This Is A Dangerous Designation Being Given To Patriots
Government’s never stop trying to find ways to cast legitimate dissenters in a negative light. In the 1990′s when as the globalists began to play their hand in earnest (e.g. NAFTA, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.), anyone who spoke out against the international corridor highway system (NAFTA and CAFTA), were opposed to job-sucking free trade agreements and were opposed to the regionalization of the US into the North American Union, were labeled as “conspiracy theorists.” Anyone who saw a conspiracy in anything, any person, or any event, was labeled as being mentally ill.
In the last decade, the term conspiracy theorist began to give way to certain patriotic traits which no legitimate government should have had a concern with. Only this time, if one opposed anything that the government does, the person was labeled a domestic terrorist.
Most aware citizens will have no trouble remembering the upsetting contents of the MIACReport which served to declare an individual a domestic terrorist if they supported Ron Paul, demanded the government follow the Constitution, was pro-Second Amendment, was a Libertarian, a Constitutionalist, a returning veteran or was opposed in any form to the Federal Reserve. Subsequently, the alternative, and truthful media, roundly criticized this anti-American document and slowly, but surely, the MIAC report faded from public view as it lost legitmacy.
The MIAC Report, Gone But Not Forgotten
The newest globalist trick to quell dissent and subsequently violate the rights of legitimate government protestors is to hide under the guise of being labeled “THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN.” Under no circumstances should an American identify themselves as a sovereign citizen. To do so, could have very dire consequences.
The term “sovereign citizen” is deceptive because in political discussions about who has the power in society, the term gets used quite often. For example, if the people are the sovereign, then the people have power over the government. If on the other hand, the government has power over the citizenry, it could be accurately said that the government is the sovereign. Yet, again, my strong advice to all Americans is to avoid using the term all together and in the following paragraphs, I detail why.
Stacy Lynne is the beleaguered mother of a nine-year-old boy, who had her little boy stolen by a corrupt judge, Julie Kunce Fields, in retaliation for Stacy’s anti-Agenda 21 public presentations which were serving to slow down the ICLEI invasion of Fort Collins, CO. For her trouble, Stacy, without so much of an allegation of wrongdoing, lost total custody of her son was given to the biological father who, by all accounts, previously showed little interest in being a father to Jaden. The judge is a former consultant to the IMF and the World Bank. Field is a globalist and this was her first judgeship. She was brought in to silence Stacy by stealing her child in order to derail her anti-Agenda 21 activities. You can read about this heinous case here. The only negative that Field has every written or said about Stacy is that Stacy Lynne is a sovereign citizen. This legal declaration first took plance on December 21, 2011, the day Stacy lost custody of Jaden. Stacy read the court order, which severed her custodial rights to We Are Change Colorado, as Stacy noted that Field had declared her to be a “sovereign citizen.”
I have watched the video of this several times and I am still confused about what constitutes a sovereign citizen. At least I was confused until I recently after I read a police magazine which goes out to every police department in America in which they addressed what exactly constitutes a sovereign citizen.
The New Domestic Terrorist: A Sovereign Citizen
As it turns out, labeling someone as a “sovereign citizen” is the 2013 version of the discredited MIAC Report which labeled Ron Paul supporters, Second Amendment advocates, returning veterans and people who support the Constitution as domestic terrorists.
The strategy is simple, if one criticizes the government in any form they can be labeled a sovereign citizen. And if the government can label one a sovereign Citizen, then that citizen has no rights and ostensibly, the government can do what they will with that citizen.
This anti-dissident strategy takes America one step away from full implementation of disappearing American protestors under the NDAA for the crime of being a sovereign citizen. This is a very slippery slope and the government and its police agencies are fully committed to this strategy.
What Exactly Is A Sovereign Citizen?
As one traces the origin of the term sovereign citizen, in its contemporary vernacular, the term gained its roots in a shoot out following a routine traffic stop in Arkansas as it turned into an violent confrontation between police and a father-son pair of so-called “sovereign citizens.” According to the corporate controlled media, this event, which occurred on July 1, 2010, “brought attention to a secretive and dangerous subculture which believes American laws don’t apply to them.”
The federal government was quick to seize on this opportunity and bootstrap the term to any group that the federal government feels would oppose any of its policies. In short, if you do not like some aspect of government, you are now one the new domestic terrorists and should be subject to governmental control outside the bounds of constitutional protections.
