A town in California has declared itself a “constitutional republic,” independent of executive orders issued by the federal or state governments, in protest of lockdowns, mask mandates and compulsory vaccinations.

Appearing on Fox News, Oroville California’s vice-mayor Scott Thomson outlined the move, noting “I was sitting at City Hall, and the mandates continue to come. As you know it started with ‘two weeks to stop the—slow the curve,’ and it just seems like a carrot keeps being dangled in front of our faces of just a little more… and it seems like every mandate that comes down, it is a loss of freedom.”

Thomson compared Oroville’s move to that of San Francisco declaring itself a ‘sanctuary city’.

“We’re a constitutional republic, and wanna declare that,” Thompson urged, clarifying “We’re not separating from California, but we’re just reminding the higher-ups in other cities we need to stand up for our rights. We still are a constitutional republic, which means we have rights endowed by our ‘creator,’ and our founders created a republic, which was genius, to separate powers.”

The vice-mayor further explained, “I believe that worldwide, but especially in California, that the very fabric of our nation is at a crossroads of how much authority we’ll let the government have,” comparing the struggle to a war.

“I don’t believe that anybody wins when the government has more authority,” Thompson emphasised, adding and “every time that you lose freedom, usually it takes bloodshed to get it back.”

“We’re getting threats of loss of money for our city, but for us, and especially for me, they can have their money; we want freedom in California, we want freedom in Oroville, and so that’s what we’re standing up for,” Thompson further urged.

Watch:

Mirrored at Rumble:

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

Congressman Ronny Jackson, who was the former White House physician under Presidents Obama and Trump declared Wednesday that the reason Joe Biden has avoided cognitive exams is because he would have “failed miserably,” and his team “didn’t do it because they know, if they do it, you don’t ask questions that you don’t want the answers to.”

Appearing on Newsmax, Jackson described Biden’s latest health report as “six pages of superficial fluff.”

“Honestly, there were six pages of stuff that most people just don’t care about,” Jackson said, adding “I mean, you know, Dr. O’Connor spent six pages addressing like an occasional cough and some stiffness and things like that when the elephant in the room was the president’s cognitive ability.”

Jackson continued, “Over 50% of this country does not believe he’s cognitively fit to be our Commander in Chief and our head of state, yet that wasn’t addressed anywhere in there.”

“We set the precedent when we did President Trump’s physical. I did,” Jackson explained, further noting “The far-Left and the mainstream media were relentless in their pursuit of me to do something to address not only his physical capabilities, but his mental capabilities, which we did — we did a cognitive test. As far as I’m concerned, we set the precedent. And he should have had one done as well.”

Jackson added that “if anyone needs a cognitive test, it’s this president that we have right now. And I was really surprised to see there wasn’t any mention of anything like that in there.”

The Texas Congressman emphasised that Biden’s team “know that if they gave him a cognitive test, that he would have failed miserably, and then they would have had to explain that away somehow.”

Urging that Biden’s handlers “were doing it just to check a box,” Jackson added “Dr. O’Connor should have done what I had to do whenever I briefed President Trump’s physical, is stand up in front of the press in the press briefing room, and brief the physical. I was up there for an hour and 15 minutes answering every single question that the press had picking his physical apart. And instead what did we get? We just got a six page report and that’s the end of it. We’re supposed to just move on and play like everything’s fine now.”

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

A report out of Military.com notes that House Democrats are aiming to pass legislation that would allow police to confiscate firearms from active duty troops.

The report notes that the legislation would permit civilian police to take the action against any military service members if they are accused of ‘domestic violence.’

California Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee dedicated to personnel said “Domestic violence is a forgotten crisis in the military, and that’s why I offered an NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] amendment to ensure that service members have access to military court protective orders that are as strong and enforceable as protective orders issued by civilian courts.”

The report explains that the law as it currently stands means that civilian law enforcement does not enforce military court orders, and commanders have no authority to seize guns from troops if they are kept off base.

The Democrat legislation would “create a system for military courts to issue protective orders,” the report notes, adding that “Military court protective orders would be fully recognized by state and local law enforcement under the proposed law.”

Critics of the proposal point out that it is similar to so called ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws that allow police or family members to petition a court to remove firearms from anyone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Republicans are opposing the move, calling on the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees to remove the provision from the NDAA, arguing that it “would violate the Second Amendment rights of our nation’s brave service members by allowing military judges and magistrates to issue military court gun confiscation orders.”

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas further urged that “Congress should not allow servicemen who are faced with allegations to have their firearms taken away first, and face due process later.”

Last year an almost identical provision in the House version of the NDAA was removed as it progressed to the Senate, which at the time was controlled by Republicans.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————