Article Image
News Link • Gun Rights

Justice Scalia: Americans Will Be Detained In FEMA Camps

• truthandaction.org

The U.S. government has already made clear in numerous official documents and announcements that its war on terror is increasingly focused on its own domestic political enemies. If you're conservative, Christian, a gun-owner, have expressed disapproval of your government in any way, a veteran, homeschool your kids, etc.,….well, this includes you.

As we reported in a post from last year, FEMA just ordered $1 billion in coffin liners, millions of ready-to-eat meals and body bags.

The camps have been prepared – and it isn't hard to see who they intend to fill them with.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (shown) made headlines nationwide this week after bluntly telling law students at the University of Hawaii that internment camps to detain Americans would eventually return. Acknowledging that the infamous Supreme Court-approved internment of Japanese-Americans in wretched camps during World War II was wrong, the conservative-leaning justice followed up by adding that "you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again." In "times of war," Scalia said, citing a Latin expression attributed to Cicero, "the laws fall silent."

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:
Perhaps Scalia is right. Perhaps technically the States don't have much if any authority that can't be removed by their creator, the United States. Perhaps it was all a trick and a lie that the interpretation of things like the 10th Amendment could actually give the States some rights over the Federal.

Maybe Team law is correct when they clearly show that the present corporations known as States, are not the original State bodies that they were when they were formed, and that they now are simply Federal corporations like the Federal Reserve Bank, or the Internal Revenue Service.

However, there is one thing that remains. Only people have inherent rights. The paperwork of the law and the governments doesn't have inherent rights. And if the thing that the States and Federal have is called rights, yet because it is not inherent rights, it is only privileges, duties, and allowances. Where do these privileges, duties, and allowances come from? They come from people, the only ones who have inherent rights.

Scalia may be correct about the States not having rights. But in the face of mankind, the Federal doesn't have rights, either.

What was the whole American Revolution about? Why was the Constitution and the Bill of Rights put in place in the first place? Wasn't it all about maintaining the rights of the people? And more than that, wasn't it about maintaining the rights of the people equally, so that some group wouldn't have authority over some other group or some individual?

Neither the Government of the States, nor the Government of the Federal has the authority to remove the rights of the people in any way. The 9th Amendment shows this when it essentially says that the people have the right to do anything that they ever had the right to do. The 7th Amendment shows this when it shows that common-law-of-the-people jury has the authority to overrule any law of the land through their vote in any court case.

If the people of the States and the State Governments are worried about the thing that Scalia said, it's time that they started to familiarize themselves about the basics of the law. The codes are not the law. The codes don't apply except that the people, in their individual capacity, accept that the codes apply for them.

It's time for the States to start training their people in freedom through use of the common law of the people. It's time for the people to stop using the codes (which don't apply to them) in court cases. It's time for the people to go back to simple, common law, and to be firm in maintaining their status under common law and out from under code law.

If the States want to beat the Federal, they will start teaching their people about how to use the common law. The States, themselves, may lose some of their direct power over the people, but they will essentially and ultimately retain power over the Federal in the ways that the Constitution and Bill of Rights allows.

Bill Thornton (http://1215.org/) has the technical answers. Karl Lentz (http://www.broadmind.org/ and http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/) has the practical application. Neither is an easy study, but Karl shows the simplicity in his own way. Start now.

----------

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's "Karl" Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl. The last one is most important.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.

Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."



http://www.thelibertyadvisor.com/declare