It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

page: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I have no idea what this thread is about anymore...

The phrase "jumped the shark" comes to mind.

Still entertaining though.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by Rockpuck
@ Proto: I take off for a few hours and you become the defender of the "Free World"

The "Calvary" has arrived!

Do you understand that the Federal Government has been bankrupt since 1931?

No, it has not..

Hmmm...then why would Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) have this entry in the Congressional Record...

United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free
and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)
"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held
legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a
"beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the
federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties,
assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to
the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United
States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any
other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral
and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the
federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private
property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against
the un-payable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal
territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit
organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been
transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal
roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no
rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the
tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the
guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

I started a thread covering this sometime ago...

Welcome to The Real Matrix: Time for The Red Pill?

Here is IMHO the timeline I constructed...

And concerning the 13th and all following Amendments...

The Original Thirteenth Amendment

Concerning the "us Corporate Citizen"...

We the people are Sovereign! You the citizens are not.

The Constitution of The United States of America and it's public acts, the Constitutions and public acts of each of the respective states, and all de facto counterparts, apply only to citizens, residents, persons and the like - artificial persons representing the government officials, agents and employees of each level of governments, and;

a "person" "resident" or "citizen" of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights and all statutes, code, ordinances and by-laws of the United States and of all States and Municipalities refers to an artificial entity, and;

all law of the United States and respective States applies only to artificial persons, and those sworn to uphold these laws, and;

The United States and all governments and courts on the land commonly known of as United States of America are corporations, and have no authority over sovereign men and women on the land, and;

The US Code and State Codes, are commercial law governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and;

for something to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States it must be an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction pursuant to the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America, and;

that the term 'citizen' as defined in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is the term used to denote the political status of the artificial entity of government employee, and;

A citizen is an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as per the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution for the United States, and is also subject to those corporate state entities which have contracted with the United States, and;

Oh and concerning Income Taxes...

The Income Tax is Illegal

This is the SECOND doc in a string of about 37 regarding the
Income Tax, How it was illegally forced upon us, the collusion of various
nation banks, including The Bank of England, the Banks of Europe, the Banks
of the USA that make up the Non-Government organization known as the Fed and
the bankers themselves dedicated to making this a Socialist Nation. As David
Rockefeller reportedly said in 1973 when he and others formed the Trilateral
Commission, "We will have this a Socialist Nation by the end of the year
2000." Well, with the help of our past Communist President, he damned well
nearly did it. If Comrade Gore had been elected, it would be now! The last
doc in this series is a plan that was presented to President Bush when he
visited Florida recently. It was put directly into his hands. He has not
acted upon it. We The People must initiate a campaign of letters, faxes,
e-mails, and phone calls to him and others in our otherwise corrupt
government letting them know of our displeasure. For God and Country, Chet.

Sorry if this all "seems" off-topic, but, IMHO when speaking of how our Government is failing us, one must see it for what it truly is...

And...for any interested in reading a lengthy post...


I commend you on your Great Work. While I have gone under many names and played many games, I am impressed. Did you know that the Matrix movie was based upon one of my own orders?

It is from The Matrix, the Black Book, and it's Reference Guide of the NTSS--- PMP % tt IOI, NTSS, BOSD, et al.

Solution: There are many ways to be many people at many times. What you struggle with here is not an event of identity or of conscience, but, one of Contract. Pure and simple. Do you fear shirking off Names and numbers? If you are under de facto rule because of such things and you shed them as though a shirt, the Contract holds no authority. It becomes NULL and VOID as a legally forged instrument. How to overcome the dilemma of paying your Bills or signing Traffic tickets which incorporate you can be easily overcome. Write in sign and initial that the name is to appear as follows in all accounts, records, bills, and reciepts or Statements, and sign it in signatory as such as well, as either of the form JOHN: DOE or John of the family of Doe. YES Write your name in all capitals in the former form, and do not ever forget the colons. This subjects you to C. L.
MUCH MORE at Link...

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Hx3_1963]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The political in-fighting has been continuous, and your right, all they want to do is undermine and destroy Obama. But I ask the question.

Would things have been different with McCain in office? Would democracts have acted the same if the tables were turned?

