At what point will you say you were wrong?, page 2

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

---

you know you need to stop w/ the mad scientist crap ok its old now!

all that take over the world @#$#@ grow up! it's about the ever increasing encrouchment into our personal lives and thier obvious slow erosion of the liberty's that those who came before us fought and died for . including
John Kennedy AND HIS BROTHER jOE!!!! which is more than anybody can say about any any of the creeps running around washington today.

Well alright, people who believe in the New World Order, believe in just that, an new, planet-wide control system. In order to do that, there would in fact have to be an individual or group of individuals trying to impose their will upon, the world. So in order to instill a NWO, there has to be some form of taking over that world to instill a new order upon it.

As for the eroding liberties, there never was a Libertarian Utopia in America, ever. The liberties you have now are in fact much the same if not broader than what you had 100 years ago. I don't really see how the Kennedy's fit into this, but I would agree with you there Joe, John and Robert were all great men, great leaders in their fields and worthy of admiration and respect.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

---

its a violation of the logan act. " [edit] Text of the Logan Act
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)."

source: wiki

also they use goverment funds for thier travel, lodgings, security detail ect. and that is also against the law when not acting on approved goverment buisness.

Originally posted by krill
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

---

its a violation of the logan act. " [edit] Text of the Logan Act
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)."

source: wiki

also they use goverment funds for thier travel, lodgings, security detail ect. and that is also against the law when not acting on approved goverment buisness.

Well now according to this act as it directly applies, a sitting member of the US Government would actually have more legal recourse to talk about issues to foreign nationals than say you or I would. In fact according to this act, me talking to say my friend in Kent city government about disputes within our country would land me in jail. Whereas a sitting member of government could argue that they were acting on behalf of the US as a whole when discussing issues.

On the whole, this law is not enforced as it is written, this much is clear from the fact that I sat in a bar in China with politicians there and talked about disputes with the US election in the year 2000 without being arrested upon my return. I'm sure many others of you have done something similar.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by ProjectJimmy]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

---

just cuzz their seated dos not mean that their meeting was officialy approved. with out acthual approval which leads a trail for foia it is still a violation of the law. ofcourse its not being enforced the people breaking it are the ones who are suppose to enforce it. you realy think they would just jail them selves and face corruption charges as well for commiting a crime most people dont know is a crime, at a meeting most people never heard of ? a meeting with a almost total msm black out? yeah right!

whats the actual law that states its illegal for them to meet in secret?

Logan act is the one that its illegal for everyday citizens to engage in foreign relations.

In general, the Act is intended to prohibit American citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...


george washington said we should leave everyone else alone, cus they will just bring us down...
"Europe has a set of primary interests, which have to us none, or very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities. "Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" (George Washington's Farewell Address)


and the open meeting laws with a link about dhs ignoring it for real id
www.cato-at-liberty.org...

Violating government-access laws rarely results in punishment for the offenders By Katrina Hull
Public officials who wrongly deny access to open meetings and records face a broad range of consequences, although being slapped with a whopping fine or thrown out of office or into jail are rare. The lack of serious sanctions for secretive behavior leaves many access advocates throwing up their hands.
A recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling is evidence of a reluctance to enforce sanctions for violating open records and meetings laws. After championing the "public policy of making public records open for any person" in one breath, the court's next breath was sweetest to the state agency that unlawfully denied access to public information.

www.rcfp.org...


as to your claim that crossing state lines isnt a problem... guess what... used to be.

It also establishes extradition between the states, as well as laying down a legal basis for freedom of movement and travel amongst the states. Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process.

en.wikipedia.org...

and if trampling the bill of rights wasnt enough, you could add that to the list later down the road


[edit on 6/23/2009 by mahtoosacks]

ooooo bam... here we go. found it... it is open meeting law.

you gotta tell us you are meeting, even if its people here.

"City official knew secret meeting on Javanon was illegal"

The earlier meeting was illegal because a quorum of the board -- four of its six members -- got together to discuss the case without notifying the public.

When The Courier-Journal asked about that meeting later in April, Cash said there was "no intent" to violate the open meetings law.

But when he first proposed the meeting, according to the e-mails, he suggested splitting the board into two groups "to avoid the public notice question."

In a statement, Mayor Jerry Abramson called the open meetings violation "unacceptable."

www.courier-journal.com...


edit adding the actual law

www.law.cornell.edu...

