Archive for January, 2016



This is an image of what the BLM did to some of Ammon Bundy’s cattle. From 2014. [Image copied from WMD — http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/cattle-shot-buried-on-bundy-ranch/ ]

Let us review how many violations AGAINST the U.S. Constitution the federal government has committed in this particular operation.



The U.S. Constitution provides the federal government with ONLY a handful of powers. These are called the ‘Enumerated Powers’ and they are well defined. For those of you who might need a refresher (like you lawyers, FBI Agents, Sheriffs, & judges) — Here they are.




The Abuses


1) The Traffic StopThe Constitution does NOT provide the federal government the power to stop and detain ANYONE, for ANY REASON, while they are traveling within the borders of a sovereign state. Period!

2) The FBI as a wholeThe Constitution does NOT provide the federal government the power maintain a Domestic Law Enforcement Agency. See more here – Art. I, Sec. 8



3) The Department of the Interior (BLM) as a wholeThe Constitution does NOT provide the federal government the power to manage / control / regulate / nor occupy ANY LANDS whatsoever – Except for Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dockyards, etc. (see Art I, Sec 8, Clause 17 above)


4) The 4th & 5th Amendment ViolationsLet us review them shall we;




Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.




Question: Had the Local, or State officials, served these folks (Bundy, Finicum & the folks at the refuge) with ANY Warrants, or ANY Indictments from a Grand Jury?



Answer: NO.



“I’m pretty sure if I remember correctly everyone of our founding forefathers broke the then law of the land and were all, Everyone of them considered Traitors by the ruling government!! Or would be better off labeled terrorist as many are calling them by today’s standards!!” ~ William C. Robinson



Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Thirtieth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen. 

Read Full Post »

The TRUTH is out there…






Agents Mulder & Scully from the 2016 season.




With the uprising of the NEW X-Files series, I thought I would take a gander at the ‘HISTORY’ of the FBI.




Disclaimer: Old SD2010 here has a huge crush on Agent Scully.




Charles J. Boneparte (photo above) – The U.S. Attorney General under Teddy Roosevelt. Charles was the great nephew of Emperor Napoleon. On his own, but at the nudging of Teddy, Charles created what is now known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That’s right, the FBI.



The FBI is a completely ILLEGAL organization. Just dreamed up one night, and POOF, there it was.



As a matter of fact, the FBI was created on July 26, 1908, after Congress had left DC for the summer recess. Earlier that year, Teddy had asked Congress about creating something along the lines of a domestic law enforcement agency. Teddy was a little nervous due to McKinley being assassinated in 1901. That’s how Teddy got into the Whitehouse in the 1st place… He was McKinley’s VP. And on May 27, 1908, Congress had FORBIDDEN the Justice Department (the executive branch) to use any funds, or manpower to create this new agency. They feared it would create a ‘Secret Service’ type of unit.




Hummm, what do we have today????


As I read through Article I, Section 8 of the ‘Policy Handbook’ for our ‘Federal’ folks, — you know, that pesky rascal we call the U.S. Constitution — I can’t seem to find ANYWHERE in there the power for the federal government to do any DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT at all. The closest entity we have might be the U.S. Marshal Service… Which was created in 1789 — via the ‘Judiciary Act of 1789’  — to ONLY provide Law Enforcement over the U.S. District Courts. We will look at how much the U.S. Marshal Service has gotten out of hand at a later date.





So, as we settle into our recliners, with our bowl of popcorn, to enjoy the adventures of Mulder & Scully, the Cigarette Smoking man, Assistant Director Skinner, and other fond characters — remember, they are part of the tyranny that began long ago.


The TRUTH is out there — Trust no one!


Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Fifth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.

Read Full Post »

What is a Citizen?








I want to focus on something real simple here. The definition of the word ‘Citizen’ during the late 1700’s.
Remember – In 1787, the year we established our U.S. Constitution, the ONLY folks that could hold public office, or vote, or purchase land, were ‘freemen’. What is the definition of Freeman – A Free Male.

A ‘Citizen’ was a freeman, over 21 years of age, who had taken an Oath of Allegiance to his particular state. The state of Georgia, NC, SC, Virginia, NY, NH, Pennsylvania, etc.

Here is an example of the Oath given in Bute County North Carolina between 1774 & 1804. Bute County is now called Franklin County.

The Oath
I will bare faithful and true allegiance to the State of North Carolina and will truly endeavor to support maintain and defend the Independent Government thereof against George the third King of Great Britain and his successors, and the attempts of any other persons, prince, power, State, or potentate who by secret are treason conspire copies or by open force shall attempt to subject the same and I will in every respect conduct myself as a peaceful orderly subject and that I will disclose and make known to the Governor (or) some member of the Council of State or some Justice of the Superior Courts or of the peace all treason conspiracies and attempts committed or intended against the State which shall come to my knowledge so help you God.

