Bikers Of America, Know Your Rights!

LAWFUL EXCUSE TO REFUSE FRAUD UNDER COLOUR OF LAW

OFF THE WIRE
What are your thoughts on this??? Is it applicable here in the U.S. ?
Copied from another:
LAWFUL EXCUSE TO REFUSE FRAUD UNDER COLOUR OF LAW IT'S THE SAME HERE AS IT IS IN CANADA. "U.S. citizens" ARE PRESUMED TO BE "GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES"
YOUR STRAWMAN IS A "GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE" "GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES" OPERATE IN COMMERCE U.S. IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION THEREFORE A "U.S. citizen" IS A CORPORATE FICTION YOUR STRAWMAN IS A CORPORATE FICTION
"I AM JUST AN INDIVIDDEL. IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN"
AN INDIVIDUAL IS ONE IN A CORPORATION ONE WITHOUT A BRAIN IS NOT LIVING
"I GO EVERYWHERE THAT YOU GO!"

LAWFUL EXCUSE Never pay a ticket again
Thanks to eternallyaware for original material......check out his Youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/eternally...

BABE OF THE DAY

Washington Times: Obama’s Planned Use Of Military Against American Citizens

OFF THE WIRE
Obama’s planned use of the military against American citizens has now gained substantial acknowledgment in the mainstream media by a report in The Washington Times yesterday entitled: “Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens”
2010 Pentagon Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” is an attempt to give Obama authority to violate the Posse Comitatus Act – using our own troops against us on American soil.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said one defense official opposed to the directive.
Encapsulated within a primarily noncontroversial civilian fire and emergency services directive reads this despotic element:
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances”
The Washington Times piece also covers the fact that Obama has been building up para-military units within non-security-related federal agencies. To-date over 40 of these agencies have acquired ‘SWAT teams’ and arms.
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the stated directive states.
Obviously, Obama has built up these agencies in order to protect himself in any ensuing threat to his regime and, very likely, to offensively take out any opposition.
We live in an age of deception, for sure. America has obviously been taken over by elements that wish to descend the country into a Marxist nightmare as most of Congress, the judicial branch and executive branches are all lawless, with great advancements having been made huddle all media, military and federal agencies into their agenda of the destruction of American liberty.
This doesn’t happen overnight and it doesn’t happen by the work of one man.
Seeing this piece appear within the tightly controlled leftist media is substantial. But questions remain, however.
Is this the beginning of the downfall of the attempted socialist takeover?
Is it just another deception, giving us false hope with thoughts of Obama’s downfall?
Does this article even matter if we are indeed completely infiltrated?
After seeing the destruction of our Constitution and our liberties go on for so long, I chose to to answer ‘yes’ the first question…at least for today.

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

PHOTOS: Top 10 U.S. fighter jets

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

PHOTOS: Conservatives in Hollywood: Celebrities who lean right

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.

The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”

US soldier freed from captivity in Afghanistan

OFF THE WIRE
COMMENT
As suspected Obama had a news conference to tell how he kept his promise to bring home the POW by making a deal with the Taliban. The HERO here folks is Obama. The America people had to know he did a good job. This man deserted his post,most likely smoking pot and was captured by the taliban. He lleft his weapon and gear behind. Now we all feel sorry for him and next is a book deal. All charges will be dropped and covered up at Obamas request to Hagel. How sad a man derlects his duties and becomes a hero. Anothe lie the Americans want to hear. Will we ever learn the truth,they did about Manning.

By JULIE PACE and LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) — The only American soldier held prisoner in Afghanistan has been freed by the Taliban in exchange for the release of five Afghan detainees from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Obama administration officials said Saturday.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was handed over to U.S. special operations forces by the Taliban Saturday evening, local time, in an area of eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. Officials said the exchange was not violent and the 28-year-old Bergdahl was in good condition and able to walk.

In a statement, President Barack Obama said Bergdahl's recovery "is a reminder of America's unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield."

The handover followed indirect negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban, with the government of Qatar serving as the go-between. Qatar is taking custody of the five Afghan detainees who were held at Guantanamo.

According to a senior defense official traveling with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in Singapore, once Bergdahl climbed onto the noisy helicopter he took a pen and wrote on a paper plate, the "SF?" — asking the troops if they were special operations forces.

They shouted back at him over the roar of the rotors: "Yes, we've been looking for you for a long time."

Then, according to the official, Bergdahl broke down.

Bergdahl, of Hailey, Idaho, is believed to have been held by the Haqqani network since June 30, 2009. Haqqani operates in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and has been one of the deadliest threats to U.S. troops in the war.

The network, which the State Department designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2012, claims allegiance to the Afghan Taliban, yet operates with some degree of autonomy.

Officials said Bergdahl was transferred to Bagram Air Field, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, for medical evaluations. A defense official said he would be sent to Germany for additional care before eventually returning to the United States.

The defense official said Bergdhal was tentatively scheduled to go to the San Antonio Military Medical Center where he would be reunited with his family. The military was working Saturday to connect Bergdahl with his family over the telephone or by video conference.

Several dozen U.S. special operations forces, backed by multiple helicopters and surveillance aircraft, flew into Afghanistan by helicopter and made the transfer with the approximately 18 Taliban members. The official said the commandos were on the ground for a short time before lifting off with Bergdahl.

The official added that the U.S. still believes that Bergdahl was being held for the bulk of the time in Pakistan, but it was not clear when he was transported to eastern Afghanistan.

All of the officials insisted on anonymity in order to discuss details of Bergdahl's transfer.

Officials said Obama spoke with Bergdahl's parents Saturday, shortly after their son had been taken into U.S. custody. Bergdahl's family was in Washington on a previously scheduled visit when they received the news.

The parents of the freed soldier, Bob and Jani Bergdahl, said in a statement that they were "joyful and relieved."

"We cannot wait to wrap our arms around our only son," they said.

The circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture remain something of a mystery. There has been some speculation that he willingly walked away from his unit, raising the question of whether he could be charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) or desertion.

The U.S. has long been seeking Bergdahl's release, but efforts have intensified as Obama finalized plans to pull nearly all American forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016.

"It is our ethos that we never leave a fallen comrade. Today we have back in our ranks the only remaining captured soldier from our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Welcome home Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Officials said the Taliban signaled to the U.S. in November that they were ready to start new talks on the issue of detainees. After the U.S. received proof that Bergdahl was still alive, indirect talks began, with Qatar sending messages back and forth between the two parties.

The talks intensified about a week ago, officials said, resulting in Bergdahl's release and the transfer of the Afghan detainees.

The five Guantanamo detainees departed the base on a U.S. military aircraft Saturday afternoon. Under the conditions of their release, the detainees will be banned from traveling outside of Qatar for at least one year.

Obama and the emir of Qatar spoke last week about the conditions of the release, which have been codified in a memorandum of understanding between the two countries, officials said.

The administration is legally required to notify Congress in advance about plans to release Guantanamo detainees. An administration official said lawmakers were notified only after U.S. officials knew they had Bergdahl, but before the transfers took place.

Two Republican lawmakers said Obama violated U.S. laws when he approved the exchange. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said the law required Obama to notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of terrorists from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In response, the White House said that officials considered what they called "unique and exigent circumstances" and decided to go ahead with the transfer in spite of the legal requirement.

The detainees are among the most senior Afghans still held at the prison. They are:

—Abdul Haq Wasiq, who served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence

—Mullah Norullah Nori, a senior Taliban commander in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif when the Taliban fought U.S. forces in late 2001

—Khairullah Khairkhwa, who served in various Taliban positions including interior minister and had direct ties to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden
—Mohammed Nabi, who served as chief of security for the Taliban in Qalat, Afghanistan, and later worked as a radio operator for the Taliban's communications office in Kabul

—Mohammad Fazl, whom Human Rights Watch says could be prosecuted for war crimes for presiding over the mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 as the Taliban sought to consolidate their control over the country.

Taliban and Afghan officials could not be reached for comment. In Pakistan, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said her government was "not aware of" Bergdahl's release or the negotiations leading up to it. She declined to comment further.

___

Baldor reported from Singapore. Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann in Washington, Rahim Faiez in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Zarar Khan in Islamabad contributed to this report.