§ 552b. Open meetings
How Current is This?
(a) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “agency” means any agency, as defined in section 552 (e) [1] of this title, headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, a majority of whom are appointed to such position by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and any subdivision thereof authorized to act on behalf of the agency;
(2) the term “meeting” means the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, but does not include deliberations required or permitted by subsection (d) or (e); and
(3) the term “member” means an individual who belongs to a collegial body heading an agency.
(b) Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this section. Except as provided in subsection (c), every portion of every meeting of an agency shall be open to public observation.

with of course exceptions...

(c) Except in a case where the agency finds that the public interest requires otherwise, the second sentence of subsection (b) shall not apply to any portion of an agency meeting, and the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) shall not apply to any information pertaining to such meeting otherwise required by this section to be disclosed to the public, where the agency properly determines that such portion or portions of its meeting or the disclosure of such information is likely to—

(1) disclose matters that are
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy and
(B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552 of this title), provided that such statute
(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
(B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) involve accusing any person of a crime, or formally censuring any person;
(6) disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information would
(A) interfere with enforcement proceedings,
(B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,
(C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
(D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source,
(E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or
(F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;
(8) disclose information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;
(9) disclose information the premature disclosure of which would—
(A) in the case of an agency which regulates currencies, securities, commodities, or financial institutions, be likely to
(i) lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities, or
(ii) significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution; or
(B) in the case of any agency, be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action,
except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply in any instance where the agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final agency action on such proposal; or
(10) specifically concern the agency’s issuance of a subpena, or the agency’s participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the agency of a particular case of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in section 554 of this title or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

so i guess if you claim one of these then you can do what you want. i guess thats why there were soo many executive orders from bush...

[edit on 6/23/2009 by mahtoosacks]

reply to post by miragezero

---

Remember NWO isn't OUR term it is there's.

I'll admit I was wrong when the privately owned banks beginning in England in 1694, and now dominating the United States, along with every developed nation step down. The same bankers which have financed most of the world's wars in the last three hundred years, and enslaved nation upon nation; step down and apologize for nearly bringing humanity to destruction just for their own ends.




[edit on 23-6-2009 by Xtinguish]

reply to post by Xtinguish

---

yeah and ill do it when the dead presidents come and take their quotes back...


just do a search on google for .... federal reserve quotes

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws"
— Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

this guy is really something..

He was apprenticed to the banking firm of Jakob Wolf Oppenheim in Hamburg, returning to business in Frankfurt in 1763.[7] He became a dealer in rare coins and won the patronage of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Hesse, gaining the title of "Court Factor".[8] Rothschild's coin business grew to include a number of princely patrons, and then expanded through the provision of banking services to Crown Prince Wilhelm, who became Wilhelm IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel in 1785. Business expanded rapidly following the French Revolution when Rothschild handled payments from Britain for the hire of Hessian mercenaries.

By the early years of the 19th century, Mayer Amschel Rothschild had consolidated his position as principal international banker to Wilhelm IX and began to issue his own international loans, borrowing capital from the Landgrave.

In 1806, Napoleon invaded Hesse in response to Wilhelm's support for Prussia. The Landgrave went into exile in Schleswig-Holstein, but Rothschild was able to continue as his banker, investing funds in London. He also profited from importing goods in circumvention of Napoleon's continental blockade.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created."
— Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
— Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
— President Woodrow Wilson


thats awesome... that its finally in. even before it....


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
— Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

"If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations"
— President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836

more interestingly, andrew jacksons tomb says, "I killed the banks" like it was a good thing.... i know it was.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
— James Madison


and really when you get down to it... THERE IS A CONSPIRACY. so when will you finally catch up? think theres no such thing as a military industrial complex???



[edit on 6/23/2009 by mahtoosacks]

Originally posted by krill
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

---

just cuzz their seated dos not mean that their meeting was officialy approved. with out acthual approval which leads a trail for foia it is still a violation of the law. ofcourse its not being enforced the people breaking it are the ones who are suppose to enforce it. you realy think they would just jail them selves and face corruption charges as well for commiting a crime most people dont know is a crime, at a meeting most people never heard of ? a meeting with a almost total msm black out? yeah right!