Women were not considered FULL individual citizens until 1920! Women, once they were married, were sometimes entitled to ‘SOME’ benefits of their HUSBANDS. For example, If their husband died, the land & property of the man was then, at that point, property of the wife, providing that they had no sons. This didn’t actually start until one score and fourteen years after the ratification our U.S. Constitution.  And then, it was only in the state of Maine.

Some info via wiki



1821 – United States, Maine: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.

1835 – US, Arkansas: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.
• US, Massachusetts: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.
• US, Tennessee: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.
1839 – US, Mississippi: The Married Women’s Property Act 1839 grants married women the right to own (but not control) property in her own name.
And other states slowly followed suit as time went by.




I have an assignment for you. Using this site below, go search your surname in the 1800 U.S. Census records. I think you will find, that ONLY males are listed. Women weren’t even counted in the U.S. Census back then.

What this proves, is that the Framers, our Founding Fathers, they did not intend for a ‘natural born Citizen’ to mean someone born ONLY to a ‘Citizen Mother’. There was NO SUCH THING as a ‘Citizen female’ in late 1700’s, or even the early 1800’s for that matter.


Let us read what the founders wrote during the very 1st Congress — The Naturalization Act of 1790. It defines PLAINLY & CLEARLY what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is;

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

However, just 5 short years later, the founders realized a slight error in this 1790 Naturalization Act and they REPEALED it. Completely! They replaced it with the 1795 Naturalization Act. They did not want children of freemen born outside of the boundaries of the United States to be considered as natural born Citizens. They FIXED that error.

“SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.” ~ From the 1795 Naturalization Act.

They changed the words TO; “…shall be considered as Citizens” — from the earlier 1790 Naturalization Act that stated; “ … shall be considered as natural born Citizens:”

That is what men of character do when they realize they were wrong… they correct the problem and make it right.



Remember, lawyers nowadays say things like, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘IS’ is.” And when was the last time you ever heard a lawyer, judge, or politician come out later and say ‘I was wrong!’ They are similar to ‘Fonzie’… They have a hard time saying that little phrase.





And when you read some text from History, you have to know the definitions that were used during the time when they were written. Whether it’s the Magna Carta, The Declaration, a story via Samuel Clemens, or something REALLY IMPORTANT like our U.S. Constitution.





You can’t read something about the “Gay 90’s” and then argue that everyone in the 1890’s was homosexual. That’s not how it works!

Now, since that time, we have amended the Constitution to include women as citizens (in 1920). We have amended the Constitution to allow Black men to vote (in 1870) as long as they are Citizens. Citizenship in the early days meant someone who had taken a sworn oath & allegiance to their state.
Here is the FULL TEXT of both the 1790 & 1795 Naturalization Acts. You will also note that the pronoun ‘she’, nor the pronoun ‘they’, is used anywhere in any of this text.




Mark Levin is Wrong on this issue. Rush is Wrong on this issue. Greta is Wrong on this issue. The Harvard Law Review is wrong on this issue. All of the so called ‘Legal Scholars’ & pundits — the ones that keep yelling and shouting that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Barack Obama, are eligible to be POTUS — are WRONG on this issue.

Basically, if you want to be “STRICTLY CONSTITUTIONAL” — A “natural born Citizen”, is one that is born on the soil, of one of the 50 states, or in a territory under U.S. jurisdiction, to a Citizen Father.








Misc. Links to related info.





Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twelfth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen. 

Read Full Post »




This posting will delve into the 1952 INA and what it states.


1st off — Here is the link to the FULL Text. It is a 120 page PDF file. I will only post a few images here from specific portions of this law.




Title III, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth… Section 301



Sec. 301 reads“(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (4) a person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of the such person…” [Blue emphasis is mine]


Was Eleanor Cruz continuously in the U.S. for ONE YEAR before Ted Cruz was born in December of 1970? I think it has been well documented that Rafael & Eleanor moved to Canada about 1967. So, the answer is NO.. Eleanor was NOT in the USA for 1 year prior to Ted being born.





Sec. 320 Child Born Outside of the United States…



Did Rafael  Cruz become a Naturalized US Citizen before Ted turned 16 years of age? No he did not. Did Eleanor retain her Constant U.S. Citizenship? That is the $64,000 question. According to recent information, both Eleanor & Rafael have shown up as being registered to vote in Canada in 1974 — only 3 short years after Ted was born.