Police Magazine, provide the first real comprehensive definition of what constitutes a sovereign citizen as they note that the crimes committed by sovereigns often include relatively minor offenses such as the manufacture of fraudulent license plates, registration cards, or currency (e.g. use of gold coins). So, in the first part of this definition, sovereign citizens are defined as essentially petty criminals. Wait a minute, we were told under the Bush administration that we had to give up our civil liberties so the government could protect us from terribly dangerous terrorists. Sorry DHS, I just don’t see how a petty criminal constitutes a national security threat. Further the magazine stated that all of these people should be considered to be armed and dangerous and that the calling in of a SWAT team during routine traffic stops might not be an overreaction to the threat posed by sovereigns.
The police can further identify a dangerous sovereign individual if they complain aboutmortgage fraud, or banking fraud. Police Magazine notes that the tactics employed by “sovereigns” are not always violent. I had to read that last statement twice as I try and determine why this poses such an extreme danger to society. The case in point here, would be Stacy Lynne’s opposition to Agenda 21 policies in Fort Collins, CO. The police are also cautioned to be on the look-out for words like “Indigenous,” “Sovereign,” “Diplomatic,” “Exempt,” or “Private Property” displayed on the personalized license plates.
Police officers are advised that Sovereigns will engage in willful terrorism because they may actually video-record their interactions with law enforcement officers. To the contrary, the courts have upheld the citizens’ right to video the police. Police can expect to be further intimidated as some of these encounters are live-streamed via the Internet and watched by local like-minded sovereigns, and this could pose a threat a possible threat to police safety. So if one has a Youtube channel, they might be a sovereign citizen. Police are also cautioned to be aware of certain dangerous key words that sovereigns are likely to use such as “oath of office”, t”raveling in a private capacity”, “domicile” and the “14th Amendment.”
“Sovereign citizen groups, with few exceptions and despite their differences, will choose to unite against their one common enemy: the government and its agents.” I thought our Founding Fathers encouraged future generations to oppose all forms tyranny emanating from the government. What did Jefferson say? Something like resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
One would be wise to avoid being labeled with the new domestic terrorist term, sovereign citizen. Carried out to its extreme, as in the case of Stacy Lynne, a sovereign citizen is not something that one wants to be labeled as the term is bootstrapping all legitimate concerns about the government and virtually criminalizing dissent and protest. And with the NDAA hanging over American heads, unknowingly admitting to being a sovereign citizen could be a very bad idea.
Detainer requests from federal immigration officials require local law enforcement to hold illegal immigrants, detained for local charges, past the length of their jail times. Typically, the holding time is 48 hours. During this time, federal agents decide whether or not to deport the individuals.
The federal government does not reimburse Bell County Jail and other local detainment facilities for immigration holds, according to KDH News. The local media outlet reported that each inmate costs the Bell County jail $67.35 per day; local taxpayers are forced to subsidize such costs.
Bell County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Lt. Donnie Adams told KDH, “After we get through with them, we notify ICE that they are ready for release. If they want the hold, they get 48 hours to pick them up.”
Residents in counties around the nation feel the strain of immigration holds, but some areas have started ignoring detainer requests. As Breitbart Texas previously reported, officials in over a dozen counties in Southern California declared that detainer requests from federal immigration agents will be ignored.
While the cost of detainers to local taxpayers is worrisome, many find the decision to ignore such requests even more disturbing, given that government officials released more than 36,000 criminal illegal immigrants onto U.S. soil in 2013.
Sylvia Longmire, a Breitbart Texas contributing editor and border security expert, said of immigration holds:
These are convicted criminals who are very likely eligible to be deported immediately, but because ICE either doesn’t have the personnel, resources, or just plain interest in transferring these individuals to immigration detention facilities, they’re being let go into local communities. Local law enforcement agencies are tired of having to enforce federal immigration laws when that’s not part of their mission, and definitely when they’re not receiving any additional funding to do so.
In a classic Washingtonian political maneuver, both parties are prepared to introduce a massive new Veterans Affairs health care entitlement and force members to vote up or down on the entire package before they hustle off to their awaiting flights home for the August recess. While containing one or two good proposals, the Sanders-Miller conference agreement will create a new entitlement, possibly as big as Medicare Part D, without addressing the fundamental problems with the VA that are short-changing our veterans. Most of the funds will be designated as “emergency spending,” which will exempt it from the requirement for offsets.
