Friday, July 27, 2018


This article is of the coverage of the US v. ASTARITA Trial agaist the FBI Agent who fired upon LaVoy Finicum and company and lied. This article will be updated as coverage reports come in.

7/26 Thursday's Radio Show - Latest Report Below

We cover the case against Agent Astarita of the FBI with an update from Jeanette Finicum, followed by a response to an SPLC Anti-Government propaganda video followed by the news regarding an illegal alien being seated in a local California Government Commission.

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text



Jeanette Finicum 7/27/18 6:12PM pacific

7/27 Friday

Tribute to LaVoy: 

Update by Jeanette Finicum on USA v. ASTARITA - The Agent who lied about firing upon LaVoy unprovoked.

Report from Kelli Stewart

We Are Not Anti-Government - LaVoy Finicum in His not the SPLC's own words

An RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Resurrect the Republic Production 

Support my work -
Tom Lacovara-Stewart
Media Page -

RTR Truth Media - Resurrect the Republic
Republic Broadcasting Network

New Social Media Account - Freedom Platform

RTR Truth Media - Dtube
RTR Truth Media - Steemit 
RTR Truth Media Reloaded YouTube 
RTR Truth Media Bitchute 

Please go to our show's facebook page like and follow:
Resurrect The Republic Radio Show RBN 
on Facebook -

Fair Use Act Disclaimer. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

In the United States, freedom of the press is protected under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Under the First Amendment, the government is not allowed to censor the press. Nor can any corporation, platform nor communications medium that caters to people on the claim of impartiality censor any such content. Especially those who have built their platforms on mediums that have taken part in government (taxpayer paid) subsidies.


In an exclusive interview/call with Rudy and Erin Davis of RTR Truth Media Group, Todd Engel discusses his case, the corrupt courts and federal overreach that has caused so many good Americans to take a stand against the corruption in support of their Republic.

Todd Engel sentenced to 14 years in prison for daring to have love and compassion for who he saw to be Americans being persecuted. That is the essence of who we are supposed to be and what we are all supposed to represent.



“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – Second Amendment
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that all Americans have the right to carry firearms, as is also protected by the Second Amendment. 

See -
The case stemmed from a Hawaii resident being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Hawaii gun control laws have held that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
However, this is in direct contradiction to the prosecution’s arguments throughout the US v. Cliven Bundy et al case.
During the first Bunkerville trial, Judge Gloria Navarro said ......
anytime a person is open-carrying a weapon and a law enforcement officer happens to see that weapon, then that is evidence of a threat to the officer and is considered assault.
This is inconsistent to the unalienable right of the people, the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, and the State laws of Nevada, as well as numerous other states, which allow for the open carry of firearms.
Additionally, just last week, on July 18th, AUSA Daniel Scheiss argued during the sentencing hearing for Micah McGuire that just the act of having a holstered weapon in public constitutes an act of violence.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Right to Keep and Bear in Public Upheld - Liberal Fed Court of Appeals Landmark Decision

Young v. Hawaii, a Ninth Circuit panel holds by a 2-to-1 vote (Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Sandra Ikuta, with Judge Robert Clifton dissenting) that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns openly in public places. Though the Ninth Circuit had earlier resolved in Peruta v. County of San Diego (en banc) that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry -- as D.C. v. Heller had earlier suggested, in reliance on 19th-century cases that had generally rejected a right to concealed carry -- the panel concludes (also citing Heller and 19th-century sources) that there is a right to open carry, so as to be able to defend oneself in public places as well.
The Supreme Court has stated that carrying can be banned in some "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," so any right to carry would not be unlimited; but it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both and thus makes guns available to most citizens for self-defense in public places.
It is of course quite possible that the case will be reheard en banc, which is what happened with Peruta (where the panel decision came out in favor of protecting a right to carry). But if the case isn't reheard en banc, or the panel decision is affirmed on en banc rehearing, then the case may well go up to the Supreme Court, since this decision reinforces a split among the circuits on the subject.
Excerpt from Reason

As we see in the video above, the main stream media has little to no Constitutional understanding. They report on the recent case that upholds the restriction upon the government not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but misreports the essence of the 2nd Amendment. The court can not determine that the 2nd Amendment gives us anything but the restriction upon government as to where they may not tread on a free people. There is no such thing as 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment only secures this right the Founders said was inherent, which means these rights existed prior to the Constitution's ratification. To say otherwise is disinformation. That being said this decision appears to "respect" the 2nd Amendment.