1974 Canada Voter Lists showing Rafael as a voter — via Ancestry dot com.





Eleanor’s info also from Ancestry





Spelling error on Eleanor’s last name —





Sec. 349 – Loss of Nationality



Did Rafael Cruz gain Canadian Citizenship in or before 1974? Yes he did. Was Rafael Cruz a legal guardian of Ted Cruz? Yes he was. Did Rafael, or Eleanor, file an application for the child Ted in Canada? That is another $64,000 question. We don’t know. Since Ted was Born in Canada, he was already a Canadian Citizen so said application may not have been necessary.

Again, did Eleanor apply for Canadian Citizenship shortly after Ted was born — The 3rd $64,000 question! We do not know. All of Ted’s records are sealed. Where have heard THAT before — O’YEAH — One Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro.

RafaelCruz SelServiceCard1967NewOrleans

July 1967 — Rafael Cruz was in New Orleans. Selective Service card page 1.



RafaelCruz SelServiceCard1967NewOrleans02

Selective Service card page 2.


SD2010 Commentary: Again, a ‘Citizen at Birth’ is something completely different than a natural born Citizen as stated in our Constitution. The ‘Citizen at birth’ phrase has been used in lots of legislation over the years. Our lawmakers did this on purpose to distinguish a difference between it and the ‘natural born Citizen’ phrase used in Article II, Section 1.   

Related links:



















Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Eleventh Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.





Read Full Post »






There is a lot of mis-information going around and I would like to clear some of it up. Why did the founders add 2 little words in front of the proper noun ‘Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.Constitution describing the qualifications to be the president?


KrisAnne Hall says it best —




[Paraphrased] “A U.S. President must be loyal to the United States first and only; and that unbroken loyalty would be proven, in part, by the fact that both parents were citizens of the United States and establishing that the candidate would have been raised in a home with loyalty only to the United States…”


Think about it for a minute — If you grew up and lets say your mother was originally from Germany, during your childhood she shared the horrible stories about how her father was tortured by the Nazis during the late 30’s and 40’s. You would have a negative bias toward Germany deep down in your subconscience. Or let us look at the flip side — maybe she shared some very positive stories such as the great times she had during Oktoberfest. You would have a positive outlook toward Germany. Either way, you would be somewhat ‘Influenced’.

However, if both of your parents had pledged, and taken an OATH to be a Citizen of one of the sovereign states, then that would ensure loyalty to only that state. Keep in mind now, we are NOT United States Citizens — We are citizens of one of the UNITED States of America.

Now, our founders were very familiar with these emotions, or influences, because most of them were only a generation – or maybe 2 generations – from the same. Heck, we were not even a COUNTRY at that time… just a bunch of settlers that heard of a new land, with great potential & promise, and decided to risk it all. Most of our founders were French, British, Scottish, Spanish & Irish. Majority of these settlers came from governments that were called ‘Monarchies’ — Ruled by Kings.

Now, let us fast forward to the late 1700’s and the Revolutionary War. These settlers didn’t spend weeks, or months, at sea just to fight a bloody battle against Kings on their own new land – NO they were forced to because the tyrant wouldn’t leave them alone. The king wanted money, gold & silver, and the power over the settlers, now called colonies, to control them.



1765 gave us the Stamp Act.

1773 gave us the Boston Tea Party.

1775 gave us the “Shot heard ‘round the World” & Paul Revere’s Ride the following night.

1776 gave us our Declaration of Independence.

1783 ended the war and in 1787 we had generated our U.S. Constitution.



There was much debate while the founders were writing & composing the Constitution. They wanted the original 13 colonies to be free and independent states — little countries so to speak — but since they had connected borders of land, they decided they needed to define a ‘Federal Government’ to take care of Foreign Affairs ONLY! Basically, 4 items — War, Peace, Negotiations, & Commerce.


Once again, I’m going to invoke our 1st Lady of Liberty — KrisAnne Hall. Here she explains it perfectly;


From Federalist Paper 45 “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”


Enough of the History lesson, let us now return to the natural born Citizen topic. Here is a good read on it. Even KrisAnne Hall recommends Publius Huldah. It is from 2012… long before our current debate on a couple of candidates who are not eligible.




Here are a couple of portions from the Publius Huldah write-up. I will urge my readers to go to the link and read it in its entirety.


Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”. Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

“Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.”

Later she states —


“So! This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:

• A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
• Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.

Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”




So, we have established the importance of BOTH parents being Citizens and owing loyalty to the same single government for a child to be a natural born Citizen — as our founders intended.



