Bump Pin Share. Nevada Governor Elect videos stern advisement to Americans. Must see!

Awesome video.

He spells out the facts without sounding like a lunatic (something that turns people off many like 'truthers')

Love the "get your head out of your ass and wipe the shit out of your eyes" comment, that
s exactly where those people are... or they're paid shills for their beloved corrupt government.

Is it just me or is anybody else starting to get a little nervous about this.

Ya know,
technically i think he is right, but I don't think he understands how horrible a civil war would be in this country. Violence needs to be avoided until it is the last option possible. Its fine to talk like a badass and say that you are ready to die, but it's entirely another thing to bring the war to them. We still have free speech in this country. Now is not the time to waste that right. we also still have judges who believe whole-heartedly in the constitution and the 2nd amendment. We also have states who wont enforce any law that is unconstitutional, Texas and TN are just two examples.

Prepare, absolutely, advocate violence or try to start a civil war? No way. War is hell.

Last Edited by <<FOCUS HARDER>> on 01/03/2013 04:44 PM

We do not need Civil War and there should not be any such talk.

What we do need is for those who would break the law and try to enforce color of law statute on us to be aware that we have the right to resist their actions with force.

This is not about Civil War, it is about enforcing the law of the land, and when Congress will not uphold it and the executive branch will not do it, it is up to the people to do it.

Government is NOT the master, the people are, that is the very reason for the 2nd Amendment and the DUTY falls to us to enforce the law on them when they break it.

All 3 branches of Government have now crossed the bright line, the Executive (President) has openly declared he will go against the Constitution and violate it.

The leader of Congress has also. The Judicial branch will go along with whatever those two want.

Therefore, it is the lawful right and DUTY of the people (armed with not only firearms, but the very law of the land itself) to "alter or abolish" those who have openly declared they will act unlawfully against us.

There is NO middle ground and they have made their intentions known publicly and without question, they have not crossed that line (on this issue) yet, should they do so, they will answer for it.

What was the excuse for 1913 and when JFK was murdered?

Fantastic video. Thanks for starting this thread. What he says is true. 5*

I have a friend from Romania that has told me thee stories of what happened to her and her family when the country was taken over. She came here legally with her husband in the 80s and she has been frightened since the early 200s because she was seeing the same things going on here, and it saddened her because this was the last place to come. And it was slowly going thee way of Romania when it was taken over. I've been trying to share her story as often as I could. Please take this seriously, I know I sound like a wackado but I don't care because our freedom is more important than how I am viewed.

Please people research and find out for yourselves.

Edit to include a link to information posted earlier about the constitution and how any rule created that is in conflict with the Constitution is void. (if this is not OK please edit the link out or let me know so I can)

Thread: Unconstitutional Official Acts are Null and Void Per the Constitution Society

Last Edited by Heavenly Alchemy on 01/03/2013 05:09 PM

BUMP. He could make another clip, or edit this clip to 15 minutes with all the essential in it. Summarize.

I also watched Ted Nugent interviewed.

"THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF OUR BILL OF RIGHTS IS MY CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT." - Ted Nugent

"I DONT NEED A DOCUMENT AND I DONT NEED ANOTHER MAN TO EXPLAIN TO ME THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND MY GIFT OF LIFE."
- Ted Nugent

[liveleak] [link to www.liveleak.com]

Agree...the Repubs are toast. Fiscal conservatives and Libertarians have a lot of work to do in 2 years. I believe that many Repubs will defect if they sense there is a movement with legs.

It scares the hell out of everyone I'm sure. That is why I was so distraught on Nov. 7...I knew this day was coming.

Thank you for taking it out for me, now can you rub my eyes?

No, but seriously. I was saying the same thing. All of these people are in the same ball game against us. They are trying to rouse up the nation so they can have an excuse to try out their new weapons on us. They want us to fight against them so they can make even more money.

Thanks OP!!!

This man did a wonderful thing for all Americans with this video. I hope and pray he is very careful and guards himself and his loved ones. Wouldn't put it past TPTB to disappear this video and 'suicide' this man and/or his loved ones. Hopefully the more Americans and others abroad see this video, nobody will mess with this guy.

Me also!!!! I knew it would come sooner now..... I thought maybe it would be later - now bam bam bam - it's all faling into place. Each day we are awakened to some new surprise for all of us.

First of all, I totally totally applaud this man of his courage in speaking out publicly.

I'm not sure his message will be received by the vast majority of Omericans due to some of the content.. Sandy Hook Hoax and the comparision of the O administration to the Nazis.

Comments such as "drinking the kool-aid" and the SH hoax lead me to believe he may reside among us on this forum.

I believe what he says.. but.. here comes some constructive criticism.

He does ramble on and on about Hitler. While that may be a very accurate portrayal of what is going on here, he does tend to drone on and I had to force myself to listen. I would suggest he condense this portion or liven it up with his voice inflection.

If he is pursuing public service he should really invest in a speaking/speech class or instuctor. It will be invaluable to him in the future.

Thank you for being outspoken David. I pray it will be at no risk to you or your family.

Forgot to Bump for the evening crowd

Anytime someone says "grow up" solely because they see things slightly different than you, its always hard to look at them without feeling sorry for them.


Not trying to be mean, but I've never once come across a wise person in life INTENT on believing they see things more accurately , somehow.


Sorry, but this world is bigger than you, buddy. Bigger than the United States of America....MUCH bigger. Also bigger than the one's who you believe control everything.


There have ALWAYS been pricks who force themselves into positions of power, and use that power to suppress others, or fulfill THEIR agenda. Welcome to Being a Human 101. If you let THAT dictate your life, don't feel bad, because with or without them, you probably wouldn't have made much of yourself ;).

David Lory VanDerBeek 1 hour ago

"Hence, the&#65279; troop trading and training with foreign nations right now such as Russia. Foreign troops are already here and they will put on American uniforms to betray the people."



Is this guy for real? Russian troops ready to Martial Law the USA?

Wow, undeniable proof that all of this is just a great spectacle. The Matrix.

Doesn't Russia hang with Iran?

Doesn't Doorbert have a thread similar to this on now?

Nothing but Nothing would surprise me anymore.

Link?

its up to every single individual now?
reform the milita forget about national guard?
after that constitution will be save?

think about it.....

there was and is a reson for 2nd amendment.
to avoid foricble overthrow of the constitution!

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution





Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[25]
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
deterring tyrannical government;[34]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[35]

During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, which included a number who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to the British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, these Patriots established independent colonial legislatures to create their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought out to stock up independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo on firearms, parts and ammunition on the American colonies.[36]

British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[37] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[37] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars' interpretation of Blackstone.[38]

The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:


Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[37]

The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[39] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown to an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.[40] Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[41][42] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[43]

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[44] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[45]

One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[46] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[47] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:


f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[47][48]

Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[49][50] Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the New Hampshire Constitution (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind").[51]

There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France.[52] A widespread fear, during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[53] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[37] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Act of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.

Thank you for the bumps and pins. Hopefully everyone will spread this video like the plague. This guy's word needs to be heard more than ever.

Awareness, above all else, is the most powerful weapon. The crooks in office can smell the rage. They will back down the more anger they smell.

ever wondered about bush and hitler relations?

[link to rense.com]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to www.cuttingedge.org]

who has put obama in place????
gwb!

its all planned.

isn't there some organisation called the oathkeepers?

what do they say about all this?

They never ask that question,do they? The ideological blinders apparently renders them stupid.

They certainly know nothing of history.