[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The U.K. is F*CKED (Pub Owners are liable for speech of drunks) Cucumber Water Benefits + How to Make It How to Improve Cellular Health and Why ItÂ’s Important Natural Tinnitus Treatment Methods to Stop Ringing in the Ears 6 Ways To Improve Your Health using Structured Water Night Shift MD Melatonin (Over 50, You need it) Dude wearing a dress threatens people with a knife on the NYC subway “I REFUSE to Work!” – Woman BRAGS About Living Off Welfare and Section 8 BlackRock & Fidelity In Collusion With The UK Government? Earth Overshoot Day Is Coming Sooner And Sooner Why are cancer rates SKYROCKETING in pets and children? This is the Democrat Party: Idiot in Panda Suit Is Followed by Kamla Harris (Video) Gordon Chang: This is a WARNING SIGN about what's going on in China Know Them By Their Fruits. Their Whole Lives devoted to uncovering the Crimes of the Undeclared Empire He Asked ChatGPT One Question… Then It Got Disturbingly Prophetic Lefties, Illegals, & Minorities Are Finally Experiencing "Consequence Culture" US Bunker Buster's "Weak Spot" Revealed? China Finds Attack Tactic to ‘Stop’ Bomb That Hit Iran "This is an EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT" CIA MKULTRA Whistleblower sounding the alarm Burn Brown Fat With Food Cartels Moving to Canada For Fentanyl (And other reason) Bees Benefit from Mushrooms, You Could Too Top 11 SWAT Operations in History Inside 'Return to the Land': The group making a whites-only community in Arkansas Ana Kasparian: Epstein Cover-Up, Israel Strikes Gaza Church, & the Great American Political Shift McDonald's McHire AI Bot Just Exposed The Personal Data Of 64 McMillion People I think your EV is charged now. You can go ahead and unplug it. Gen-Z Can't Answer the Most Basic Questions - OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS A JOKE. Your car is spying on you, but here is how you can stop it. The Real Reason Why Brigitte Macron Is So Worried...(Candace Owens)

ObamaNation
See other ObamaNation Articles

Title: World Net Daily has some BREAKING NEWS on ELIGIBILITY
Source: World Net Daily
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/
Published: Jun 20, 2010
Author: WND
Post Date: 2010-06-20 21:27:55 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 6315
Comments: 175

www.wnd.com/

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 49.

#6. To: Itistoolate (#0)

As usual the WND fruitcakes miss the point.

The individual on the clip says explicitly at the end that Obama was a legal US citizen at the time of birth, and the objections to his Presidency are based on racial, ethnic, and cultural bigotry.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-06-20   22:25:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The individual on the clip says explicitly at the end that Obama was a legal US citizen at the time of birth

He also said Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, a fact born out by Obama's refusal to produce a long-form birth certificate. Of course he can't produce that which doesn't exist. He is a fraud.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-06-20   22:27:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

born [sic] out by Obama's refusal to produce a long-form birth certificate

Being a legal US citizen from birth trumps producing documents satisfactory to k00ks.

Furthermore any alleged reasons for claimed absence of such k00kaccepted forms must themselves be proven - and not merely the products of conjecture by someone who can only say that he didn't personally see them himself.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-06-20   23:30:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Being a legal US citizen from birth trumps producing documents satisfactory to k00ks.

Furthermore any alleged reasons for claimed absence of such k00kaccepted forms must themselves be proven - and not merely the products of conjecture by someone who can only say that he didn't personally see them himself.

You're not quite right in the head. But I have been knowing that since my days posting on John Deere's forum. Answer me this, if you can. Do innocent people spend upwards of 2 MILLION dollars to hide the document that would prove their claims? Sane people wouldn't. So I will ask you what I asked another one of Obama's sycophants. Is it your argument that your hero is insane?

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-06-21   6:23:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Do innocent people spend upwards of 2 MILLION dollars to hide the document that would prove their claims? Sane people wouldn't.

The claim he has spent $2 million on this matter is pure k00k$hit.

As I state above, every single case has been dismissed out of hand without even proceeding to discovery or interrogatories.

All his lawyers have had to do is tell the courts the reasons the courts have no standing, and in all cases the courts have completely agreed within days or weeks. The only other time they have to spend is ~ possibly ~ listen to the judges swat down one idiotic Birfer argument after another.

So I will ask you what I asked another one of Obama's sycophants. Is it your argument that your hero is insane.

No, my argument is that you're insane for believing such a stupid claim. However just for laffs let's ~ momentarily ~ presume that telling courts to dismiss cases, which the courts then swiftly do, does cost lots of money for the winnning defendants. How much more money did the losing accusers spend with their windbag arguments which get swatted down right and left, then denied on appeal, than the lawyers who simply state "The court has no standing because of this, this, and this?"

