See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: OBAMA DON'T NEED NO STINKIN BIRTH CERTIFICATE:
Source:
Legal Reality
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: Mar 15, 2009
Author: Harmon Taylor (Ex-Lawyer)
Post Date: 2009-03-15 20:59:36 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 685
Comments: 36
15 March A.D. 2009 First Part. This first part is a message to those who are obsessing over the obama-nation's Kenyan (British) nationality. If that's not you, just skip right over the first part and go to the second part. Yes, we're all being lied to about this. You are 100% correct; the obama-nation was not born in Hawaii. Now, please try to understand our legal reality: THERE IS NO ARTICLE II "RESIDENCY" OR "NATIONALITY" REQUIREMENT FOR ANY EXECUTIVE OFFICE IN THE "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT." Welcome to an insidious, wicked paradigm shift. Welcome to the Legal Reality confronting us in our immediate present. Second Part. Let's also address something even more obvious that these obsessing "residence requirement" litigants have clearly never read, much less reflected upon. Let the "constitutionalist" who is an obama-nation "residency requirement" obsessor show me in Article II, or anywhere else in his coveted Constitution for that matter, where a "popular vote" for President of that "constitutional Government" is even a remote part of the PROCESS, and I'll show him a "qualification" requirement from Article II regarding where one is born for that very same governmental system and structure. (And, then I'll show him that it's completely irrelevant, even in that context.) For those who may want to be some better versed in how to address this obsession in their own communities, let's go over some basics, which we may have covered previously, but which will be good to cover, again, for the new members to the list. A mere cursory review of our nation's political history reveals the following. There were NINE, count them, NINE, "elections" that applied the Article II PROCEDURE, the "Electoral College" PROCEDURE. The last "election" that followed the Article II PROCEDURE was in 1820. Starting in 1824, the election process took a turn from which no correction has been made to date. In 1824, for the very first time, there was a concept, and a PROCEDURE, of a "popular vote" for "president." So, we see the rather obvious, stark-naked obvious, question: If the Constitution called for a "popular vote," then why were the first NINE elections, count them, NINE, by way of the Electoral College PROCESS? And, we see instantly the answer. The "popular vote" was never even remotely contemplated as the PROCESS by which any executive office would be filled. Given that no executive office for the "constitutional Government" is to be filled by ANYthing even remotely resembling a "popular vote," we arrive at this fork in the road. Based on the sage advice from Yogi Berra, we're going to take that fork. Either we've got a "constitutional Government," or we don't. Where there's nothing relevant about Article II that applies, then we're NOT dealing with a "constitutional Government." This shocks the conscience, but not because this is intellectually difficult to grasp. The "rebellion" against the reality is the emotional response. Nonetheless, (A) there is nothing relevant about the Electoral College PROCESS, and (B) there is no "residency requirement." So, the logical conclusion is just not that difficult to make. Article II is completely irrelevant to our present legal reality. Said another way, Article II has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the "federal government." What makes the reality so difficult to see is that we have to admit that we've "been had." No one likes to admit "being had." And, most will never allow themselves to see that we've "been had" for 220+ years; hence, as advertised, it IS a wicked paradigm shift. There's a very good reason, then, WHY no court in this system is doing anything to interfere with the obama-nation's candidacy or office-holding. That reason is this: No executive office in the "FEDERAL Government" has any such residency requirement. [It's impossible to have a legitimate governmental system with an illegitimate "money" system.] What the courts understand on this issue that the "residency-requirement"-obsessed "citizenry" don't (yet) understand is that "federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national." "Federal" most certainly does not 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." Let's apply this reality so that those who may also want to help these "residency-requirement"-obsessed people find something constructive to do with their time will have something constructive to share when the topic comes up. It simply doesn't make one bit of difference who is the "president" of the "federal government." Why not? Ok. Can the "president" of the "federal government" compel anyone to enter into any of the private obligations that are used to vex us? No. So, it doesn't matter who holds that office. Until we see the commercial nature of the problem, we won't see the commercial nature of the solution. To see the commercial nature of the problem is to see that there are no political solutions to our commercial problems. This "residency requirement" obsession is just as much "bread and circuses" as the obama-nation's recent head-on collision with Rush Limbaugh. Those who refuse to think and analyze the matter commercially need the political "bread and circuses." So, there's plenty of political "bread and circuses" for the politically minded. Just listen to or read the "news." Plenty of non-solution, "you have no control" information provided there. Political activity matters, and you'll never hear me say otherwise. However, as mentioned