Did Something Happen at the ECM Turning Point?


ecm2015-2020

bundy-brothersDid something happen on the October 28th, 2016 turning point? Just maybe what clicked yesterday was the tipping point against government. The Bundys, who were the armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy, were acquitted precisely going into the 28th of federal conspiracy and weapons charges. Since the Federal government’s abuse of “conspiracy” where they do not actually have to prove you committed a crime just wanted to, their conviction rate has soared to over 98%. To be acquitted of these charges is a mind-blowing event when it is virtually impossible to win in court when juries just assume the government walks on water.

The protest at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge over the government’s claim to land ended in bloodshed and the police shot and killed unarmed man getting out of his car and then were shooting at women and children in their car. The attitude of some police has degenerated to the point we are the enemy to be hunted and killed for their pleasure. The FBI effectively just murdered one individual. The FBI special agent in charge, Greg Bretzing, said, “They had ample opportunity to leave the refuge peacefully.” He continued, “And as the FBI and our partners have clearly demonstrated, actions are not without consequences.” Well the jury has acquitted those who stood up against this government’s outrageous abuse. Where the blacks are going wrong with Black Lives Matter, they are isolating themselves. They should create a movement that ALL LIVES MATTER and then there will be greater strength in numbers across all races, religions, and genders.

Why do I see this verdict on the very day of the Economic Confidence Model important and not just a passing moment? The ultimate revolution against monarchy that gave birth to the United States and the French Revolution, began with juries standing up against government abuse. It just may be that history is repeating here as well.

trial-william-pennThe most famous trial where a jury stood up refusing to find the defendant guilty in the face of a corrupt government, was that of William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania. In 1670, William Penn held a worship service on a quiet street, which was attended by a peaceful group of fellow Quakers. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the king’s peace and summoned to stand trial.

As the two men entered the courtroom and the bailiff ordered them to place their hats back on, which they had removed. Then the judge held them in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on. Penn demanded to know upon what crime he was being charged for preaching. The judge refused to supply any information whatsoever as to his crime and instead referred vaguely to the common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment, he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury denied the right to defend himself. Penn could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him.

Finally, after the testimony the court concluded, the judge instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty as charged, dictating what verdict he expected. Penn tried to protest, but was silenced and again sent out of the courtroom. The jury, for its part, proved sympathetic to the two defendants and refused the judge’s command to find the defendants guilty just as we have seen in the Bundy case. The judge at this point became enraged and sent the jury back to reconsider their verdict. When they returned with the same verdict, the judge criticized the jury’s leader, Bushnell, and demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco…We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”

Thereafter, the jury was sent back three more times, but returned with the same verdict. Finally, the jury refused to reconsider. The judge then fined each member of the jury forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid. Penn and Mead went to prison anyway, held in contempt for obeying the bailiff’s order that they put on their hats. Later, the members of the jury won a writ of habeas corpus and were released from prison. Penn and Mead left England after their release from prison, having a taste of justice, and sailed to America. (Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p. 113-115)

The Case of William Penn was a major turning point. Just perhaps, yesterday’s verdict will be viewed as a tipping point in our struggle for freedom from a growing abusive and intrusive government that has lost its way and drunk with power.

As we now head into the next turning point next November, we will have the French and German elections. If both incumbents lose, we may be looking at the final break-up of the EU.

Obama’s White House Kept List of Muslims For Top Jobs


No surprise here has there are way to many Muslims in the government especially in high level positions.

Washington’s game of good terrorists vs bad terrorists


Obama’s and Hillary’s ideas for the middle east are insane destabilizing all most every country has created a hell hole that is spilling over into the EU and now America. Obama needs to be tried for treason!

CNN INSTANTLY REGRETS ASKING GROUP OF UNDECIDEDS WHO THEY’LL VOTE FOR IN LIVE POST-DEBATE POLL


Ten to 5 than there is hope that the citizens are awake this time and understand the Hillary belongs in jail.