'Elebenty billion?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

pwned.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-06-21   8:41:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You're full of it Obama worshiper. If I cared enough to take the time to find it, there was an article some time ago on LP that stated that he had spent close to a million and that was from official sources. And it has almost doubled since then. But I don't care enough to waste the time because even if I did you would have some other excuse/lie for your hero. You Obama sycophants make me want to puke.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-06-21   8:46:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Reading the O'bots on the thread is hoot. It is almost as good a re-reading Edgar Allen Poe's "The Telltale Heart". No matter how hard they try those pesky facts keep on beating and beating.

1. Having a judge dismiss a suit is a technical maneuver and is not a judgement based upon the facts of a case. It is simply a statement by the Court that the Plaintiff, in the Judges OPINION, does not have a substantive interest involved and thereby lacks legal standing to bring suit. IT IS NOT A RULING UPON THE FACTS.

2. No matter how hard they try to dodge it the fact is that it costs lotsa' money to hire those attorneys to argue that the plaintiff has no standing.

3. The matter of standing is an issue hotly debated in legal circles as there is, in many cases, no clear guiding law establishing whether a plaintiff does or does not have "standing" which is a principle not established in the Constitution but one established from Admiralty Law and is a principle ruled upon by the Judges OPINION and is not founded in either the Constituion or the U.S. Code.

4. No matter how hard the O'bots try to sidestep the issues no trial has yet been allowed by our corrupt legal system to get to the matter of fact finding.

5. Despite no Judicial fact finding we can nevertheless observe, as intelligent adults (except O'bots) that Mr. Barry Barack Soetoro Obama is very shy for a politician. He has made it a point to suppress and keep hidden every major substantial FACT which would establish his legal and Constitutional standing to hold the office of President of the United States. It does not require a court ruling to observe that Mr. Soetoro-Obama has not, and likely cannot, produced any record, birth certificate, or any other legal form of proof that establishes his eligibility to hold the office of President of The United States. In fact quite the contrary as he has gone to great lengths to keep suppressed any formal record which could validate his eligibility for office.

Records supressed and held secret include the following:

Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

In fact no one at Occidental College recalls Barack Hussein Obama, but they do recall Barry Soetoro - a citizen of Indonesia with an Indonesian Passport. Indonesia, unlike the U.S., DOES NOT allow dual citizenship. You CANNOT acquire an Indonesian Passport while holding citizenship in another country e.g., The United States.

Mr. Soetoro traveled to Pakistan at a time when U.S. Citizens not on official business were forbidden to go there on a U.S. Passport. So, which country's Passport did he use? Mr. Soetoro was over the age of majority at the time and thus if he traveled on an Indonesian Passport he was NOT a U.S. Citizen, OR he committed fraud.

Mr. Soetoro entered Occidental College under unknown status and the College will not release the records nor make them public. If Pastor James Manning is correct it would have been because he applied for admission as a foreign student. If he received financial aid as a Foreign Student then he was not and is not a citizen of the United States and is in fact an illegal alien who has overstayed his Student Visa OR he committed felony fraud. It is one or the other but not both.

I could go on as the anomalies regarding Mr. Soetoro's background only deepen the further we go. Why does he appear in no Student Yearbook or in any other membership activity at Columbia University? Why do no students recall him? Why is there nothing whatsoever to actually indicate he ever attended classes there?

No, no matter how hard the O'bots and quislings whine and mutter the facts will not go away - "...and yet the heart still beats."

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-06-21   16:48:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You Birferk00k idiots shamelessly violate the most basic premise of Constitutional and American jurisprudence: A man is innocent until proven guilty, and all charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

And then you claim to be protecting the Constitution while you engage in such scurrilous tactics!

None of you has ever offered the slightest proof of any of your charges in any court anywhere. All cases have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and lack of substantive evidence.

So eager are you to propogate your untruths that you eagerly glom onto the wildest anonymous speculation and forgeries only available on anonymous Internet k00ksites.

Your idiotic statements about millions of dollars being spent to tell judges the plaintiffs have no evidence and the court has no jurisdiction even if there were, are a case in point. Facts are one attorney was working for free, and all the others state it was so easy to get the judge to swiftly dismiss the cases the legal work was minimal. The majority of the court's time was the judges saying "Wrong....wrong....wrong" to the k00k plaintiffs. The Obama lawyers could barely get words in sideways - not that they needed to.

Then there's the incident where your idiotic Queen Bee lawyer offered patently forged material to a court which was breathlessly reported by an equally idiotic news site.

You've got a nifty false front op going here. Make anybody with objections to the status quo look like a blithering idiot filing suits right and left. Yah, that's really accomplished a lot the last 3 years.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-06-21   17:16:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

A man is innocent until proven guilty, and all charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Isn't the onus on Obama to prove he's a citizen before becoming President?

wudidiz  posted on  2010-06-21   17:56:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#55. To: wudidiz (#49)

A man is innocent until proven guilty, and all charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Isn't the onus on Obama to prove he's a citizen before becoming President?