again very recently, if that's ALL we do, if that's ALL we focus on, then we're wasting our time, "money," and energy, for if we don't act commercially, nothing is going to change (for the better). So, as the "residency requirement" issue shows up in your neck of the woods, feel free to pull out your pocket-sized Constitution and either read to them or have them read the WHOLE of Article II. And, don't just read it; read it OUT LOUD. Then, ask where the concept of a "popular vote" is anywhere mentioned. If the response is, "Well, it's got to be in there somewhere," feel free to read to them, OUT LOUD, or have them read, OUT LOUD, the entirety of that document. When they see/hear that the Constitution in absolutely, positively no conceivably remote way comes anywhere NEAR even breathing a word about a "popular vote" for the selection process for the Office of President, they're going then also to see that along with the change in PROCESS, there is also a change in the QUALIFICATIONS. Yes, a State may decide the process for selecting the Electors. This is true. Presume a bunch of States. (To presume them is the only way we'll see any of such bodies politic in our present reality.) If the selection process by which Electors are chosen had anything, at all, to do with the Constitution, there'd be no "political party affiliation" requirement. How do we know that there IS such a requirement, We know because we see that the "popular vote" that everyone focuses on doesn't elect Electors. We have no idea who the Electors are. We never even see their names. Their names are not supplied by a ballot. Their names are supplied by a political party. The "popular vote" process doesn't elect Electors. It "elects" a party, who then supplies a "slate" or group of "electors," based on a "winner take all" concept, all of which is 100% dependent upon the "political party affiliation" requirement. So, technically, the "popular vote" process doesn't elect a "president," either. It elects a political party. Given that there is a political party affiliation requirement, what is the obvious problem with such requirement? Remember that IF we're talking about the Office discussed in the Constitution, we're talking about a "constitutional" Office. So, where do we find the Requirements for such an office? There's one and only one place: the Constitution. Now, read the Constitution, top to bottom, with all the alleged Amendments, OUT LOUD, and stop where you find the language that says that the Office of Elector has a political party affiliation requirement. When you get to the end of the Amendments, and run out of words to read, you'll see that there is no such requirement. So, when the obama-nation "residency-requirement"-obsessed faction show me where their coveted Constitution has a "political party affiliation" requirement for the Office of Elector, I'll show them both the Electoral College PROCESS and the "residency requirement" for that very same governmental system. For a State to add a "political party affiliation" requirement to the qualifications for the Office of Elector is for a State to "legislate" an "amendment" to the Constitution. In short, these so-called "constitutionalists" are VERY internally confused. There's a "residency requirement," but none of the rest of this alternative process bothers them, whatsoever. Curious, to say the least. In sum, we're back to asking the exact same question: Are we dealing with a "constitutional Government" or not? The evidence screams at us that the answer is "or not." We don't have Electors, for the STATEs have added a "political party affiliation" requirement. We don't have the Electoral College process, for we're not electing Electors, but rather a unknown, undisclosed group/slate of political-party members. And, as those who understand the reality know, and as those who are being dragged kicking and screaming into the legal reality as we speak are coming to know, there simply is no "residency requirement" for the executive officeholders for the "federal government." The PROCESS we're looking at is not a "constitutional" process. It's a "federal" PROCESS. By way of this PROCESS, it is not a "constitutional" office that is filled; it's a "federal" office that is filled. The relevant qualifications are not the "constitutional" QUALIFICATIONs, but rather the "federal" QUALIFICATIONS, which makes perfect sense, since that office being filled is a "federal government" office, not a "constitutional Government" Office. The "constitutional" system HAS a "residency requirement." Yes. Absolutely Right! But the "federal" system has no such "residency requirement." It is the prayer by those of us at Legal Reality that the obama-nation's "residency-requirement"-obsessed part of our nation survive the shock of the very wicked paradigm shift that comes with realizing that we've "been had" for going on 220 years now. May they be able successfully to direct that time, "money," and energy into something that will do much more good for ourselves and for our nation, i.e., something based on our legal reality. A "federal government" operates "federally." What does that mean? "By private obligation." Those who are no longer interested in financing this scam that calls itself the "federal government" may want to start reading the law of trusts, because "taxpayer" means "fiduciary." We can't change "them." The obama-nation is "in," and that's that. All we can change is us, and that starts with realizing the commercial nature of the mechanisms being used against us. Commercial problems require commercial solutions. Harmon L. Taylor Legal Reality Dallas, Texas
Poster Comment: There ain't no Constitution in the FEDERAL GOVT.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: noone222 (#0)
Yes there is. They just don't honor and obey it.