The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.

The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges -- who were both appointed by Republican presidents -- ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.
"We are disappointed in the decision that would undermine Hawaii’s strong gun control law and our commitment to protect the public,” Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki said in a statement. “But we note that Judge Clifton filed a well-reasoned dissent supporting the constitutionality of this law. We intend to consult with Hawai‘i County and work with them on further action."
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
This is how Fox News publishes the 2nd Amendment incorrectly: The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

James Madison, was not such a person as to abuse grammar rules and, like his predecessors in Jefferson and Franklin, he was rather specific and exercised practiced intent in how he phrased his statements — especially for documents of such import.

The actual text that was was read and approved and signed into law by the House of Representatives and the Senate, only included a single comma:
This is the correct version of the 2nd Amendment: 
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
The commas mean something.... and accuracy is essential. So why does Fox News and nearly all other main stream media corporations get it consistently wrong? You be the judge. 
- RTR Truth Media 

Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”
Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Bill Mears, Adam Shaw, Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.
Disclaimer: We share articles on a piece by piece basis and stand behind the reports of what we share. This in no way means that we support all content by writers or pundits for any main stream source but that of which we share. 

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

According to Leftist Professors Calls for Civility by Conservatives is RACIST

The Left is doing everything it can to stifle legitimate political debate so that there will be no other way to solve differences and disagreements over issues except through violence.

The latest example of this comes from a New York University professor who has claimed that “calls for civility” in our political discourse “are just a power play by those who feel that white supremacy is under threat.”

A pretty uninformed statement when you consider that whites are still, by far, the dominant ethnic group in America.
Nevertheless, as reported by Campus Reform, Simran Jeet Singh, a Henry R. Luce Post-Doctoral Fellow for Religion in International Affairs at the university’s Center for Religion and Media, made his ridiculous statement in a series of recent tweets in what was likely a response to calls for civility following crank Rep. Maxine Waters’ pleas with supporters to physically confront Trump administration officials because “they’re not welcome anywhere anymore.”
And for the record, Singh — an Asian-American with ties to India — is currently doing a post-doctoral fellowship under the name of a white American magazine magnate; Luce is the creator of the Time-Life magazine empire. Apparently, his hypocrisy is boundless.
Campus Reform noted further that Singh self-describes as an “anti-racist activist.” In the first tweet thread, he claimed that “lecturing people of color about civility in this climate is an ultimate sign of privilege.”
There’s more.

Whites are tired of being told they’re all racists

“If you don’t know what it’s like to fight for your life every single day, then it might not be your place to tell us how to fight personal and systemic racism,” he said, adding that “they mobilize and run these dehumanizing racist systems — and then they ask us to be more civil?” 
Singh went on to say that Europeans often described those they “colonized” as being “uncivil” and backward. Therefore, the concept of “civility” must be rooted in “whiteness” and “European colonialism.”
It should be noted as well that America didn’t “colonize” his family’s native country of India; that would be Great Britain. But what do facts and details matter when you’re doing “activism?”
And what about that claim of having to “fight every single day” for his life? Is that accurate? Does Dr. Singh really have to do that in far-Left New York, where ethnic minorities flourish as does tolerant, accepting progressivism? That seems a bit hyperbolic. (Related: MSNBC sticking with homophobic racialist Joy Reid.)
Why Singh has to attach a racial connotation to simple calls for people to tone down their divisive, inflammatory rhetoric in what can only be described as an extreme, hyper-partisan political environment, is a mystery. If Maxine Waters had been white and we called for civility, would that be white privilege compounded or just plain common sense?
We’re confused because one day we’re being told that white people are too violent and responsible for all the mass murders, then the next day we see whites being tut-tutted for trying to tamp down violence. 
Maybe white people are getting so uptight with Left-wing minorities because they’re sick and tired of Left-wing minorities accusing them of being racists…for everything they do and say.
“Activists” like Singh aren’t “anti-racist” campaigners they are racialist hacks with a chip on their shoulder who see an opportunity to lash out at whites for injustices, real and perceived. In other words, they’re dishing out the very same treatment to whites they claim to hate, to be against, and to have been victimized by. They’re giant hypocrites, but they hide behind their skin color and pretend that there’s no way they could ever be racists in a white-dominated country.
But they are. And it’s gotten way old.
Read more news about ridiculous “speech police” at
J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.
Sources include:

Monday, July 23, 2018


How Close Was Merkel to the Communist System?