I would assume yes.

I have to say, Keeper, I don't think that's the case.

Democrats would have opposed McCain & the milf, sure, because their policies are largely diametrically opposed to policies as the Democrats would write them.

But not just because "They won, we lost and now we need to destroy them for it."

I don't recall ever seeing the Democrats behaving like that - blindly opposing the other side automatically. If anything, the Democrats have a history of at least trying to get compromises on issues, to get something that neither side might necessarily be 100% in favor of, but which at least addresses the wishes of both sides.

The GOP, on the other hand, was trying even before Clinton got in to tear him down; when they lost the 96 election they sent Starr on a fishing expedition, and the best they could come up with was that he lied about getting a blow job, which they tried to impeach him for. If they did that with every little, non-policy affecting bit of bull, no president would ever last more than four days to a week, tops.

When Limbaugh did that GOP meeting, he finally confirmed what has been pretty apparent for the last twenty+ years - that when the Republicans talk about compromise, they don't mean that each side gets something it wants.

They mean, you roll over, bare your throat, give us a little of what we want now, a little more later, and a little more after that, so in the end we get everything; and in return we won't just take it all all at once.

This isn't politics as usual. This is scorched earth. This is, we want what we want, and we don't care how we get it.

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Nightflyer28]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Just wondering, but if you haven't done so already, have you considered submitting that, as an article to a major newspaper or something?

I think reports like this really need more widespread attention than it'll get on ATS.

NYT, USA Today, Google news, whatever. Some major online news organization that gets widespread attention on a daily basis.

The people who support these people (against their best interests, in my view) are already making a big splash in the news.

I think that as many people as possible on both sides need to see reports like this.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
I think that as many people as possible on both sides need to see reports like this.

Digg it!

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:44 AM
For people like HXR-13 and myself, and others who enjoy or feel compelled to scratch and then dig deeper than the surface of these matters here is some food for thought.

Skeptic Overlord’s assessment of the state of the spectacle in Washington is absolutely correct on the surface.

(a.) Lobbyists highly influence the process.
(b.) Partisanship makes the process a less than efficient one.

Yet what came first? Did the chicken come first or did the egg come first.

It is rumored that the world’s second oldest profession is prostitution. It could not be the first oldest profession because someone had to make some money or something of value first to pay the prostitute.

Think of your representatives in Washington as prostitutes for in reality with the lobbying system and that of patronage that is how our representatives’ function; they are paid to provide pleasure for their clients.

Now what is a Lobbyist? Most often the Lobbyists are part of a corporation that specializes in Lobbying. We have come to see them in this thread for the intrusive thing they are.

Yet who do the Lobbyists work for ultimately? The corporations that hire them, the lobbyists are in essence highly paid bagmen and go betweens carrying payment to the political prostitutes for their corporate Masters.

What does that mean? It’s not the lobbyists that are the problem it is the corporations that are the problem.

Eliminating the lobbyists who in essence appear to be the political prostitute’s clients does not eliminate the prostitution of politics.

It eliminates the bagmen and the go betweens who put a somewhat innocuous face on the world’s oldest profession of what is essentially selling personal favor.

The congress is essentially a group of lawyers writing laws for lawyers. It is not what our founding fathers wanted. For in reality it is nothing but officers of the court, writing statutes, codes and laws for officers of the court, to be used in the court. It is a dictatorial process at that point.

While we often focus on the laws that congress passes that effect our liberties or provide us with goods and services or tax us, or determine our national direction in the ways of wars and alliances, most of the laws passed by congress do not affect us in such direct ways but affect the corporations and the lawyers.

John Edwards made a small but sizable amount of money as an Attorney representing the little guy in lawsuits against corporations. Yet for all the millions he made in that fashion it is just a drop in the bucket to where the real money is in the legal field. Lawsuits are lucrative, criminal law is semi-lucrative, what enriches lawyers by bestowing them or their firms with fabulous wealth though are mergers and acquisitions.

Mergers and acquisitions can in the cases of the biggest corporations taking over other huge corporations lead to retainers and fees in the tens upon tens upon tens of millions of dollars. By 1960 some of the legal families who specialize in this type of practice had amassed hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in fortunes, that like most incredibly wealth people they tuck into trusts while the business just keeps on racking it up.