Head of Democratic Party admits: no Obama economic recovery, people are in despair — Fellowship of the Minds


1 or 2 percent growth is no growth at all and it looks like we are sliding back to negative growth now. A really great 8 years with this nut job the only thing left is to get us in a war and he just might do that before e leaves office.

kommonsentsjane's avatarkommonsentsjane

Yesterday, I received a rare phone call from my brother. He just needed to commiserate with the only person he knows who isn’t liberal and who shares his political views about the upcoming presidential election. He complained that his wife, their two adult sons, and his friends all support Hillary Clinton and think Obama is […]

via Head of Democratic Party admits: no Obama economic recovery, people are in despair — Fellowship of the Minds

Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.

Yes, this is sad that people are so isolated in their thinking and don’t want to think any differently.  There is no way that you can get these people to listen to anything but what is stored in their brain.  They don’t care if the country is going backwards.  What I hear is – I am not going to worry about it cause I won’t be here when it all falls  in –…

View original post 20 more words

Media Polling Fully Exposed – About That NBC/WSJ Clinton +11 Point Poll….


This poll and probably many after it are and will be manipulated from now until the election.

The Real Battle, is The Battle For Your Mind Researchers and political analysts frequent CTH because we bring you hard, factual, and fully cited research enabling you to make up your own mind about…

Source: Media Polling Fully Exposed – About That NBC/WSJ Clinton +11 Point Poll….

Clinton Campaign Caught Using Child Actor in Staged/Scripted Pennsylvania Town Hall…


Its nice that this practice has been exposed but to anyone with a brain its been obvious that all these events and town hall meeting are rigged. I gone to sustainability presentations and they are 100% scripted, i.e. the last question in a spot where questions are allowed in followed by a statement I’m glad you asked then it was our next subject and sure enough the next side answers that question. What are the chances that that would happen for every Q&A break in a two hour presentation?

SEC Administrative Law Courts are Unconstitutional


judge-leigh-martin-may

The U.S. federal courts do whatever they possibly can to avoid real issues to maintain powers that are clearly unconstitutional. I reported last year when Judge Leigh Martin May struck down a SEC order on this challenge back in June 2015. Now on September 15, 2016, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed it, claiming that such a challenge must FIRST be made in the administrative court that is not constitutional to begin with. An administrative law judge does not even have to be a lawyer. They can be someone’s mistress, brother-in-law, or someone who promised some favor. They are not appointed by the president and they do not go through hearing in Congress. They can degree fines and strip you of all rights to effectively live, but the only consolation is they cannot imprison someone. They can fine you into bankruptcy and destroy your entire family financially, but hey, so can a local policeman using civil asset forfeiture.

This ruling demonstrates that there is no rule of law. They can spin you in circles, and unless you are a multi-millionaire, you will never get to the Supreme Court and they know that. The object of federal courts is always to sustain government power to PREVENT anyone from actually using the constitution to defend themselves. In this case, it took one year just for the 11th Circuit to figure a way out of having to rule on the issue, which is the standard way of ruling — avoid the issue whenever possible. It would have taken them at least a few years to get through the SEC — a year to get into the district court, another year for an appeal, and then a year for the Supreme Court who would rule they are too busy so they need not fulfill the Constitution.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize administrative law courts. It does not even require federal courts. The “judicial power” is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court ONLY!!!!!!! It merely authorizes Congress may create federal courts if it desires.

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

The mere fact that the Supreme Court has claimed it can pick and choose what it wants to hear is  COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is no discretionary power granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court — NONE!  As a result, there can be no rule of law if there is no  ABSOLUTE right to be heard by the ONLY court that the Founding Fathers created. This is why I decided I did not want to be a lawyer. It was all a farce. I would have been in Washington, pounding on the door until they explained how they stripped all citizens of the right to be heard. They stole all of our rights and then demanded we call them honorable.

THE INTERNET TAKEOVER IS HAPPENING, THE END OF FREE SPEECH!


What Alicia Machado Didn’t Tell You! | Charles C. Johnson and Stefan Molyneux