In a resurrected article in Der Spiegel from 2013 we see exactly who Merkel is.

A biography focusing on Chancellor Angela Merkel's time growing up in East Germany is making headlines because it suggests she was closer to the communist system than hitherto known. Her spokesman has denied she has covered anything up.

New Biography Causes Stir

Tuesday, 5/14/2013   04:04 PM 

A new biography covering Chancellor life in East Germany has caused a stir by suggesting she was closer to the communist apparatus and its ideology than previously thought. 

Published this week and written by journalists Günther Lachmann and Ralf Georg Reuth, the book quotes Gunter Walther, a former colleague of hers at the Academy of Sciences in East Berlin, as saying she had been secretary for "Agitation and Propaganda" in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (FDJ) youth organization at the institute. Merkel, a trained physicist, worked at the academy from 1978 until 1989.

Excerpts from the book, "The First Life of Angela M.," were published in the newsmagazine Focus on Monday. The mass-circulation Bild newspaper has also given the book prominent coverage in recent days. 

The book explores Merkel's life growing up in German Democratic Republic (GDR), where her father Horst Kasner was a Protestant pastor and a committed socialist. He moved to East Germany from West Germany in 1954. 

Merkel has said in the past that her FDJ role at the academy was more that of a cultural secretary and that her duties included buying theater tickets and organizing book readings.

'Closeness to the System'

But former German Transport Minister Günther Krause -- an eastern German politician who worked with her in the final months of the GDR and as a fellow minister in the government ex-chancellor Helmut Kohl in the early 1990s -- contradicts her in the book and says she propagated Marxism-Leninism. 

"With Agitation and Propaganda you're responsible for brainwashing in the sense of Marxism," he said. "That was her task and that wasn't cultural work. Agitation and Propaganda, that was the group that was meant to fill people's brains with everything you were supposed to believe in the GDR, with all the ideological tricks. And what annoys me about this woman is simply the fact that she doesn't admit to a closeness to the system in the GDR. From a scientific standpoint she wasn't indispensable at the Academy of Sciences. But she was useful as a pastor's daughter in terms of Marxism-Leninism. And she's denying that. But it's the truth." 

On Sunday evening, Merkel said she hadn't covered up anything about her past. "I can only rely on my memory," she said at a public screening of her favorite movie, a popular love film made in East Germany, on Sunday night. "If something turns out to be different, I can live with that."

Her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, denied on Monday that the chancellor had ever covered up political aspects of her life in East Germany. "The chancellor has been making statements about her life in the GDR for years in books and interviews," he said. "She always answered questions openly and based on her honest memories."

The book adds that Merkel and her father refused all attempts by the Ministry for State Security or Stasi, the feared secret police, to recruit them as informants.

A Latecomer to the East German Reform Movement

Merkel, who speaks good Russian, was well informed about Perestroika and the distancing of the Soviet government from the East German regime, the book says. She read Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's speeches in the Communist Party newspaper Pravda, and made contacts with East German reform groups only a few months before the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989. 

The book says she and her father and brother Marcus discussed political developments with other people on September 1989. For them, the biography says, German unification was still inconceivable at that point "not just because it wouldn't have fitted into the bipolar world but because they strictly rejected the Western system of society."

It quotes Merkel as having said at the time: "If we reform the GDR, it won't be in terms of the Federal Republic."

Merkel's political ascent after that is well documented. She joined the opposition political movement Demokratischer Aufbruch (Democratic Awakening) in December 1989, became deputy spokeswoman of the democratically elected transitional East German government after the May 1990 election and joined the staunchly conservative Christian Democratic Union party in 1990s -- a surprising move given her apparent previous political leanings.

'Not Many Know What She's Really Thinking'

The chancellor at the time, Helmut Kohl spotted her potential and made her family affairs minister in his cabinet after the November 1990 German election. The rest is history.

"Only Angela Merkel herself can answer how much of her old life is still in her," Focus magazine wrote.

Her past may have contributed to making her inscrutable. Focus quotes Werner Schulz, a member of the European Parliament for the Greens who grew up in East Germany, as saying: "Her secrecy is a legacy of the GDR, I think. At the time you had to be careful about blurting out your opinions without thinking first. (…) Even today not many people know what she's really thinking." 

In power since 2005, Merkel is running for a third term in a September general election. She is widely expected to win. Her inscrutability and political shrewdness are legendary. She has sidelined every potential rival in the male-dominated, largely Catholic CDU. There's no obvious successor to her in her party and she's far more popular than her challenger from the center-left Social Democratic Party, Peer Steinbrück.

Critic: Book Spreads Spurious Conspiracy Theory

According to SPIEGEL journalist Stefan Berg, the book hasn't really shed any new light on the first 35 years of Merkel's life. Instead, he writes, it has thrown a fresh veil over it -- a veil of supposed conspiracy. "A disproportionate amount of mistrust runs through this book," writes Berg, who was born in East Berlin in 1964. "While Merkel's own declarations are eagerly called into question, intelligence reports are taken at face value and Socialist phrases are taken more seriously than they were in GDR times."

The book makes the "perfidious" suggestion that secret powers aided Merkel's path into politics, that she is some kind of Soviet plant, writes Berg. 

"Those who lived in the GDR can recall that everything was in disarray in the autumn of 1989, when careeers ended and new ones opened up -- a lot of it by chance, unintended, surprising. But coincidence is the enemy of journalists who -- firstly -- weren't there and -- secondly -- often see spies or other concealed forces at work. When they find no clues or can't interpret the clues they find, they see that as further evidence of their theory."

The book, writes Berg, paints a scenario in which "only naïve people can believe that Merkel wasn't steered by unknown forces." In fact, it doesn't present significant new facts, he adds. 


Friday, July 20, 2018

AMMON BUNDY - Todd Engel Sentenced to 14 Years - The Injustice of the Lies Used to Gain a Pound of Flesh

Ammon Bundy speaks to the people, to the prosecutors and to the judge responsible for Todd Engel’s cruel and unjust 14 year sentence today. What are a people to do? Let us also remember Jerry DeLemus serving 7 years and Greg Burleson serving 68 years.
Bundy Family Official Story (Video)
BUNDY ~ The True Story — Official
Ammon Bundy Speech's, Interviews, and Important Clips
Lavoy Finicum Speech's, Interviews, and Important Clips
Cliven Bundy - Speech's, Interviews, + Important Clips
Day the Narrative Changed (Special Edition Playlist)
(Preserved Evidence for American People)
Through the Looking Glass - Uranium 1, Seth Rich, Jade Helm, + the Malheur Refuge
(†) Day the Narrative Changed - The Crossing, Opening the Seals - (Episode 8)
Day the Narrative Changed - The Militia, Ruptly TV, + The Gray Screen Footage (Episode 5)
Ch33 - The Shot Heard Round the World - For defense of Bundy's + Finicum
(First Research after we realized things weren't right in September)
#BundyRanch #Bundytrial #Bunkerville #UraniumOne


Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Thursday, July 19, 2018


Todd Engel has led the fight to release the documents that will prove to the public how corrupt our Federal Justice system has become, and release him.
He has now been sentenced to 14 years in prison for essentially "a Facebook post".

Ammon Bundy's video - 

From ReDoubt News:
These documents are known as the “Wooten Memos”, and they come from BLM Special Agent Larry Wooten, who has attained whistle-blower status for coming forward to prove the allegations against the Bureau of Land Management and the prosecution.
After the first memo was released to the public, through Washington State Representative Matt Shea and Redoubt News, in December 2017, the case against rancher Cliven Bundy and his co-defendants was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Gloria Navarro.
However, only the four defendants that were in that tier had their charges dismissed. Later, the defendants in the final tier had their charges also thrown out, but the defendants previous to that time were not addressed. This includes the men that were coerced into taking plea deals.
Additionally, it includes 2 men that were wrongly convicted based on the misleading information by the prosecution. Greg Burleson was sentenced to over 65 years, which will amount to the rest of his life in prison for his stand in Bunkerville. Todd Engel, though convicted over a year ago,has recieved 14 years.. The prosecution is asking for 20 
After the Wooten memo was released, Engel filed to have his case included in the dismissal. The prosecution, led by Steven Myhre, claimed that the information revealed by Wooten did not pertain to Engel, and then Myhre tried to claim Wooten was a liar and not truthful.
This caused Mr. Wooten to double-down and write a second memo that is said to contain so much damaging information that the prosecution is in a panic to keep it from the public. It is currently under very tight seal by the court.
Engel gave updates that included information on the current motions to depose Larry Wooten in court and get his information on the record. He has also said that Greg Burleson, through his attorney, has joined with Engel’s motions. 