What are mergers and acquisitions? In essence it’s the vehicle a corporation keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more dominating and more and more controlling of the market place in the process.

Mergers and acquisitions and the legal fees attached to them might not seem to mean much or matter to you, but when RJR Reynolds takes over Nabisco and hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees change hands, what do you think happens to the price of a box of Triscuits? It goes up, just like your mayonnaise, just like your cigarettes.

The more of the market place any one corporation controls the more they can charge and in essence tax you for life’s goods and necessities. This is called the cost of living but wages rarely go up for the cost of living unless you work for the Government or other huge corporation that routinely give cost of living increases annually to keep pace with the rising cost of living. A rising cost of living always brought on by mergers and acquisitions and attorneys in and out of the government.

If you were to look at the makeup of the board of directors of the fortune 500 companies you would begin to notice that most of the boards have at least a few members that sit on multiple boards of directors. It’s not uncommon to find a person who sits on Coca-Cola’s board also sitting on Pepsi’s board, Coke’s chief competitor! It’s not uncommon to find one or two people that sit on Exxon/Mobil’s board, also sitting on Chevrons, and Shell’s!
It’s not uncommon to see those same people sitting also on the board of Citicorp or Bank of America! If you look real closely many of them also either serve in the President of the United State’s Cabinet or Administration in some capacity or did in the near recent past! This is how the corporate government all ties together.

It is typically a lawyer who selects a slate of other lawyers to run for office. They control the process of who you get to vote for in this way. The big money legal community those people who specialize in big money mergers and acquisitions dedicated to making the corporations consolidate and get bigger and bigger and more dominating are a relatively small community that know and face each other in this process in court rooms and board rooms.

The main intent is to get the people into office that can facilitate the process of these mergers and acquisitions, ruining the independent and small businessman who pays a living wage and driving him out of an increasingly priced fixed market. In the process robbing shareholders of value and equity is preferred! Screw the little person!
The goal is as always the Council for Foreign Relation’s (Rockefeller’s) agenda of concentrating as much of the wealth in as few hands as possible for ultimate control over the world’s money supply and infrastructure which is vital to your way of life as a citizen.

The partisan sniping and infighting seems real but in reality it is like the lobbyists themselves. They are both a way to provide smoke and confusion for the eyes of the citizen who can’t understand that the ultimate product of the political infighting and the lobbying is what those very few privileged Corporate Powers want, and in fact are dictating behind the scenes to the people the do select and elect by allowing you to participate in a process they have already rigged. The candidates promise you one thing for your vote, the candidates promise their John’s and benefactors the people who fund them and groom them and then ultimately feed them their agenda once in office in return for the lucrative opportunity to serve in position of power an entirely different thing. Of course that often causes your candidate to have to renege on promises made to you and to cross party lines in order to do what their real bosses want. So the smoke of the political dog and pony show is used through the lobbyists and through the political infighting so you won’t every quite connect, why a Congress controlled by the Democrats and a Senate Controlled by the Democrats and a White House controlled by the Democrats won’t deliver on the promises that they made to you as citizen voters. The spectacle of the other guy in this case the Republicans screwed it up, aided by a lesser extent to the Lobbyists screwed it up. Ultimately you will accept that, but in reality nothing was screwed up as what you really got at the end of the day was really the intention from the beginning.

It’s all about keeping your fantasy of representative democracy alive instead of the reality of a Corporate run Presidential Dictator Ship engaged in a slow, calculating, and deliberate process of placing all wealth and infrastructure and the power that goes along with controlling it, in fewer and fewer hands. Corporate acquisitions and mergers is the vehicle that they use to do that, because it is all about the corporation, and not the citizen.

It is a government almost entirely of lawyers for lawyers and the corporation in many ways is the Court that they are all officers of and serve.

The lobbyists in fact are not the chicken or the egg, but simply the ranch hand who disperses the corn and feed.

The corporations are the chicken, and congress is the egg.

The corporations are the John, the Congress the prostitutes that give them pleasure.

It’s all tightly controlled, tightly scripted not by the lobbyists who simply put a public face and spectacle on it, not by the parties who simply put a public spectacle and face on it, but by the Corporations and their highly skilled attorneys.

It is a system that all boils down to a matter of law. Law is what dictates how the system works which is why they control the process of what laws are made and for whom and for what purpose.

There are many different versions of history, most of them false, just like the perspectives. Real history is in fact in the law, the law being the treaties, and documents, and statutes and cannons that mark the changes and shifts in the law, who they benefited, why, when and where will give you a much more accurate understanding of history and a more accurate understanding of history will give you a more accurate understanding of the present. You can not know where you are if you don’t know where you are is and how you got there.

The main stream media is not the law. The text books you read in school are not the law. The magazine articles, opinion editorials and encyclopedias and web sites are not the law. The law is a sacrosanct thing written in black and white in treaties, accords, resolutions, constitutions, statutes and cannons. That is where you will find the real history. A history often spoken in a dead language called Latin.

[edit on 14/8/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Excellent post PT, and I agree with a lot of what you said. I also believe the USA is being used as a staging point for TPTB to press their agenda toward a one world government. Hopefully you've read my previous contributions.

I still don't agree with not paying taxes, but that is a minor point.

Were I think we don't agree, and I've heard this from many others, is the theory that we are being divided on purpose in order to maintain control. What I think is happening is that there is an outside influence in the Democratic side, and an internal conservative group internally namely the Republicans. They are also backed but by a different group whom I refer to as the MIC or military industrial complex which I'm sure you know who they are.

I think there are two main groups battling for control in this country and the two are divided politically and using every means to get public support. They need the public support in order to get what they want, so I believe we still have some control over our destiny, but the choice is between two evils.

You seem to be very well informed and I believe we have more in common than we don't.

Good day.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The congress is essentially a group of lawyers writing laws for lawyers. It is not what our founding fathers wanted. For in reality it is nothing but officers of the court, writing statutes, codes and laws for officers of the court, to be used in the court. It is a dictatorial process at that point.

Sorry but this does sound wrong. The Founding Fathers defined the Congress as a law making body. You seem to be confused about this and find fault with the Congress actually making laws. Application of laws is indeed what jurisprudence does, and courts are one of the venues where such application happens. So for all the rhetoric, there is little sense in that paragraph of yours.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by Hal9000

Were I think we don't agree, and I've heard this from many others, is the theory that we are being divided on purpose in order to maintain control.

People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

What I think is happening is that there is an outside influence in the Democratic side, and an internal conservative group internally namely the Republicans.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

I think there are two main groups battling for control in this country and the two are divided politically and using every means to get public support.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete actions, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.

Hmmm...strangely familiar, *almost* word for word, but, your final interpretation is a polar opposite of what is actually suggested in this "Manifesto"...

The Bankers' Manifesto of 1892

The above was taken from the "Banker's Manifest", for the private circulation among leading bankers only, taken from the "Civil Servants' Year Book, "The Organizer" of January, 1934. The Banker's Manifesto ties in with U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (1934), to wit:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere "user" and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

The following is quoted from John Prukop of the Coalition of a Constitutional Washington:

The "plan" is to control all resources, human and natural. The control is not by elected public officials, but by a self-appointed oligarchy. This is born out by reading the details of Article 21 and 39 of the "Convention On Biological Diversity." This treaty declares there are no reservation of rights. Article 21 mandates that three international organizations, the UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank, will direct and control "the policy, strategy, programme priorities and eligibility criteria relating to access to and utilization of resources" in each member country.

The Convention on Biological Diversity

Article 21. Financial Mechanism

Article 39. Financial Interim Arrangements

Sorry for the Re-Post all, but, when reading that post, the similarity's were just so striking, I couldn't resist...

(And yes...I know this "Manifesto" has never been proven to actually exist, being it was removed from all Library's, including that of the Congress, but, if not, it sure sounds like someone stole a fictitious "Play Book" and ran with it...) :shk:

And in a actual related Article...

Lobbyists Total 3,300 on Health-Care Issue, or Six for Every U.S. Lawmaker

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Hx3_1963]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:33 PM
Thanks S O...