Hey I resemble that MSM comment heh. First off, you're right we don't cover Bohemian Grove, Tri-Lateral Commission, Council On Foreign Relations or other meetings where we're really not going to get any information out of anyways. Would I love to be a fly on the wall of those places? You bet! However, it's not like if we all stood outside the driveways there and shouted questions at the top of our lungs we'd ever get any answers.

It's just a matter of figuring out how to get answers to the questions. Where and when people like to talk to the press, and those are not places where they do.

That said, the meeting does not need to be "Official" for it to be attended by authorized members of the government. Technically any lawmaker or executive would have authorization, due to their oath of service. They can call it for what it is too, a discussion and informational series of meetings on foreign affairs. It really is just that simple.

reply to post by mahtoosacks

---

Alright let's just go right down your list here shall we? First off Logan Act was covered in my previous posts.

Second, so a single one of the founding fathers thought we should be an isolationist nation. Wow, it lasted all of until Jefferson was in office before people stopped listening to that, some staying power, one election. There have always been people saying the USA should be isolationist, and there is always some international event that pulls us back in, every single time. Be it the Barbary Wars, World War 1, World War 2 or 9-11 it does happen, the world out there cares about us one way or another, so we have to care what they will do about it.

Third, as for your links regarding the open meeting laws, I agree, and the RCFP is a great organization that truly does help out people in my profession quite a bit. Under Obama I am happy to say though that things are actually getting far better with transparency after the phobia that Bush had of the press.

Fourth, regarding your argument on how it used to be harder to cross state lines, please remember that the Articles of Confederation predate the current United States Constitution. the Articles are completely voided by the current document and no longer hold any legal sway at all. We cannot reference them in court cases and we cannot subvert a freedom in the Constitution with anything from the Articles. It legally cannot happen and doesn't even make any sense.

reply to post by miragezero

---

I'm never wrong. However ... on occasion the truth that I'm exposing is delayed in being proven.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

---

actually you are getting things confused.

someone else brought up logan act, and i formally (meaning with sources) showed that logan act has nothing to do with what we are talking about. if you are a citizen, then you cant do anything.

you completely forgot to mention the open meeting law. which i showed ways they could get around it in the exceptions portion.


also you keep going back to how DUH WE CAN CROSS STATELINES, yet i think you didnt even read past that as i clearly said we arent there yet.

passes to cross state lines. cant own guns because of speeding tickets. cant oppose anything the government says without persecution as a terrorist.

these havent happened yet, but doesnt look like it will be far off.

there it is again for you to see.

also to your question about us being an isolationist nation... YES WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE. Your references to WW1 WW2 were really bad, as we were the but of many many jokes for NOT entering earlier!! in fact it took EVENTS to get us into it! such as Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin to get in those!

are you just going around spouting out wrong info on purpose or what, because what i see, you probably could be a msm journalist


also why not trying to address the presidential quotes that have come out over the years. i see you ignored them almost intentionally!

even better....

debunk this



oh yeah.. New world order??? thats got to be fake right?? How silly to believe that!

guess who the UN founders were. hmmm... do i need to learn you on that too?

multiple attempts were made at such a group. A GROUP TO RULE THEM ALL if you will ....

goes back a ways, you might be surprised

[edit on 6/26/2009 by mahtoosacks]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

---

To me you sound about as MSM as they come, i mean come on you have world learders at Bohemian Grove doing mock sacrifices in hoods trying to tap into a power that shouldn't be tapped into, and then the grove releases a photo of a kid strapped to a gerny from one of these things years before and you don't think somethings up with that whole thing???

reply to post by mahtoosacks

---

If it results in less war and more progress for our species and more happiness who cares?

Startling revelations from a Swiss banking insider
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags

Rothschild Speaks: Want\'s One World Currency
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags

A Long Time In The Making and Here\'s The Proof - Thine Eyes and Ears Do not Deceive Thee!!!!
  Posted 14 days ago with 19 member flags

ACTA and You - Important Video - It has Begun
  Posted 13 days ago with 15 member flags

Know Thine Enemy! Iran Warns of Coming Great Event.
  Posted 8 days ago with 12 member flags

MSM Try To Debunk Illuminati Denver Airport Underground Facility
  Posted 19 days ago with 10 member flags

Behind the Swoosh: Your clothes come from this type of sweatshop hell
  Posted 14 days ago with 9 member flags

Google will now access and use all your personal data and browsing history
  Posted 15 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: