William Rosen, told ABC News that list will grow. “We expect to see at least as much interest in 2018,” he said.

“There is a growing consensus,” added Lauren Alfred of the gun violence prevention group Sandy Hook Promise, “that this is the first step we should be taking when we are talking about people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.”

Current laws barring gun ownership are limited. Generally, a person with a long history of mental health issues can still legally buy or possess firearms if they don’t fall into specific statutory categories such as having been adjudicated mentally ill or under a domestic violence restraining order. But, as was the case with Texas church gunman Devin Kelley, even these restrictions may not work if the person’s troubled past is not recorded on a background registry.

With an ERPO, however, if family members or police can show a gun owner to be an imminent danger to themselves or others, they can force the person to surrender their weapon(s).

Keep in mind that Everytown for Gun Safety is a Michael Bloomberg funded, left-wing gun control group that was created as part of a rebranding effort by the billionaire gun grabber after his previous group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was outed by multiple former members as actually pushing an agenda of full-scale gun confiscation.

The Extreme Risk Protection Orders scheme seems to be nothing more than another attempt at slowly eroding the right of lawful Americans to own firearms.

As AWR Hawkins reported in an April 2017 article about a similar law being pushed in Oregon, “Oregon state Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) is pushing a confiscation bill that would broaden the number of prohibited gun purchasers as well as require certain individuals to hand over any guns in their possession.”

At the time, gun rights activist and NRA member Keely Hopkins rightfully described the law as an attempt to remove your Second Amendment rights by using a third-party who would need little evidence to declare you unfit to own a firearm. (Imagine a vengeful ex-wife/husband)

“This bill allows for a protective order to remove your Second Amendment rights, not because of a criminal conviction, but based on third-party allegations using an evidentiary standard that falls far below what’s normally required for the removing of fundamental rights.”

It is also important to note that gun control advocates and the mainstream media are using The Las Vegas Massacre, which the authorities are openly lying about (there were at least 7 different shooters) as a pretext to further take away Americans right to bear arms. This is, and has always been, the modus operandi of the power elite.


Originally Published @ SHTFplan.com