I think this thread brings to light what I have been grasping at for a long while.
What is interesting is the way this is being spun, all of it...
First of all it, has been very clear for me that the desire for absolute failure by our partisan conservative brothers is of the same make as the rhetoric pursued during the campaign.
As a musician I can't easily detect the key of this tune - "DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT" - Tis the same key as "flip flopper", "terrorist lover", "unamerican". "he's,he's an Arab? -! -???". All the same songs...

The intent should be very clear when propelled by such simple manipulation (much like IRAQ I might add) victory of GOP agenda which ='s victory of corporate agenda ='s consolidation of OIL markets, sales of weapons or in this case maintaining FINANCIAL footing.

IT IS CLEAR THE HEALTHCARE/DRUG INDUSTRY FEELS THREATENED - we all know industry does not have a "LIFE" - therefore we all should be intelligent enough to recognize that their perceived threat is loss of PROFIT.

Ultimately this "American REVOLUTION II" is a sham - "Smaller Government" will only invite in more PRIVATE interests which is at the heart of failure of government. As RR Conservative ideology dictates such an outcome...

I realize being skinned alive is always more pleasant when it is done compassionately.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The congress is essentially a group of lawyers writing laws for lawyers. It is not what our founding fathers wanted. For in reality it is nothing but officers of the court, writing statutes, codes and laws for officers of the court, to be used in the court. It is a dictatorial process at that point.

Sorry but this does sound wrong. The Founding Fathers defined the Congress as a law making body. You seem to be confused about this and find fault with the Congress actually making laws. Application of laws is indeed what jurisprudence does, and courts are one of the venues where such application happens. So for all the rhetoric, there is little sense in that paragraph of yours.

I can appreciate and empathize with your sentiments my friend. Alas what the founding fathers ultimately attempted to do per the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution was to found a Republic under Nature’s Law and Nature’s G-d.

Under Nature’s Law the Law gets very simple.

There are but two (2).

(1) Freewill-you always have the right to do what thou will by exercising your choice to do it or think it.
(2) Confusion-you always have the right to be confused about your circumstances and place in the universe.

What the long discarded Constitution attempted to do in theory was to create a government for the people by the people that made it possible to live under Nature’s Law instead of a dictatorial regimes and powers by letting the people be sovereigns in their own right, solve all disputes on a local and state level and then turn to a weak but empowered Federal Government on a national level for disputes that could not be solved on a local or a state level, but only allowing the Federal Government to intervene to the extent that it was weakly empowered to do so that did not violate Nature’s or local State’s laws.

The Federal Government was designed to solve disputes between states not dictate to them. That has long ceased to happen and that is really what the war for States rights (the Civil War) was about. Whether the Federal Government could dictate or whether the Federal Government was relegated to moderating as the founding fathers wished.

When the war for States rights was over, the reconstruction period was a long and difficult punishing period for the States that had stood up for States rights. The Federal Government as a Corporate Government, as a Military and Security Industrial Complex began dictating to States visa vi the unconstitutional Laws it was now creating and imposing them by force or threat of arms. That is not what the founders envisioned or wanted.

One of the reasons the founding fathers wanted no federal income tax was to limit and curb the growth of the Federal Government so it could not grow its power to overstep its constitutional boundaries.

After the Civil War with the Supreme Court understanding its Chief Justice was a hair’s width from being arbitrarily arrested and possibly summarily executed under the suspended writ of Habeas corpus by a tyrannical Lincoln it realized that the Federal Government had the mechanisms in the now standing and continued standing Federal Army that had supplanted States Militias and the Secret Service charged with protecting the President’s person at all costs that the Constitutional Court had no such mechanism of it’s own to impose it’s will because the Office of the Executive and the President and the Federal Army and War and Justice Departments had grown so large during the War that they did not want to relinquish power.

The Constitutional System as the founders had wisely envisioned it as having to be structured to keep a balance of power had been destroyed. The intended greatest power the Natural Human being and the State he lived in was forced to submit to now dominant Federal Power. The Courts lacked the mechanism to enforce what the Federal Government would not allow for and the Federal Government became increasingly run by Presidential Decrees that a weakened Court struck down at its own peril of life and limb.