then the oath presidents take is bogus too. i wonder what Edwin Vieira would think of this.
I'd be interested to know that too. However, I am sceptical of people at news with views. If I were a betting man I'd say that most of them are members of CNP (Council for National Policy), which is in my opinion a right gatekeeper organization that is made up of "the Christian Coalition" types. Their job is to keep the flock from leaving their stall. Sure, they bitch and complain but look to the system to correct itself. They promote "voting" when your vote doesn't count, they promote a CON stitution that doesn't exist in the "FEDERAL SCHEME" of things, and while they continue to bitch about it those RIGHTS we thought were unalienable, are just words on a GD piece of paper. I'd like to add that I don't think everyone at the CNP are evil, even though it is a secret society. Some members are known like Phyllis Schlafly, Stan Monteith, Tim LaHaye, Paul Craig Roberts, Oliver North, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, Joseph Farah, and many more ... the point is they have the same or similar talking points as Devvy Kidd, Alan Stang, and Ed Viera. [I would add Worldnetdaily, and Newsmax to Newswithviews as organs belonging to the same body]. Many of these people may be well intentioned, I think they are, but I also think they have so much invested in their belief system that they cannot afford to address the truth. The truth starts at the complete absence of Constitutional money in the current government. I think it's amazing that we can live our lives without knowing anything much about our own laws. However, it appears that even those that "practice" law find themselves looking desparately for answers these days. It can be stated without ambiguity that the "federal government" operates contrary to or outside of Constitutional LAW, which is where the proper government derives its authority. In order for another government to operate its authority without meeting Constitutional requirements it must achieve your consent, and does so through contracts, agreements, licenses and permits. Often times in a court setting wherein people claim sovereignty etc. (common patriot bullshit) they are asked whether they have a SSN or a Driver License. When they answer in the affirmative they are assumed to be FEDERAL citizens. The "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" is purely commercial and derives its authority by contract and abuses its authority through mass ignorance promoted through a variety of systems including the educational system and the mass media. Like the post explains ... popular vote is not Constitutional. The author was a trained legal authority until he discovered the truth while acting as the appellate defense attorney for Tim McVeigh. He describes the awakening as a wicked paradigm shift and it certainly is just that, wicked. The "FEDERAL SYSTEM" exists in a completely separated dimension than the Constitutional Government people continue to imagine they exist in. I suppose if everyone wants to keep listening to Larry Becraft and Tommy Cryer they can take their chances in a FEDERAL COURT. Not that it will matter much when the tyranny becomes open and blatant (moreso than at the present), and that's the purpose being served by the CNP, WND, NEWSMAX and NEWSWITHVIEWS, to maintain the masses belief system in something that has never really existed during their lifetimes. Because if they can maintain a large majority while dumbing down the rest as they come on the scene, then when the time comes for open tyranny everyone will have been trained to accept it. (You know, like pre- emptive war, torture, rendition, enemy combatants, sneak and peak invasions, check points, roadside DNA extractions, and etc.,
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
i wonder if these people even know? it's hard for me to believe folks like Devvy, Vieira, and Greg Evensen are willing tools. think about how few patriots talk about the commercial aspect. i wonder if they have never heard it or, if they have, think it's patriot myth.