Much like most crisis-driven pieces of legislation, this bill sounds good on the surface. It would authorize $5 billion for hiring of additional staff and almost $2 billion for construction of 27 new facilities. The bill would also spend $10 billion granting veterans the option to seek care at private facilities, for those who are 40 miles away from a VA system or for those who have waited in line without getting an appointment for 30 days. $5 billion of the spending would be offset with other cuts to the VA while the rest of the tab would be exempt as emergency spending.
Here are some of the core concerns with the bill:
- It’s Policy, not Funding: Like most public policy problems, the crisis within the VA does not stem from the lack of funding; it is rooted in the systemic problems with government-run health care. Total VA spending has increased by 56% to $152 billion since 2009, yet the crisis has only gotten worse. Also, as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) noted, over the same time period the number of VA full-time physicians increased 40%, even though the number of patients only grew by 13.8%. Tossing another $10 billion into the same failed system in order to hire more employees will not ameliorate the inherent fatal flaws and lack of innovation of government-run healthcare.
- Muddled Private Option: While conservatives have long advocated for a private option, this bill does not achieve privatization, and in fact, might encumber veterans with even more bureaucracy. Rather than fully paying the premiums of veterans so they can purchase private insurance and seek care anywhere in the country, this bill would allow limited care in the private market, but under the auspices of the current VA system. So instead of their private insurance provider (paid-for by government, of course) reimbursing the healthcare provider, the VA would reimburse them under a new “Medicare SGR” style formula. Remember, this will not be replacing the VA, it will be added on top of an expanded VA.
- Long-Term Cost: The $17 billion price-tag is just the short-term cost. They plan to ram this through without a CBO score on the long-term effects. This is not a one-shot deal. They are creating a new Medicare-like program on top of the massive expansion of the VA itself. The CBO score on the original Senate bill predicted that the new entitlement would cost $50 billion per year, approaching the size of the Medicare Part D program. The conference bill caps spending at $10 billion per year, but this is even worse in some ways. CBO projected that the new “private option” would expand enrollment in the VA by 8 million and cause the current 8.4 million enrollees to increase use of VA benefits by 75%. There is no way they can implement this system and cap spending without leading to rationed care and without dissuading healthcare providers from participating in the program. Clearly, we will be dealing with the deleterious effects of this bill for years to come, much like we are compelled to enact a Medicare doc fix every year.
House leadership posted this bill at 11:45 p.m. last night just so they can say members had three days to read it by the time it comes to the floor on Wednesday. It is simply absurd that Congress would ram through such a bill just to get home without thinking of the long-term consequences.
The political class plans to shout “veteran” and “emergency” in a crowded room of anxious politicians eager to get home for recess, and come away with another government-run health care program in a matter of just three days. This is what is wrong with Washington.
Subsequent to entering the U.S., most of the illegal immigrants currently flooding the Texas-Mexico border are loaded onto planes and flown to various cities around the country. Breitbart Texas has learned that many of the planes being used to transport the foreigners are large charter passenger jets; the cost of each one-way, relatively short plane trip typically costs about $100,000. A longer flight can cost much more. The government has flown numerous such air crafts, filled with illegal immigrants, during recent months.
Photos on ABC10, initially noticed by Peter Maxwell, show illegal immigrants unloading out of planes owned by Ameristar Jet Charters; the air crafts transported hundreds of unaccompanied minors and family units from McAllen, Texas to San Diego, California in early July. Other photos from ABC10 show more migrants being transported on charter planes owned by XTRA Airways.
Breitbart Texas reached out to both companies for pricing information. A sales representative from Ameristar Jet said that the price of a one-way charter flight includes fuel, crew, and basic catering costs. Stacy Muth of Ameristar Jet told Breitbart Texas that the cost of a one-way commercial charter plane for 150 passengers typically costs about $100,000.
Similarly, a salesman from XTRA Airways told Breitbart Texas that a one-way flight of the same passenger capacity into San Diego from South Texas would cost around $85,000. More than 100 illegal immigrants were transported were flown to San Diego on an XTRA plane in July, according to ABC10.