The de facto illegal congress had replaced the de jure legal congress and became a rubber stamp mechanism for the President that simply would continue to put on a divide and conquer pony show to entice the masses to not do the one thing that needed to be done after the war…

Have a new Constitutional Convention that all States agreed upon and reassert the limits of Federal Power.

The constitution was replaced by Corporate Contract Law and Lawyers barred from office in the original 13th Amendment that had been supplanted rewritten and replaced now as officers of the court and not the people began writing the laws.

The founders intended for people, natural sovereign human beings to formulate their own laws to ensure that they would always be people, natural sovereign human beings living under Nature’s law with a fair and equitable non-intrusive Federal system to act as a last recourse to address disputes between people and states, not to dictate to states and people everything first so there could be no disputing. Which is what has happened, the Federal Government decrees and you must obey.

Corporations were elevated to the status of a person by the 14th amendment in the post reconstruction period giving corporations all the rights of an artificial person but none of the liabilities or responsibilities. People were stripped of their natural sovereign human being status and made property of the state as artificial persons and property of the State and corporation.

This is not even remotely close, not even in the same universe what our founding fathers wanted.

You have a right to be confused about that, you have a right to believe in the confusion presented to you through conflicting versions of spun history, media and hundreds of thousands of confusing laws passed by the Corporate Government.

You have a right to like that system and submit to it under Nature’s Laws.

I have a right to call a spade is a spade is a spade and to not submit to it under Nature’s Laws.

Much of all this body of Law and the real History consigned to the Treaties, Statutes, Codes, and Cannons is in Latin.

Latin is a dead language that only Lawyers and the Clergy speak or completely know and understand.

The real Law that rules the world is in fact all written in or couched in Latin a long dead language for a presumed long dead empire called Rome that dreamed of conquering the entire world and creating a New World Order.

Look at the back of your Money see anything in Latin? Look at the front of your money, does it tell you trust in something not of this Earth? Who interprets that deity not of this earth? The Clergy who speak Latin, who writes and determines the law? The Lawyers who speak Latin, so why do they do all this in a Dead Language?

Because Rome is not dead.

Have you ever heard someone say? “Do you speak the Latin” or “He speaks the Latin”?

This system is not what our founding fathers wanted or purported to anyway.

Caesar though loves it!

Hail Caesar for the bread and circuses he provides. He is benevolent he loves you, but he dictates to you through a Corporate Government how you should live.

Render unto what Caesar which is Caesar’s.

Nature’s law which is not Roman Law dictates you determine what is Caesar’s not Caesar for you.

Roman Law dictates what must be rendered unto Caesar, the corporate dictatorship.

I would love in fact to be confused!

Sadly I am not and much of what I share is not simple theory or conjecture, much of what I share is from first hand interaction with a beast called the Powers that Be.

They are great at paying their bills…with your money…the people are great at giving it to them to do so!

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:39 PM
The 'Founding Fathers' actually didn't like lawyers very much.
They especially didn't like them holding public office.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Well put...

maybe WE are the feed that sustains the chicken?

In more ways then one...

" so let me maintain this idea so you can eat me!

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Under Nature’s Law the Law gets very simple.

There are but two (2).

(1) Freewill-you always have the right to do what thou will by exercising your choice to do it or think it.
(2) Confusion-you always have the right to be confused about your circumstances and place in the universe.

If under (1) I decide to do what's wrong in most people's eyes, then what happens? Are these people complying with the "Natural Law" or denying me my rights under such Law?

I do think the Natural Law is a figment of one's attempt to instill rational on fundamentally irrational.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Under Nature’s Law the Law gets very simple.

There are but two (2).

(1) Freewill-you always have the right to do what thou will by exercising your choice to do it or think it.
(2) Confusion-you always have the right to be confused about your circumstances and place in the universe.

If under (1) I decide to do what's wrong in most people's eyes, then what happens? Are these people complying with the "Natural Law" or denying me my rights under such Law?

I do think the Natural Law is a figment of one's attempt to instill rational on fundamentally irrational.

What you might not understand is that ultimately the Powers that Be the Corporate Government govern themselves and live solely by Nature's Law, they impose their free will and desire of robbing yours.

Nature's Law allows you to dispute that, to hold them to account as a sovereign in other words you have the right to challenge them under Nature's Law for intrudeing and impossing on your liberty and free will.

One of the things that dissapeared after 1861 was something called the 'Duel' the right to throw down the gauntlet and settle disputes of principal by trial of life and death under Nature's Law.

What you don't have the right to do under Nature's Law is simply win because you want to win, or dominate because you want to dominate...
You have a right to die trying, or to kill those who are trying to dominate you outside of your principals and law.

People who fought duels were never charged for murder. Arguments that escelated into fights were death occured were never charged for murder.

Cold blooded assassins were charged for murder.

Nature's Law allows for you to be as dominant or submissive as you wish to be using free will and or confusion or your free will to be confused as to which to do.

Corporate law dictates you must submit. This is the way it is, these people said so, you must comply. Is it agaist your principals to pay to bomb innocent women and children in Iraq? Too bad the law says you must. Is it against your principals to make someone do something they do not want to do and they hurt no one in the process of doign it. To bad the law says you must. Do you want to use a natural herb as a remedy that nature provided? To bad the law says you can't you must comply.

They dominate through laws you get little voice in.

They dominate through convincing you this is a structured and ordered way to live life.

A UNIFORM way for all to live life.

In other words there is no free will, there is the LAW and you MUST submit or you will be MADE to Submit through force.

If the people were really writing the laws that might work, but tell me friend, how many of the over 100,000 laws on the books are you aware of?

If you started today could you learn them all? Even judges and lawyers can't and that's why they study specific areas of the law not all of it.

If you started today all of us could we write over a 100,000 laws?

Can you think of 100,000 things you want a law for?

I can think of two, pretty girls must date me, you must pay for it!

I would be happy with that the other 99,998 sounds like a Christmas Wish List gone mad.

All designed to confuse you and perplex you and to cause you or force you to look to authority for guidance and direction and submit.

Here is a law you will not find in the Codes.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you!

Here is a law you do find on the books. The Golden Rule, he who has the gold sets the rules, and that is exactly what happens and the people have virtually no say in it, just the Corporations that have all the Gold and that in many ways is what this thread is about.

Thanks for asking!

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:32 PM
Bill, would you say that this particular cretin you met in Washington fell into your referenced Rush Limbaugh type mentality, or was he in fact just so over-confident that "Americans" will just deal with it and continue in the rat race, like mice chasing cheese?

Are You "Right-Wing Fringe", or "Left-Wing Fringe" and How Will They Push You

I have to say I think his over-confidence, to me, in my opinion, says that the politicians thinks they have our country buttoned up pretty well, and that in fact they could give a damn less than to care about what America citizens want anymore.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:41 PM
A couple of Articles discussing Natural Law...just to get an introspective...

The Natural Law Is What We Naturally Know

Natural Law: The Basis of a Universal Ethics

Murder by Law

Five men are to be murdered by the state on the 23rd of this month. What for? Because they have been legally judged guilty of murder and we are so barbarous as to argue that the only thing to do with a murderer is to murder him. We seem to think that if a murder has been done the only thing to make all things right again is to commit another murder. For you must not make the mistake of supposing that when the State kills a man it is not murder. It is just as much a murder as those committed by Jack the Ripper. It is the worst possible kind of murder, because it is done with deliberation. It is done in cold blood. It is done for revenge. It is done in such a way as to foster the impression that even so foul a crime can be committed in a manner as makes it right. It is done so that the jurymen and judge and hangman may think of themselves as other than murderers, which they undoubtedly are when they bring a man to the scaffold.

How did this notion arise, that one murder can be made right by another? It certainly cannot be entertained by rational beings. When a law is broken it can never be mended. There is no such thing as atonement for a broken law. When natural law is violated the consequences are eternal. The idea that the death of Jesus Christ could atone for the sin of the world is thoroughly absurd. There is no such thing as atonement. The consequences of sin –- the violation of law –- must be suffered forever. There is no escape from them. The death or punishment of the sinner does nothing at all toward wiping out his offence. We talk about vindicating the majesty of the law. There is no such thing that can be done by us. Natural law will vindicate its own majesty if you let it alone, but it will not pretend that the break in it can ever be mended. It will follow the offender like a bloodhound, and it will make him suffer, to the last atom, the consequences of his wrongdoing. But there will be no fiction about making things right that have once been wrong.