An interesting piece of sophistry. One minor problem: The Federal Government of the United States was established by and derives its legitimate authority solely and only from the Constitution. The Constitution is what establishes the Federal Government and its enumerated powers are derived by delegation from the people and the States via that device called The Constitution of the United States. True the Federal Government routinely and flagrantly ignores the Constitution, but what that does is make their actions illegitimate when they do so. That does not change the reality of the current scene i.e., a corrupt and morally rotted government but it does underscore its reality. Barak Obama to be President under the Constitution, and thus legitimately President, must fulfill the Constitutional requirements for the office. He does not and therefore regardless of the twists and turns of logical evasion he is not President; he is merely a poseur.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
whoops..didn't mean to delete... original post: Disinfo? By a lawyer? Surely you jest. LOL :)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace ALAS, BABYLON
Correct, he does need one. Preferably a non-stinking one. The author of this tripe probably doesn't even realize the title says the opposite of what is being argued in this very long winded attempt to make the sheeple think that it is OK for a foreigner to be President of the USA. The title is proof he wasn't thinking clearly when he wrote it. I hope no sheeple buy this lie.
God is always good!
Why would they answer? Do they think "the court" has "jurisdiction" over them and has the authority to demand answers to anything? Is it not the prosecutor's job to convict the person and present any evidence needed to do so? if there is a prohibition on involuntary servitude how could someone be a 'citizen' without purposely and knowingly volunteering for it?
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. I don't think all of them know, but some must know. Honest down to earth people can't be expected to see through so much fraud especially when they've been lulled to sleep by the educational process that places so much importance on perception (George Washington chopping down the cherry tree) and little on actual circumstance or practical reality (Americans being held prisoner without habeus corpus). I knew when I posted the e-mail authored by former attorney, Harmon Taylor, that there'd be doubters, especially amongst those that haven't spent enough time being wailed upon by the judicial system. Those having experienced the continuous violations of law and CONstitutional principles have also witnessed their friends being carried off to federal prisons for "standing upon their rights". Most often these people have waived their RIGHTS in order to obtain a benefit, and don't realize it until it's too late or maybe not at all. (This is why jury nullification is deemed ILLEGAL, when it was common practice under a CONstitutional government at the earliest stages of the country and Supreme Court Justices admitted openly that the people had the right to judge the facts AND THE LAW.) It is very difficult to look the reality square in the face when it turns EVERYTHING one has been taught to believe on its head. It is too much for some people to wrap their head around because it destroys what little comfort zone they have been able to retain for themselves, but this will change as things get progressively worse, their retirements and savings are diminished, their houses open to FEDERAL inspection without warrant, their ability to even grow a simple GARDEN or buy raw milk destroyed, etc. Kinda like finding out there ain't no Santa Claus. In any case the instances of outright violation of CON stitutional Maxims are too numerous to count or ignore, but the 2nd Amendment brings the issue to easy analysis. For 200 plus years there didn't appear that any question about this "RIGHT" existed. The war of Northern (FEDERAL) aggression was fought on both sides by men utilizing their own firearms in most instances. [Noting that these men weren't drafted out of the National Guard / State militias]. I suppose a myriad of reasons can be supplied as to where, when, why, and how all of this could have happened without anyone speaking out. Truth to be told, they have been speaking out, and just like Harmon Taylor, or Gerald Celante have recently stated, "the republic has been at war with the banking powers since its inception". The incremental approach allowed for minor changes to occur without much notice while at the same time monied interests were ever present bribing, cajoling, and black-mailing trusted officials. The coup was completed by and through the Social Security Insurance Scheme because it caused the formerly independent states to submit to "FEDERAL" authority because the people wanted the security of an old age program, and SIGNED up for it. The SS Program is FEDERAL, and once the vast majority were participants, the FEDS treated everyone as if they had elected to be federal citizens. [And, as much as it may piss some people off to see so many dual citizens appointed to high level positions in the FEDERAL government, nearly everyone in America is a dual citizen, state, STATE and FEDERAL.] People can choose to argue amongst themselves as is generally the case, or they can do something to change their condition, by changing themselves. I think a lot of people will gladly ignore their loss of personal freedoms in order to keep their personal conveniences. The current attack upon Obama's birth records has been scuttled by Judges denying the Plaintiff's for lack of "STANDING". Aren't they Americans ? Why wouldn't they have "STANDING" to sue ? Don't these CON stitutional attorneys know whether or not they have "STANDING" to bring suit ? Gimme a break, over 20 suits have been brought and all have been dismissed ... are all of these attorneys simpletons ? Let's ask Edwin Vieira ! (I'd actually like to see Taylor and Vieira get together for purposes of ironing out