Although using taxpayer money, the federal government refuses to disclose how much is being shelled out for each plane used to carry the migrants; but assuming Department of Homeland Security paid the standard price for each one-way plane from South Texas to San Diego, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been spent transporting the illegal immigrants to California alone. Flights to destinations further away likely have an even higher price tag.
Phone calls from Breitbart Texas to the Department of Homeland Security, inquiring about the cost of each flight, were not immediately returned.
At this point migrants have been or will likely be transported via taxpayer-subsidized aircraft from McAllen to numerous cities around the country including those in Texas, California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
Many U.S. citizens have expressed outrage over the fact that illegal immigrants from Central America are not being turned away at the border–instead, they are being sent to facilities around the nation where they enjoy a slew of taxpayer-funded amenities such as housing, food, education, vocational training, recreation, and even legal counsel. After spending a relatively short amount of time in such a shelter, most of the illegal immigrants are then released onto U.S. soil, promising authorities that they will show up in court at a later date for an immigration hearing.
But according to Victor Manjarrez–a professor at the University of Texas El Paso, former Chief Patrol Agent of Tucson Sector, and former Chief Patrol Agent in El Paso Sector–most of the migrants never appear for their court hearing. They eventually end up being forgotten about by authorities or get “lost in the woodwork.”
The steep costs associated with the border crisis are quickly draining federal resources. As Breitbart Texas previously reported, President Obama requested $3.7 billion to deal with the situation. Most of the proposed funds, however, would go to Health and Human Services (HHS)–the agency responsible for caring for the migrants and reuniting them with family members. Only $433 million would go to Customs and Border Protection, which is in charge of securing the border.
A single group of illegal aliens entering Texas from Mexico over the weekend included foreign nationals from Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, according to the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). The group crossed into the Rio Grande Valley sector from Tamaulipas, Mexico.
“One group of our agents apprehended individuals from Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka,” said Albert Spratte, a spokesman for Local 3307 of the NBPC. “Everyone in this group was an adult male. They entered on Saturday, July 26, 2014. Our agents apprehended them, they did not turn themselves in. They were trying to sneak in.”
Spratte said it is unusual and infrequent for illegal aliens from these nations to appear in the Rio Grande Valley sector. “We have had them in the past, but it isn’t common,” he said. “This should be a reminder to the public that unaccompanied minors and family units are not the only ones crossing into the U.S. illegally. On the same day, I also witnessed 3-4 Chinese females at the processing station. The media are concentrating on the Central American families and minors and they are not covering the fact that we are still getting people, often adult males, who are coming from other nations.”
Breitbart News previously reported on foreign nationals coming from Asia, the Middle East, and terror-prone nations from the Horn of Africa—often entering Central America and utilizing the same pathways and smuggling networks as Central Americans and Mexicans who illegally enter the United States. That report was based on information from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Spratte said, “Border Patrol agents in our sector have in the past apprehended aliens from Iraq, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Israel, and from many other nations. People think this is just about Mexico and Central America, but it isn’t. People from all over the world are trying to sneak into the United States.”
Media immediately blame Israel before talking to IDF
The Gaza Strip’s main hospital and the third largest Palestinian refugee camp were both struck by failed rocket attacks launched by Gaza terrorists, the Israel Defense Forces told WND today.
The rockets were aimed at Israeli residential neighborhoods near the Gaza Strip but fell short and hit Gaza’s Al-Shifa Hospital and the Al-Shati refugee camp instead, a senior IDF spokesperson said.
Several major media outlets immediately reported Israel was behind the strikes just outside the Al-Shifa hospital, based solely on Palestinian claims and before any official IDF reaction.
NBC News was the first English-language media outlet to run with the story reporting from Gaza that “Israeli strikes hit within yards of Gaza’s main hospital as well as at a refugee camp on Monday, leaving at least 30 dead and wounded.”
The lead sentence stated as fact that Israel was behind the strikes.
NBC News added in the second sentence the attack near the Al-Shifa Hospital “caused some damage to the outpatient clinic, according to witnesses including an NBC News crew on the ground in the area.”
The news agency reported the IDF could not be immediately reached for clarification.
Canada’s CBC News reported: “Israeli airstrikes hit the compound of Gaza City’s main hospital and a nearby park Monday, causing casualties, according to the Gaza police operations room and a Palestinian health official.”
The CBC did not report that the Gaza police force and the territory’s main health ministry are run by Hamas.
The report said the IDF had no immediate comment.
The Shifa Hospital, located in the North Rimal district of Gaza, is one of the main receiving centers for those wounded in the current Israel Air Force bombardments of Gaza City.
Israel in the 1980s refurbished the hospital as part of an outreach effort to improve relations with Palestinians. Part of the Israeli reconstruction included a large underground cement basement with room for offices.
The facility was originally a British Army barracks in the 1940s before becoming a hospital. It was transformed by Egypt in the 1950s to a larger complex with more medical offerings.
On Monday, Oklahoma Republican Governor Mary Fallin called on President Barack Obama to end the secrecy surrounding the transfer of illegal immigrant juveniles to states across the country and accused the Obama administration of intentionally burdening states to use their limited resources to care for illegal immigrants.
“Provided these reports are true – and I have no reason to believe they are not – your administration appears to be pursuing a course that actively shifts the costs of Washington’s failed immigration policies onto our states,” she wrote in a letter to Obama. “You are intentionally placing a greater burden on our already over-burdened education and health care systems. Even more disturbing, the federal government appears to have gone to great lengths to distract and confuse the public from discerning the true nature of these policies.”
The Obama administration, which had vowed to be the most transparent in history, has released more than 30,000 illegal immigrants to sponsors around the country this year. Governors of states like Arizona, Nebraska, Tennessee, Maine, Idaho, and Oklahoma have complained that they were never even informed before illegal immigrants were dumped in their states.
Fallin noted that “more than 1200 illegal immigrants have been held at Fort Sill” military base and many will “never be deported and will remain in the United States.” She also noted that “at least 212 illegal immigrant children have already been placed with sponsors in Oklahoma where they are eligible under federal law to attend public school and receive emergency health services.” She demanded “an explanation for my constituents as to why the policy of your administration is to ask the state of Oklahoma to indefinitely host a large population of illegal immigrants and to pay for their educational and health needs after they are released from Fort Sill.”
Six of the seven members of Oklahoma’s Congressional delegation recently urged the Obama administration, which plans to send an additional 5,000 illegal immigrants to Fort Sill military base, to reconsider using the base as a permanent facility for illegal immigrants. Housing illegal immigrants at the military base, they said, endangers national security and, in the words of Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), “is a very real threat to U.S. military readiness.”
Should a hurricane or other life-threatening, catastrophic weather event impact South Texas, illegal aliens occupying various shelters will be first in line to get “to safer ground,” a National Weather Service coordinator says.
At a meeting last week, emergency managers in the Rio Grande Valley region addressed the reality that, in addition to picking up the tab for putting the immigrants up, they have also accepted responsibility for their safety. That means ensuring illegal aliens have a safe evacuation from temporary and permanent shelters during an emergency.
“You have extra sheltering areas and detention centers right here,” NWS Coordinator Barry Goldsmith told KRGV News. “And are they able to withstand the wind, are they able to withstand flood waters nearby to get humanitarian relief.”
Goldsmith is worried that if a hurricane or other emergency hits, the evacuation of some 4,000 illegal aliens could be impeded by citizens also trying to reach safety.
One way to ensure the illegals remain safe is to evacuate them before the general population receives evacuation orders, Valley city leaders have concluded.
“The entire Valley detention areas will be evacuated first,” says Goldsmith. “In other words, before the public gets their mandatory evacuation, the plan is to get all these unaccompanied women and children out of the Valley and to safer ground.”
The city and federal officials say by getting unaccompanied alien women and children out first, they are trying to avoid a Hurricane Rita-type situation, where more than 100 people died during the mass exodus of 2.5 million people from the Houston area.
The decision, which appears to have been made sans public input, illustrates how the establishment is seemingly taking better care of people in the country illegally, while military veterans and destitute American citizens continue to be cast by the wayside.
“In 2009, for example, former Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki and President Obama announced a goal to end Veteran homelessness by the end of 2015, giving the administration a little over six years to shelter the nearly 75,000 vets who were homeless in 2009,” explains Infowars’ Kit Daniels.
“But it only took the White House a month to shelter thousands of illegal immigrant youth, showing what the administration can do when it’s politically motivated.”
Facilities which could be repurposed to house homeless vets, such as the compound being used to house nearly 2,000 minors at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, for instance, operate at a tax payer cost of over $250 per child daily, or half a million per day.