Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Cowards and Traitors in the White House

Will Attorney General Jeff Sessions investigate, and prosecute, these traitors?

Cowards and Traitors in the White House

Cowards and Traitors in the White House

Sedition
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

by Shari Dovale

The New York Times today published an anonymous OpEd from someone claiming to be a senior official in the Trump administration.

This author bills himself as a member of the resistance, but shows himself to be in a Seditious Conspiracy against our government.

The anonymous coward states:

The dilemma — which [President Trump] does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

He goes on to say:

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

These cowards are bragging on being placed highly in the Trump administration and able to impede our President’s agenda from their positions.

For the New York Times to promote this traitorous activity within our government in an anonymous article shows them to be onboard with the illegal overthrow of our current legal government.

18 U.S. Code § 2384Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

That is what you can truly call “anti-government”.

Is Attorney General Jeff Sessions going to investigate, and prosecute, these traitors?

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

5 Comments on Cowards and Traitors in the White House

  1. Hey ! I knew the prosecutors in Portland and Vegas were incompetent clowns, but they really dropped the ball in not going after us for “Seditious Conspiracy”. If we didn’t “Oppose by Force ,prevent and hinder” not to mention “Seize, take. or possess” under this 18 Code 2384, I don’t know who has ! Bush league toadies that they are, the Govt boys probably didn’t have the cojones required for mounting such a bigtime prosecution.
    In my opinion, the operative words in the above article are “Until he is out of office”….The palace intriguers can play now, but they’ll know the Fear of Trump after 2020…

  2. The problem with written laws, as opposed to general voluntary government, a.k.a. Liberty, is no two people agree on the meaning of words until there is a deliberate effort to do so, in such processes as Trial by Jury.

    Example:
    “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

    If Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi read The Bill of Rights and they then work together to censor lawful presentments from grand juries which indict government agents for alleged crimes, then Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be guilty of Seditious Conspiracy according to U.S. Code 18 2384 quoted above, according to my own interpretation of The First Amendment.

    If the same seditious conspirators then begin to work together to disarm the public, so as to take wealth from the public, so as to arm their sedition conspiracy with the required armaments needed to disarm the public, then my interpretation of the Second Amendment allows me to discover yet again those specific seditious conspirators.

    The problem with the current fake government is that the seditious conspirators have made it a “law” that only they can indict one of their own, for plea bargaining, or perhaps if they choose, a trial by jury that they stack-up their own way, as they see fit.

  3. Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.
    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”

  4. Cal,

    The 1787 Constitutional Convention is a well-documented crime scene. On the official record, the perpetrators documented their crime when they willfully proceeded outside of their constitutional powers to create a legal fiction and enforce a legal fiction over and above the common law.

    That part of that crime scene in 1787, the so-called “Constitutional Convention” was explained by Richard Henry Lee in the following excerpt:

    “A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

    “If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

    “If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

    “The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .”

    The creation of a profitable monopoly or Nation State out of the existing Federation was an unconstitutional act, there was no agreed-upon authority to allow it, and there were rules in place to prevent it, such as “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states…”

    That clearly does not say: “12 States can form a convention so as to alter the perpetual Federal government, and once 12 States write up a new National Government to replace the Federal Government, those 12 States can then proceed to sell the dirty deal to the masses with their near monopoly power over the printed press.”

    Rhode Island refused to attend the convention and therefore Congress never agreed to alter the government in the first place. That did not stop the perpetrators, and from then on all National Statutes are null and void from a legal standpoint as you have shown:

    “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    That type of voluntary law, or common law, never stopped organized crime under the color of law, as it is a requirement of criminals, in order for them to be criminals, to operate outside the law by their willful choice.

    “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. ” Luther Martin blowing the whistle on the frauds working the first Con Con Con Job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*