Legal murder is justified generally upon the grounds that if we hang murderers it tends to protect society from the crime of murder. But it does nothing of the kind. Most murders are done in moments of passion which render the murderer practically insane, for the time being. Such murders are not prevented by the fear of the gallows. Neither are those that are deliberately planned, because a deliberate murderer generally thinks he can conceal his crime. Experience has shown that capital punishment does not deter from crime. When it was visited upon offenders for a score of offences it had no effect upon making people virtuous and law-abiding.

The plain truth is that capital punishment is one of the ancient barbarisms, the commonly accepted reason for which has been entirely exploded. The existence of such a custom in a country which professes in its religious institutions to worship, or even have a decent respect for the memory of, Jesus Christ, is so shameful that it is almost impossible to understand how it could have been maintained for as long as it has. Jesus believed in no revenge at all. So far as this world was concerned he seems to have been all gentleness and forgiveness. But his reputed followers are these blood-thirsty people who believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. Go throughout the church and you will find almost all the laity and ministers believers in capital punishment. I have often offended the majority of a Christian congregation by crying out against the infamy in the pulpit. Is there not always a priest or minister on the scaffold with the wretch who is about to be hanged? And did you ever know one of these professed followers of Jesus to lift up his voice against the iniquity, as he stood upon the gallows? No, and you never will while the church is hand-in-glove with the State, as she is now.

(And no...I'm not Religious...I'm Agnostic...)

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Hx3_1963]

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by Hx3_1963

Boy oh boy, we could really open a can of worms here ...

Especially on the relationship between Natural Law and the Social Contract.

This actually goes to the heart of the topic when people start talking about action, in whatever form or degree, against the state.

They forget the implicit liberties conceded for the right to live in a relatively "safe" society.

Hence the often referred BF quote ""Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" is actually only accurate in relative terms and not as an absolute. For when humanity enters in social contracts, they by definition concede liberty. The phrase does however apply if further liberties than those conceded in the social contract are sacrificed for the hope of additional security. Still, the social contract is not a static piece of paper, it is a fluid tacit agreement between the state and the populace.

How does this relate to the OP?

Perhaps what we are witnessing these days is a consequence of the tug of war between these two forces. Or perhaps, as was my first comment of this thread, we are in the last violent throws of an evolutionary paradigm shift.

If it is the former then it will only result in a simple matter of musical seats of power, if it is the latter it would mean that the inevitable, painful, but ultimately welcome forward movement for humanity is before us.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I'd like to think that the UK has started to take that first step.

We are slowly dragging ourselves up, grinning as we do it (just like a baby) and realising that we can actually change something.

I refer of course to the expenses scandal, where some 120 MP's have decided not to stand at the next election.

I realise of course that we are not yet even truly on our feet, and that there are many painfull lessons to be learned before we walk properly.

But I would like to think that the first step isn't so very far away, and that once we take it, it is only a matter of time before we can run.

Then again, given the goldfish like memory of the electorate I am probably completely wrong and hopelessly optimistic.

But I'd rather have optimism than the alternative, from a purely personal point of view...

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog
A thoughtful introspective reply Sir?

A case to be made for such a simplistic approach and render even forests of trees free of wasteful non-sense...

A shift to a simpler time?

The "City Slave Dwellers of The Street" would be at a loss in the beginning and be at the mercy of the prepared and well informed...

The Master becomes the Student?

As in all things great and small all things are possible...with hope...

Edit: Speaking of Wasteful Non-Sense...

Does anyone have any idea how wasteful Corporations are?

...Just think of your local Wal-Mart Meat Counter...

Does anyone actually think they can sell that mountain of meat by the FDA stamped date?

And what happens to all those former Cattle? :shk:

Isles upon Isles of "Goods" that are Produced/Advertised in the hopes you will buy them...wonder how many of those "Items" are wasted in expiration dates...that you ultimately pay for in higher costs due to their "loss"?

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Hx3_1963]

new topics

top topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in