He did that as part of his electoral process. He does not have to do it for every pinhead who screams demand for proof without showing any evidence there was anything wrong with what he already did.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-06-21 19:22:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I'll say this one more time ... "THERE AIN'T NO CONSTITUTION" the Law of the Land has been usurped by the law of COMMERCE since we all utilize commercial paper to transact business. The Courts and the STATES collect taxes and fines etc., in commercial paper as opposed to money (real money like silver or gold like the CONSTITUTION RELIES UPON).

When the Constitution plainly says that NO STATE shall make anything payable for debt other than gold or silver coin, the moment promises to pay (fiat debt based currency) became acceptable as LEGAL TENDER the Constitution became a mere PROMISE and not the law.

The Law of the Sea (LAW MERCHANT) has been in full force since at least 1964.

So, what the Constitution says about anything is irrelevant as pertains to law.

It's an illusion to keep the slaves from rioting.

C'mon ... get real ... the Constitution is a CON, a GD piece of worthless paper, and Americans are so addicted to their credit cards, bank accounts, checks, Socialist Security that they've forfeited the CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS, settling for privileges at the whim of their MASTER - UNCLE SAMBO.

EDIT: My tagline mentions the census. Have you ever wondered why the Census is handled by the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ? Why not HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES ?

Until people realize that the monetary system dictates the CHOICE OF LAW we will do without a constitution.

I'm going to post a letter that I received yesterday from an ex-attorney that speaks to this issue because I am weary of the Constitutional arguments that are really bullshit. And the reason we don't have a Constitution is because like the Indians that sold New York for a few beads we've pretty much done the same, only we have done it for "credit" and "convenience" ... so enjoy your banker approved privileges as long as they last.

LETTER:

The motivator for this note is the popular "patriot" idea, which is getting more circulation recently, that the Founding Fathers CREATED the "governmental system" that is presently being used an instrument of destruction of this nation.

They didn't.

It is extremely tempting just to stop right here. There is an inordinate number of other matters that require attention. But, that misguided perspective drives to the heart of the activity that perpetuates this nation's, and the world's, misery. To understand the legal aspects of the fundamental difference between Money and "funny money" is to understand the galactic disconnect between the work product of the Philadelphia Convention and today's "federal government." So, duty thwarts and triumphs over temptation yet again.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

One of these days, this author may have and apply much more uniformly the sense of humor advocated in his book as the superior method of response to these outrageous ideas. At that time, he expects to be able to present these same ideas via humorous anecdotes. That day, if it exists, is still off in the future, somewhere. It might be nice if learning our present legal reality were an enjoyable task. It just isn't, because at the threshold we have to realize that we've "been had."

Smart people are vulnerable in this area, because they are among the last ones to admit to themselves that they've "been had." But, smart people will confess having "been had" a LONG time before those who have invested their careers, which means their lives, quite literally, into understanding and defending "the Constitution." Thus, lawyers, judges, and those in the military form the bulwark of what this author expects to be the longest term hold outs on accepting the legal reality of our present circumstances. For this reason, this author expects this "debate" to continue for quite a number of years, which estimation presumes this nation holds together that long, and then perhaps long into the future, as well, via the Monday morning quarterbacking "forensic failure analysis" discussions.

There are many still suffering under the myth of a Constitution. There are a small but growing number in the "valley of the shadow of the paradigm shift." And, there is a very, very small number who have survived the journey and are becoming all the more literate with the legal reality. To be on the reality side of this rather wicked paradigm shift is to see, quite plainly, the galactic disconnect between "original America" and "today's Amerika." Those who still need to play "the blame game" are the very ones who are the least likely to understand either the problem or the solution. To understand both the problem and the solution, one needs to be ready, willing, and able to accept personal responsibility, which is the last thing that "the blame game" players want to do. They would have to admit having "been had," and they'd have to change their minds about practically everything. For the vast majority of them, it's easier to shove peanut butter in their ears than to admit they were intellectual deficient in their understanding and analysis of the matter.

To discuss this at all is to be compelled to hold in mind long enough to do so one of the most egregiously incompetent and manifestly deranged ideas about government in America that may ever exist in the mind of an American, namely that we should blame the Founding Fathers for our present situation. However, to discuss this at all is also to realize that sight and blindness are in the hands of The Lord God Almighty. While the teacher prepares the lesson, The Teacher prepares the class. It's impossible to compel anyone to attend class. Only those who want to be there are there. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. To refuse to see is, though, to confess just exactly how wicked the paradigm shift is.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

There are two popular classes (schools of thought) of "constitution-ists." (A "constitution-al-ist" is someone who supports a "constitution-al," which for many has everything to do with a certain human hygiene activity involving the alimentary canal; hence, "constitution-ist.") One popular class of constitution-ists is represented by the popular conservative radio talk show hosts. They will look you (or at least the microphone) straight in the eye and tell you that we've got a Constitution and that it's just not being followed at all. This is the class that wants "to restore the Republic." These people blame all kinds of people, but mostly the governmental officials and the controlled media. The other popular class of constitution-ists is represented by the view motivating this note, namely that we've got a Constitution and that things are exactly as they were designed and intended by that document and those concepts. These people blame the Founding Fathers, among others, including certain religious groups.

There is a third class of "constitution-ists." This class consists of those who recite quite confidently a date and an event in history after which the "constitutional Government" ended. However, in confirmation of their confused understanding of law and history, they turn right around and continue to argue the Constitution as if it were both relevant and authoritative, i.e., against their very own assertion and conclusion that it no longer constitutes the basis for the present "federal government." A lot of these people like to blame the lawyers and the judges.

There is even a fourth class of "constitution-ists." This is the school of thought in which this author found himself for a number of years. There are those who realize that nothing about government has anything, whatsoever, to do with any Constitution. Yet, they have been taught "the Constitution" and those ideals, which ideals are very appealing. They read statutes and judicial opinions, and they see references to "the Constitution" everywhere. Thus, "to have and to hold" those ideals and to try to make sense out of the galactic disconnect between what they find written on the page under the label "Constitution" and what they see actually occurring under the "power" called "government," they conclude that there are, in fact, two different systems running in parallel. They label those systems "de jure" (to refer to the "constitutional" system) and "de facto" (to recognize the actual activities being conducted under the name and label of "government"). These people, by and large, blame a lot of different people: legislative, executive (to include law enforcement), and judicial officials, lawyers, religious groups, and etc.

If there's another class of "constitution-ists," that school of thought is not coming to mind at present.

To be a constitution-ist is to have no understanding of our present reality. To be a constitution-ist is still to be living a daydream. To be a constitution-ist is to perpetuate the intellectual prison that the "new world odor" types need for people here to remain in just a little bit longer. Thus, to be a constitution-ist is to damage the very cause that those good people intend to advance. At the end of the day, all classes of constitution-ists are wrong (absolutely, totally, completely, dead, flat, stinkin' wrong) about "everything" material about our present legal reality. (Yes, this author realizes that committed constitution-ists and those new to this discussion may have just felt as if they were whopped up side the head with an unpadded 2x4. Feel free to thank this author for that at any time.)

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

In order to see why/how all constitution-ists are wrong about "everything" about the present "federal government," we have to learn some relevant history, and we have to learn some law. The benefit is, we already know both. We've just never been given permission to put the pieces together. Therefore, consider yourself permitted, even encouraged, to put the pieces together.

Back in the day, the hebrews (a label that means "one who crosses over," i.e., a "colonizer"), i.e., the Western European Caucasians, set up shop here in America. They did so under commercial arrangements with "the king" (which happens to be David's Throne, which God had promised would endure). In time, there arose territorial friction, and there were wars both in Western Europe and in America against a common enemy. The British eventually prevailed in Western Europe; the Americans, in America. "The king" (think also Parliament) thought he had "benefited" his colonies by helping win the war here, so he had no hesitation in levying "taxes" here to defray the costs of that war.

Turns out that the Americans didn't quite see it that way. The Americans didn't see anyone other than Americans dying in the French-Indian wars on the side of the Americans, and they certainly didn't see much British support for that very successful American effort. So, they weren't interested in defraying British costs that simply didn't exist. One thing led to another, and we had such events as The Boston Tea Party (December, 1773). Sentiments were running quite high, of course, and it's during this time that The Declaration was made (July, 1776).

Key for our purposes here are two concepts. (A) Based on what was actually our defiance of the original agreement with "the king," he (think also Parliament) "outlawed" us (which we probably deserved, given the legal standards at the time), and then declared war on us (a grave error). (B) Based on "the king's" refusal to set up legislative bodies to deal with local matters on this side of The Pond, we assumed the exercise of the legislative powers, declaring that the legislative power vested "in the People at large."

Legally, what just happened? For "the king" to "outlaw" us, is for "the king" to put us beyond his protection. At that instant, Americans were legally severed from Britain, for good, and for all purposes. Regarding nationality, all those people were, of course, still Brits, having been born under that flag, but they were no longer part of Britain. See jus soli; cf. jus sanguinis.

For "the king" to declare war on us is for "the king" to recognize us as an independent body politic. Independent bodies politic have a "form of government." We can analyze Scripture to establish the point that the default "form of government" for any body politic is "democracy." A little bit easier for us at this juncture is the realization that to label a government properly, we examine the placement and exercise of the Supreme Power, the Sovereign Power, the Law-making Power, the Legislative Power. Thus, for example, where the Supreme Power is placed in the hands of one person, that's a monarchy; in the hands of a small group, an oligarchy; or, in the hands of "representatives," a Republican Form. Where the Supreme Power, the Sovereign Power, the Law-making Power, the Legislative Power is placed in the hands of those with Suffrage, that's called a "democracy."

To review, we refused to pay the "taxes" that "the king" (think Parliament) imposed upon us in order to defray the costs of the war in Europe, and, in retaliation, "the king" outlawed us and then declared war on us. To declare war on his own people would have been to commit Treason, among other crimes of that nature. So, to engage war, we first had to be separated out; hence, our being "outlawed." At that instant, "we" were politically severed from Britain, and we were recognized, internationally, as an independent body politic. Being an independent body politic, we had a form of government, which as a matter of law (via Scriptural principles) and as a matter of Declaration was that of a democracy. The legislative powers, which cannot be annihilated, vested in the People at large.

At that instant, the form of government here, at the "national" level, was that of a democracy.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

May a democracy change its form? Sure!

How? By Law.

How does a democracy create a Law? Today, that procedure is best recognized as "Robert's Rules of Order."

What does that process look like? First, there has to be Notice to those with Suffrage of a meeting of those with Suffrage. Then, the meeting is called to order. Then, as "new business" is addressed, there is a motion that such and such language be voted into law. Then, there's a second. Then, there's the discussion phase, which gets into amendments and modifications of all sorts. Then, the question is called. Then, there's a vote. (A quorum of the) Majority vote carries the rule.

At that time, who had Suffrage? White men, aged 21 or older, who owned land.

If the democracy had activated the democratic Law-making process, what would that have looked like? For the democracy at the national level to activate the Law-making process, there would have had to have been meetings all over the 13 States in order that all with Suffrage be allowed to participate, i.e., given both the Notice and the Opportunity to participate. There would have had to have been a communications channel from a "central clearinghouse" location to and from all Counties in all 13 States. Via that communications channel, the "proposed Bill," i.e., the "Constitution," as proposed by those attending the Constitutional Convention, would have been reproduced in sufficient quantity to reach each County, and then as the meetings were held and the votes taken, and the amendments proposed, that information would have been sent the other way back up the line to the clearinghouse. That process would continue until the matter was concluded. Obviously, that process was never implemented.

If the democratic Law-making process had been activated, all with Suffrage would have participated. Given an estimated population at the time of 2,000,000, and presuming that to include women and children, we take half to estimate the men, and then a percentage to estimate those of suitable age and land ownership. The number picked out of the thin blue sky in order to illustrate the matter is 80%. Thus, 80% of 1,000,000 is 800,000. If the democratic Law-making process had been activated, Notice would have been sent from "the clearinghouse" to each County with the intent of reaching 800,000 men. Then, that group of people would have congregated in their communities and recorded their activities, both in the receiving of the information from "the clearinghouse" and in the sending of the information to the "clearinghouse." There would not have been a "vote" of 13 commercial entities. There would have been a vote of 800,000 individuals. The former works just fine for commercial purposes, but it takes the latter to act "by Law."

Based on this procedural reason alone, we see that the Constitution just simply never was. It simply never was "admissible evidence of Law." There was no Constitution. There has been no Constitution. There has been no "constitutional Government."

The other obvious flaw with the Constitution is substantive. It nowhere defined "Citizen of the United States." There is a much longer discussion on this, but to get to the core problem, no one qualified to hold the office of President. Where there is no President, there is no legislative process, at all. There can't even be a veto to override, for there is no "presentment," because there is no one home to which to make any such presentment. That 10- day clock has never started, on anything. Also, where there is no President, there is no appointment, of anyone, to anything.

In sum, the European-bank-supported agents provocateur who were participants in the Philadelphia Convention did a very brilliant job of sinking that ship even before it sailed, even before it ever launched.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

All constitution-ists are wrong, because there never was any Constitution. That collection of ideas was never admissible evidence of law. No Republican Form was ever created, by anyone.

But, we don't HAVE to know our history even to this overview level to realize how absolutely absurd and intellectually deranged it is to blame the Founding Fathers for today's abuses committed in the name of the "federal government." What we DO have to know, though, is the difference between Money and "funny money."

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

What was "the" problem compelling the calling of the Philadelphia Convention? "The" reason for calling the Constitutional Convention is that the States were destroying themselves, thus also the nation, by circulating "Bills of Credit." What is that? That's the "funny money" of the day. It's essentially a "promissory note" traded as if it were an asset. It's a IOU based on the "credit" of the State. Thus, a "Bill of Credit" is borrowed into existence, in exactly the same way that "federal reserve notes" are borrowed into existence right now. It may also be likened to the original "credit card," where things of value were obtained "now" in exchange for a "promise to pay later."

To understand, then, solidly, once and for all times and purposes, the Founding Fathers' purpose(s), one must understand Money. To understand Money is to understand "funny money." To understand Money and to understand "funny money" is to understand the choice of law associated with each.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

What is Money? It's an honest system of weights and measures. Money is popularly evidenced by gold and silver Coin. One of the best books available on this is Jim Ewart's, "Money: Ye shall have honest weights and measures." <http://>www.principiapub.com/>

What is a "dollar?" Like a "pound," and an "ounce," it's a unit of measure that describes a defined weight.

What is "funny money?" "Funny money" is anything used as a medium of exchange that doesn't have the intrinsic value assigned to it. What is the value of the cotton and etc. fibers that constitute a "federal reserve note?" How on earth can that same quantity/value of cotton and etc., fibers have multiple values, whether 1, or 5, or 100 units of whatever? It's the same amount of cotton and etc., fibers, but it has "market value" assigned to it according to the numbers printed on it.

What is the value of the materials that go into a penny, or a nickel, or a dime? Where the medium of exchange has a value assigned to it that in no way represents the intrinsic value of that item of exchange, then we're dealing with "funny money."

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

Why the repetition of the "subliminal message?" Here's the first shoe. What circulates as the medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the "default" choice of law for that system. Where what circulates is Money, i.e., gold and silver Coin, then the "default" choice of law is "normal." Matters accruing relative to the land are decided per the Law of the Land, i.e., the Common Law, and matters accruing relative to any other place, i.e., relative to the water or to the air, are decided per the Law of the Sea.

But, where what circulates as the medium of exchange is "funny money," formerly known as "Bills of Credit," i.e., quasi-debt instruments borrowed into existence, popularly known as "IOU's," then the "default" choice of law for all matters is the Law of the Sea.

How do we know that? Because, under the Law of the Land, the circulation of "funny money" is, at best, fraud. In its full-tilt reality, the printing/"minting" and circulating of "funny money" in a Law of the Land system is Treason. It's literally an act of war against that system. These two money systems cannot co-exist simultaneously. There is either the one or the other. Either there is a "normal" application of the choice of law, or there isn't. The only way a "funny money" system may exist AND it's proponents NOT go to jail is for the foundational choice of law to be the Law of the Sea.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

Why the repetition of the "subliminal message?" Here's the other shoe. At this juncture, reflect mightily on the legal environment for the alleged Constitution. Presume the Constitution into existence in that legal environment. What is and must be the default choice of law for that system, and how do we know? The default choice of law for that system is the Law of the Land. Not only does it say that flat out, but also is demands, compels, requires, nationally, the circulation of an honest system of weights and measures, as is communicated in many ways, including the prohibition on the States from allowing anything other than gold and silver Coin for the payment of debts.

Let's review. "The" reason for the Philadelphia Convention was that our Founding Fathers, having brilliant foresight, saw exactly where the use of a fluctuating medium of exchange was taking this then-fledgling nation. See Roger Sherman's "A Caveat Against Injustice." Credit, as evidenced by paper money IOU's issued by "the States," was destroying the nation. The British have always been the world's masters at the dirty tricks campaigns, and "Bills of Credit" were just one more of those dirty-tricks campaigns. How does any nation really and truly destroy another nation? By getting that targeted nation to defy God. Thus, to get a nation away from God's principle of honest weights and measures is to get that nation into a financial frame of mind that is the equivalent of the middle-finger salute to God Almighty. In order to shut down the spread of that suicide-by-the-installment-method practice, and to shut down the God-defying mentality, i.e., the intellectual disease that enjoys and perpetuates that practice, the Founders sought to create a "super- sovereign," something over the States, in order to keep the States from falling prey to the dirty tricks campaigns. By so doing, they deflected whatever forces brought by the paper-money-pushers that might have been levied against the "local" officials away from the "local" officials and towards themselves, for they were in a much better position to absorb the "costs" of their understanding and duty. It was a self-less act. They put God and country above themselves. By establishing a national standard that prohibits the use of "funny money," the Founders specifically intended to prevent the very practices that this nation adopted hook, line, and sinker right after the assassination of Kennedy and which are destroying the nation today.

Therefore, it is the height of intellectual incompetence, at best, even to hold in mind for a moment the thought that today's abuses in the name of the "federal government" were in any way, shape, manner, or form created by the Founding Fathers. The reality is so bright and clear that it hurts. For there to be a Constitution and that system, there must be, in general circulation, an honest system of weights and measures. In the contrapositive, where there is system of honest weights and measures in general circulation, there is no Constitution or its system. And, it should come as no surprise that the law fully supports the observation. There can't be a constitutional system running under the Law of the Land where all that circulates is the "funny money" scam. For there to be a "funny money" scam AND for there to be no criminal prosecutions for that line of conduct, the system in operation cannot, in a million years, be based on the Law of the Land. There's only one system of law that would allow it, and that's a system founded in the Law of the Sea.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

How many other presidents were assassinated for opposing the Western European banksters and their plans for their "funny money" scam? Unknown, but Lincoln likely was, and some think that Zachery Taylor was poisoned. If so, then whether that motive had to do with a popular social issue of the day or opposition to the Western European banksters of the day is another matter for speculation. (The forensic tests in 1991 on Taylor were declared to have shown no arsenic poisoning. Oliver Stone's JFK came out in 1991, too, and there's still no popular discussion of that assassination that comes anywhere understanding the motive for that assassination. The one author that nails the motive is Craig Roberts in his "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza." . Until we understand the difference between Money and "funny money," in particular the choice of law associated with each, we won't understand the JFK assassination.)

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

To reflect, again, on the obvious, how relevant is the alleged "Constitution" where the default choice of law has changed away from the Law of the Land? Even if there were a Constitution, it'd be 100% irrelevant to and in any system based on the Law of the Sea. In a Law of the Sea system, everything is non- constitutional. Where the Constitution, even if it had ever existed, was rooted in a Law of the Land environment, it has absolutely, positively no direct relevance to anything about a system rooted in the Law of the Sea. The facts of this one scream at us daily, from our very own pocketbooks. We don't have an honest system of weights and measures in general circulation; therefore, how on earth could we even remotely be dealing with that alleged "constitutional" system??!!

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

Thus, Nossir! No one is justified in blaming the present problems on the Founding Fathers! Nossir! And a million times Nossir!

In short, those interested in the legal reality need to be wary of anyone playing "the blame game" at any time for any reason, all the more especially of those who need to play "the blame game" focusing on the Founding Fathers. Those who blame the Founding Fathers confess before God and all witnesses assembled that they haven't got the first stinkin' clue what the law is. It's doubtful that the people who blame the Founding Fathers for today's problems will ever understand the obvious. Those who are wholesale committed to the idea that the thing to do is to blame the Founding Fathers are not expected to confess their intellectual shortcomings and deranged perspectives. Since they're already playing "the blame game," they are suggesting already that they are not "man enough" to accept personal responsibility. Perhaps they will, in time, but this author is definitely not holding his breath. Because there exists the expectation that we'll encounter more and more of that position in the near future, we must discipline our minds with the foundational reality in order not to be infected by their intellectually deranged point of view.

Why does this author expect that position to circulate all the more? Because it's just one more "justification" to be used by the "internationalists" to market their position that Americans need to join the "new world odor." Where the very people (their descendants, actually) who are behind the "funny money" scam can sell the idea that there IS a "Constitution" and that it's the Founding Fathers and their Constitution who created this monster called the "federal government," rather than those who are behind the "funny money" scam, then they can benefit all the more from their lies and deceit. They can then sell all the more snake oil, promoting that "the solution" to the problem called the "federal government" is more of the same on a much larger scale via "the new world odor."

It was the banks, very likely under Commission from God, Himself, who sabotaged the Constitutional Convention from the outset. (Who besides God could have blinded those people to the obvious so successfully? Who besides God can possibly have kept this nation blind to that same obvious problem for 230+ years, now?) It was the influence of the banks' agents provocateur who had infiltrated that Convention that prevented that group from producing the contemplated system of government.

And, yet, in our present reality, if we're in the mode of looking somewhere, anywhere, other than in the mirror for the source of both our problems and our solutions, then we're not yet understanding the legal mechanism behind our present condition of voluntary bondage.

[Subliminal message: The medium of exchange is the "best evidence" of the choice of law.]

To leave this discussion at this stage is to leave it hanging. All that has happened to this point is a modest overview of the thinking required to understand the problem. Yet, in that thinking is also the solution.

In our present environment, law isn't based largely on principles. The principles are there, of course, but that's not what "governs." What "governs" is semantics. Out of pure self-defense, then, we've got to adjust from thinking in terms of "principle-centered leadership" to terms of "semantics- based control mechanisms."

In the game of semantics, it's critical that we understand, as in internalize, as in change our paradigm regarding, what "federal" means. We've been taught that "federal" means "national" and that "federal" means "constitutional." Those are ideas based on principles, but they are exposed as lies as we come to understand the semantics.

"Federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national," and "federal" most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a "state," "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."

There are two generic types of private obligations: contracts and trusts.

No one goes to jail for mere breach of contract, while mere breach of trust is potentially a felony offense.

This "federal" system is a commercially-created system. It functions commercially against individuals via voluntarily entered into "gotcha agreements" that just happen to be voluntarily entered into by millions of people all over the place.

This "federal" system is not a system that has limits sewn into the fabric of any office. It was not created "by Law." It was created the way all commercial enterprises are created, namely by way of commercial declaration of existence. Who did that? People who may or may not have known that they really weren't legislative office holders. How is a corporation, or a partnership, or a trust created? It's declared into existence. That's it. That's all that it takes. Thus, where a Republic must be created "by Law," i.e., by legislative act that follows a certain procedure, a commercial enterprise is created simply by way of declaring it into existence. A commercial enterprise's policies are not controlled by the acts or the will of the body politic. It's controlled by market forces. The more agreements an enterprise can sucker people into, the more "power" and "control" it has. At the exact same time, until the individual agrees to be regulated, there is no authority to so regulate.

In general, where the intent is to act legislatively, but where that act is in no way legislative, for whatever reason, that hardly means that an entity isn't created. It just means that the entity is created commercially rather than legislatively. Where the evil people figure that fact out before the good people, the evil people may keep the myth of legislative creation alive in order to run the good people right into the ground, thereby acquiring their property commercially.

This present commercial system masquerading as "government" is not a system that care one iota about the will of the sheep, uh, people, being sheered by the scams operating in the name of "government." It's a business, run from the top down, as most businesses are. It's a "for profit" enterprise. It intends to control everything in sight. This present "federal" system is an evil, morally bankrupt, psychologically demented, "Let's raise a middle-finger salute to God!" system that is limited solely by what may be allowed to be agreed to, and by how small an amount of disclosure must be made in order to have an enforceable agreement. The ONLY people on the face of the planet who have kept that system from destroying this nation any faster than it has are the Supreme Court of the United States. Yet, what are they to do when asked to enforce an agreement that satisfies all the requirements of an agreement in the present legal environment?

This present commercial system is "of the banks, by the banks, for the banks." Thus, it's not even really a Nazi-communo-fascist system where "the pigs" are more equal. It's a Nazi-communo-fascist system where "the banks" ("the pigs") are fully in control. But, control of what? Control of writing, promoting, the policies "out there" to be included in the terms of the "gotcha agreements." These banks, and the people who run them, have been "in planning" for this for a long, long time. The Founding Fathers stood their ground against the banksters of their day, fully intending to prevent the spread of commercial/political control by the European (British) banks via the use of "Bills of Credit." It was the banks who benefited from preventing the enactment into Law of that set of concepts that would have stopped in its tracks the practice of using a "fluctuating medium of exchange." And, an objective view of every single war that this country has engaged, "locally" or abroad, has a banking influence at its core. See M.W. Walbert, The Coming Battle. ; .

To understand that "federal" means "federal' is to understand, on the one hand, there there is no "collective" solution to anything. The problem is brilliantly individualized, rendering the solution also to be found at the individual level. It also means to understand, on the other hand, that we have 100% control over both the problem and the solution.

How so? No one has compelled us so sign up for any of the "gotcha agreements." No one. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't!! The banks didn't. The executives, including the presidents, governors, and law enforcement officers didn't. The legislators didn't. The judges sure didn't. The lawyers didn't. The democrats didn't. The republicans didn't. The catholics didn't. The jews didn't. The protestants didn't. The zionists didn't. The muslims didn't. The communists didn't. The abortionists didn't. The pro-lifers didn't. The oil people didn't. The car industry people didn't. The airlines didn't. Etc. Whoever is the "to be blamed today" party or group didn't compel anyone to sign up for any of the "gotcha agreements."

Thus, on the way back out of those, none of those people or groups can prevent our declining to renew any of those "gotcha agreements," either.

To wind up this note, Money, the Law of the Land, and the Founding Fathers all have something in common. Money is the proper implementation of God's Law about our using an honest system of weights and measures. The Law of the Land is the Common Law, the origin of which is Scripture. And, the Founding Fathers applied the Law of the Land, i.e., the Common Law, fulling expecting the Blessings of Liberty to be bestowed upon a nation of people who put God's Law first, which system would tolerate Money and only Money for the discharge of debts.

The present "federal government" exists to defy all of that, even to defy God, Himself.

All constitution-ists are wrong about the law and about our present legal reality. All of them. The worst group of constitution-ists are those who both see a Constitution and that it created the God-defying monstrosity called the "federal government." The group closest to the understanding are those who see parallel systems. There are parallel choices of law; there are not any parallel, simultaneous governmental systems.

The medium of exchange is the best evidence of the choice of law. Where that medium of exchange can't exist under the Law of the Land, the system is based on the Law of the Sea. The present Law of the Sea system is 100% non- constitutional, i.e., 100% commercial.

We should have a race to see which of the Western European bankster-controlled nations will be the first to repent of its "funny money" system and renew its commitment to the exclusive use of an honest system of weights and measures, as the Founding Fathers had intended to implement here, and which we had until the banksters assassinated Kennedy. The banksters are in control where the system is a Law of the Sea system. God is in control where the system is a Law of the Land system.

Harmon L. Taylor Legal Reality Dallas, Texas

noone222  posted on  2010-06-21 19:30:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]