whatever issues they can. Edwin Vieira understands law and money and should be capable of putting the pieces together. And the question turns on whether a CON stitutional government can remain when its Con stitution hasn't been amended to allow for a variance in monetary substance, yet operates in violation of its founding principles while appearing to claim CON stitutional authority to do so. (HJR 192 was "public policy" and did not amend the Constitution). This brings me to the more recent "Sovereignty" resolutions being filed by STATES. This too is a joke, and clearly demonstrates that the STATE LEGISLATORS aren't aware of their own FEDERAL status. While I wish these well intentioned folks the best, they are pissing in the wind. They are SUBJECTS of the FEDERAL STATE, the one that exists in the FEDERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE, not one of the several states. Here's the deal, wherever UNCON stitutional money operates (commercial paper), commercial law rules the day. It's that simple. The only reason it seems difficult to comprehend is because of the massive amount of propaganda expended to keep the slaves from recognizing their enslavement and revolting. As long as everyone is content to live in this dream state it will remain. The positive side of this nightmare is that people are waking up, asking questions and demanding answers. The Globalists are trying to ease us into a system that violates everything we've been taught to believe in, and many very good people with the best intentions are determined to recover their "GOD given" rights, while they flip GOD off by ignoring admonishments against unequal weights and measures instead choosing to worship a government god that cannot be seen as anything less than a brutal murderer.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
I know the author's intention and it is not to make people / sheeple think it's OK for this communist baby-killer to be the President of the united States of America. His intention is to have the people recognize the difference between the original organic government, and the FRANKENSTEIN FEDERAL CORPORATION that has been created to supplant it. It is impossible for Barak Hussein Obama to fill the office of President in the (organic) CON stitutional government, but the FEDERAL U.S. Inc. has no such requirement.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
(a). It originated as the Constitution for the united States. (b). The identification of related entities has changed over time ... the State of Texas has become THE STATE OF TEXAS. That does not change the reality of the current scene i.e., a corrupt and morally rotted government but it does underscore its reality. (c). The question then becomes are the persons involved simply corrupt or has the system been corrupted ... or whose reality is real or legal ??? The entire system that operates today does so as a LEGAL FICTION or ARTIFICIAL CREATION. Why do people prefer "pretend" to real ?
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
One minor problem: The Federal Government of the United States was established by and derives its legitimate authority solely and only from the Constitution. Not sophistry but reality. The government of the united States of America was established by and derived its power from the Constitution. On this we agree. The united States operated upon common-law and a gold/silver monetary standard as called for under the Constitution. The current imposters really don't even do a very good job of hiding their fraud, it's just that Americans are basically a bunch of pussies that need to be lied to all of the time ... Americans prefer the convenience of fraud to the strict liability required of a free people. They choose to INVENT ARTIFICIAL entities to fill their plastic lives with false security so they can feel like they've INSURED themselves from failure ... which appears to be a lost cause from my viewpoint as the society is bankrupt in every sense of the word. This vile creature ypu choose to call the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is a clone, it has the outward appearance of a free people (kinda) but has completely forfeited its soul. The FEDERAL RESERVE is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, its laws are commercial not common-law. Crime is dictated by the kings statutes not the injured party, and judgment is rendered summarily because that's what has been agreed to through contracts, licenses, permits and assorted admissions made by the continually sheared sheep. If what we have today was created and operates soley upon the Constitutional authorities then why must executive orders issue ad nauseum ? People wishing to pretend SHOULD go to Disneyland or Universal studios.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
so would i! outstanding and very informational post, doug. thank you.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. haaaaaaaaaaaahehehe!
That is every bit as good and just as real as that pos Obama had his disciples to post online.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I agree about the value, but yours made me laugh, not gnash my teeth. : )
lol!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Indeed I did and thank you!
You are most welcome.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yeah, I saved it! There will be more than a few chances to stick the Obama Offishal Birth Certificat for HAWAII to some of his "Changelings". It'll be for my own amusement because they won't see it.
LOL!!! That reminds me of some of the "hit and run" posters here--the ones who believe the government's insane conspiracy theory about 9/11 and love Obama. They don't all fit both categories but the ones I am thinking of (and you know who they are) fit one or both.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I have several pictures of (and about) the Obamasiah. You may like some of these. De Obamasiah bringin' dat bitch thru Afganystan. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Great stuff and thanks again!