So yet another political prisoner who was imprisoned for events that all of the main defendants were found not guilty in in the State of Oregon and dismissed with prejudice in the Bundy Nevada Trial. Why "WILLFUL WITHHOLDING OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
And this case was no different. But they needed their "pound of flesh".

.        Welcome to Amerika

Gary Fullerton Speaks Out on Reported Police Corruption on Many Levels


Joe Imbriano and Barry Levinson at FPD headquarters as they attempt for a second time to get the FPD’s own men in black to take a report on Chief Dan Hughes’ obstruction of justice

Posted by Joe Imbriano

Section 148(a)(1) of the California Penal Code makes it a crime to willfully “resist, delay or obstruct” a police officer or emergency medical technician in the performance of on-the-job duties.

But what happens when an officer refuses to acknowledge plain fact and evidence when you are reporting another officer who has broken the law? What happens when he/she refuses to admit the allegation is a crime when it is clearly defined as such by statute?

 Ironically, Section 148 of the penal code aka as “the boot of the police state” is the section that is almost exclusively and illegitimately used AGAINST US. This time, I believe that it directly applies to Dan Hughes and possibly even Andrew Goodrich who was the watch commander. Here is the claim for damages filed by the DA investigator who was abrubtly taken off of the case


In the wee hours of the morning following election night, Dan Hughes directly interfered with an arrest, and willfully delayed and obstructed his four officers in the performance of their on the job duties. He called off the arrest of and breathalyzer administration to a suspect caught in the act of fleeing the scene of an accident as he reeked of alcohol. 

 The suspect was none other than our esteemed City Manager-Joe Felz.

The state legal system is set up to give police officers the ability to carry out their functions with minimal interference, including command staff, and anyone who interferes should face arrest and prosecution if they are perceived to be interfering with the operation of law. In fact, anyone could be charged with the crime of obstructing justice for doing virtually anything that constitutes an attempt to prevent a police officer from performing their duties. I believe Dan Hughes signed his own guilty plea when he put out that memo to the council regarding the election night incident involving our city manager.

A petrified Fullerton homeowner had called in a car crash in front of their home at 1:30 in the morning where a van ran over a tree and got itself stuck. The driver of the van was attempting to free the vehicle by continually reving up its engine, putting it in gear and reverse over and over trying to get away. What kind of police officers does Fullerton have who arrive on scene to where a man smelling of alcohol was attempting to leave the scene of an accident, and they fail to arrest and administer a breathalyzer? Whats worse is they let the alleged drunk driver who happens to be our City Manager Joe Felz call and ask for the police chief at 130 in the morning?

What kind of police chief instructs his four police officers who arrive on scene to where a man smelling of alcohol was attempting to leave the scene of an accident, to NOT to arrest him, not to administer a breathalyzer but rather wait until the police chief sends HIS special guy out possibly hours later to do a PRIVATE field sobriety test with NO BREATHALYZER, AND without the presence of another officer without and then drive him home instead of arresting him and taking him to jail? Hiding or destroying evidence or material that would be useful in proving a crime, or attempting to prevent another individual from providing information regarding a crime would have you or I facing charges of obstruction of justice. Watch Joe Imbriano and Barry Levinson at FPD headquarters as they attempt for a second time to get the FPD’s own men in black to take a report on Chief Dan Hughes’ obstruction of justice and they REFUSE.- part 1 and 2. The criminal justice system is broken folks and until law enforcement agents are held criminally liable for their actions, nothing is going to change, We need to send a strong message to all law enforcement that no one is above the law, especially those who are bestowed with arrest powers who are so handsomely paid to and entrusted with the duties to uphold and enforce it.