So here we are, January of 2016 and the Iowa caucus is less than 1 month away. We have 2 front runners of the republican party who are NOT natural born Citizens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Both of them have connections to Cuba, a Communist State. Both of their fathers were not citizens of the USA, nor of any state in the Union, when these candidates were born. They are NOT natural born Citizens as the founders defined the qualifications in our constitution.

In the last couple of days, some additional info has come to light about Senator Cruz. His mother & father had apparently become Canadian Citizens shortly after his birth. They are both showing up as registered to VOTE in Canda in 1974. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in December of 1970.















Summary: Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a legal sitting President. Senators Cruz & Rubio are NOT eligible to hold that office either.

Some other related links








Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Ninth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.

Read Full Post »






Full Length Press Conference from January 4, 2016. 27 minutes. Here are your “Terrorists” folks. These are the people that the MSM is calling domestic terrorists. These are the people that Montel Williams wants the National Guard to Kill. These are the people that Ted Cruz wants to ‘Stand Down’ from their ‘Activism’ to educate the citizens.




Text of the Redress of Grievances that she read in the video. 





This is an image of what the BLM did to some of Ammon Bundy’s cattle. From 2014. [Image copied from WMD — http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/cattle-shot-buried-on-bundy-ranch/ ]


KrisAnne Hall explains it clearly below.


The U.S. Justice Department gives their opinion. 






Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Fifth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.

Read Full Post »




This posting is going to be slightly different from the others here on SD2010. It’s going to be more like a DRUDGE page than normal… lots of links.


Some backstory —


The REAL Story: The feds, operating outside the law, are trying to jail two men without legal jurisdiction.  The Bundy family of Nevada joined with militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns. 


The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertently burning about 140 acres of BLM rangeland in two separate fires, years ago. That is an area big enough to feed about three cow-calf pairs for a year in that neck of the woods. Dwight, 73 and son Steven, 46, admitted in a 2012 court case, to lighting two different fires. Both fires were started on Hammonds’ private property. An August lightening storm started other numerous fires in the area.


The fires — The first, in 2001 — was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.


In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on BLM. Maupin, a former range technician and watershed specialist who resigned from the BLM in 1999, said that collaborative burns between private ranchers and the BLM had become popular in the late 1990s because local university extension researchers were recommending it as a means to manage invasive juniper that steal water from grass and other cover.


Susan Hammond (Dwight’s Wife) said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightening fires. “There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning,” she remembers. The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is “a joke” because fire burned from every direction.


Neighbor Ruthie Danielson also remembers that evening and agrees. “Lightening strikes were everywhere, fires were going off,” she said.


More Backstory — http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/





A January 2012 Story.



From June 2012



SD2010 Opinion Editorial


WHY are the feds so interested in Hammond’s Ranch and going out of their way to destroy the Hammonds? Let us examine what is underneath the ranch — Gold, Silver, & Uranium. I could be wrong on this, but it sure makes sense. The current administration can supply the Uranium to China & Iran for nukes. Just look at this — http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1740b/report.pdf

And the GOLD & Silver… well, that’ll keep the D-RATS & RINOS wealthy for years. Plus, it is the perfect time to play into the hands of the GUN GRABBERS in DC. Get a Civil War started in remote Oregon then label the Patriots that took a stand against Tyranny as ‘Terrorists’. They, the federales, they knew if they POKED the BEAR enough… the bear would fight back. Just in time to suspend the 2016 Elections and keep the current admin in power.



SilenceDogood2010 stands with the Patriots who are fighting against the BLM. I also stand with the Hammond & Bundy Families.




From July 2015


In recent years, proposals have been floated for a resumption of uranium mining in Eastern Oregon, under the auspices of major mining companies that would presumably follow better practices. Unlike the situation in the 1950s, though, there has been considerable resistance to these plans. Hundreds of tons of high-grade “yellowcake” ore remains out there in the Oregon high desert, and mining it could yield plenty of good-paying jobs — but a substantial percentage of the population is no longer convinced it’s worth the risk.









The total size of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is 187,000 acres (292 sq.miles). What “Seat of Government, Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;” is on this parcel of land? NONE, NADA, ZIP!


The Feds have overstepped their powers once again.

1) This tract is larger than 10 Sq.Miles

2) There is NO Enumerated Power given to the feds to create, or manage Wildlife Refuges.



US Constitution – Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”


The militia is Correct & on the RIGHT SIDE of the law on this issue. It is TIME to eliminate (aka abolish) the Bureau of Land Management COMPLETELY!



“..That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,.. ” ~ Declaration of Independence.


 Misc. links & additional general info:










3 separate PDF files are contained in the link below. I’ll suggest you folks save EACH ONE of these PDFs ‘OFFLINE’ for future reference.






Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Third Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.

Read Full Post »