De nada (literally translated means "of/for nothing" but also means you're welcome).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Buenos Snowshoes, AhMygow! "Los espiritus pueden conocer nuestros mas reconditos pensamientos" "The ghosts can know our innermost thoughts"
With a collection of hits like that it's time you put out an album. :)
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Otay, buckwheat.
LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. A fine thing ye be sayin' laddie. Maybe I can do just that and buy that Buick we were talking about on t'other thread. Or a model of one (if they would let me make payments, lol).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Wow, I damned near forgot about the red haired, shamrock kissing faction of the Deffenbach clan.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I don't know how you could be forgettin' that.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.There ain't no Constitution in the FEDERAL GOVT.
#2. To: noone222 (#0)
#3. To: noone222 (#0)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#4. To: christine (#2)
i wonder what Edwin Vieira would think of this.
#5. To: noone222 (#4)
bump
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#6. To: noone222 (#4)
(Edited)
Not that it will matter much when the tyranny becomes open and blatant (moreso than at the present), and that's the purpose being served by the CNP, WND, NEWSMAX and NEWSWITHVIEWS, to maintain the masses belief system in something that has never really existed during their lifetimes.
#7. To: noone222 (#0)
#8. To: Original_Intent (#7)
(Edited)
An interesting piece of sophistry.
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#9. To: noone222 (#0)
OBAMA DON'T NEED NO STINKIN BIRTH CERTIFICATE
#10. To: noone222 (#4)
When they answer in the affirmative they are assumed to be FEDERAL citizens
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#11. To: christine (#6)
i wonder if these people even know? it's hard for me to believe folks like Devvy, Vieira, and Greg Evensen are willing tools.
#12. To: RickyJ (#9)
The author of this tripe probably doesn't even realize the title says the opposite of what is being argued in this very long winded attempt to make the sheeple think that it is OK for a foreigner to be President of the USA.
#13. To: Original_Intent (#7)
One minor problem: The Federal Government of the United States was established by and derives its legitimate authority solely and only from the Constitution. The Constitution is what establishes the Federal Government and its enumerated powers are derived by delegation from the people and the States via that device called The Constitution of the United States.
#14. To: Original_Intent (#7)
An interesting piece of sophistry.
#15. To: noone222 (#11)
(I'd actually like to see Taylor and Vieira get together for purposes of ironing out whatever issues they can. Edwin Vieira understands law and money and should be capable of putting the pieces together. And the question turns on whether a CON stitutional government can remain when its Con stitution hasn't been amended to allow for a variance in monetary substance, yet operates in violation of its founding principles while appearing to claim CON stitutional authority to do so. (HJR 192 was "public policy" and did not amend the Constitution).
#16. To: christine (#2)
Lord Acton
#17. To: James Deffenbach (#16)
#18. To: litus (#17)
Lord Acton
#19. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
#20. To: James Deffenbach (#16)
#21. To: litus, HOUNDDAWG (#19)
Lord Acton
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#21)
Glad you enjoyed it.
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#22)
Lord Acton
#24. To: James Deffenbach (#23)
#25. To: HOUNDDAWG (#24)
Lord Acton
#26. To: HOUNDDAWG (#24)
(Edited)
Lord Acton
#27. To: James Deffenbach (#26)
#28. To: HOUNDDAWG (#27)
Lord Acton
#29. To: James Deffenbach (#28)
#30. To: James Deffenbach (#26)
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#26)
I have several pictures of (and about) the Obamasiah. You may like some of these.
#32. To: HOUNDDAWG (#29)
Buenos Snowshoes, AhMygow!
Lord Acton
#33. To: Dakmar (#30)
With a collection of hits like that it's time you put out an album. :)
Lord Acton
#34. To: James Deffenbach (#33)
A fine thing ye be sayin' laddie. Maybe I can do just that and buy that Buick we were talking about on t'other thread. Or a model of one (if they would let me make payments, lol).
#35. To: CadetD (#31)
Otay, buckwheat.
Lord Acton
#36. To: Dakmar (#34)
Wow, I damned near forgot about the red haired, shamrock kissing faction of the Deffenbach clan.
Lord Acton
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest