The Rothschilds tell American and Britain that "Toll Roads" will help their economies

page: 5
86
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by moobaawoof
 
someone please explain to me how the hell a fibre optic cable along the side of the road, is actually going to track your car & know where you've been & how far you travelled, amongst all the other traffic & where they've all been & how far they went?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's how fiber optic cable is used to track you. Pay attention to the word "surveillence" in this article!

www.roadsbridges.com...

The Northern Virginia Traffic Management System (TMS) is a computerized highway surveillance and control system that manages traffic along I-95, I-395, I-495 and I-66 in the Washington, D.C., area. The original system was constructed in the early 1970s and has since been expanded to cover a combined distance of 65 miles using an underground fiber optical cable communications system. The Virginia DOT controls the system from their “Smart Traffic Center” in Arlington, Va.

_____________________________________________________________
Click on the link to read the full article, but I believe the point is made here for you about fiber optics and their usage!




posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 

how much land have they already stolen using imminent domain?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
What a wonderful idea...

It eliminates tourism as an industry.
It reduces profits of per gallon taxes for general road maintenance.
It eliminates job recovery through auto-manufacturing and all side jobs related like the guy that brings hot lunches.
It eliminates housing development in urban sprawl.

It eliminates almost any chance of a true economic recovery. No wonder we are in the mess we are in now from listening to these geniuses.

Here is a better idea, confiscate the wealth of the world's top 5% and then execute them. Simple, quick, effective and just as completely idiotic of an idea. Sustainable growth is to create the tide that lifts all ships. Grubbing a few pennies from the downtrodden to replace your gold-plated toilet handles with solid gold ones does nothing worthwhile.


[edit on 10-2-2010 by Ahabstar]


Are you a socialist?

Freeways are not included in the constitution, it should be the job of the private market.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Are you saying that you should only have a right to travel if you can afford to pay for it?

2nd line

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Icerider]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The land belongs to the PEOPLE. Why have civilisation if the people have to pay to the Lords who squeezed every dime from the masses to build roads and then squeeze them more to use it?

Are we reverting back to serfdom? With Corporations as the lords now? Stop that slavering for a return of the Monarchy!!!!

Taxes are a way to level society. Generally, taxes collected do not belong to anyone except the PEOPLE. It is use for productive purposes such as education, infrastructure, healthcare, defense, etc.

It is always good to have some excess saved for rainy days, such as disasters, then such funds can be used to help those in need as well.

HOWEVER, what had the taxes been used recently? Corruptions on massive scales, building of whilte elephants, ruinous overseas wars, etc, etc!

Most citizens would not mind sharing wealth, for there is ALWAYS some good in humans, but if the elected representatives cannot account for the tax revenue used,or used for frivolous issues, then they must be voted out!

Today is one road being tolled. Who can guarantee no more tomorrow? Who amongst the elected representatives had been paid to scratch the corporations' back and then an office when he quits govt service?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewind
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 

You wouldn't get within a half mile of any of the "real" global elitists! They are that afraid of the masses!


I beg to differ. There is NO ONE that safe when the numbers and strength are against them, or their protection compromised.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sadwolf
reply to post by felonius
 

how much land have they already stolen using imminent domain?




Depends on what time. the super collider? The Cowboys stadium in Arlington?

There are a few of them.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I agree with killing off the top 5 %
This would be illegal in America and as a previous poster stated it would be double-taxation. If they really try to move forward with this I would be all the more tempted to take out some of the people who are blatantly enslaving us.
They would be committing an act of treason let alone an act of war. We already pay for the roads. The extremely rich are just a bunch of people who have no idea what it is like to be told "NO". They can't get it into their heads that everything ISN'T theirs to play with. I'd like to see what they do once they have prices on their heads.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by patent98310
I agree with killing off the top 5 %
I'd like to see what they do once they have prices on their heads.


NOW there! is a great idea for a reality show or a new competition show!
Yes sir there's genius in those words.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
The Dartford bridge is a prime example of 'Toll road' in the UK, it was refurbished in the 90's as a crossing on the Thames, drivers paid a 'toll' to cross it , the toll was said to be for the refurb and once it was paid for the tolls would stop, its now 2010 and people are still paying for it.
It has long since been PAID FOR, but the people here in the UK will not complain, they will pay for practically anything the Government wants them to, after all its in our best interests isn't it?
The only people that made any complaints were us motorcyclists, they tried to charge us 20p to cross it, cars cost £1, but we all are dressed in our leathers , with thick gloves which are difficult and time consuming to take off at the best of times..
One 'protest' we all paid with £20 notes, how the authorities hated us for that.
They tried to charge us again. They did try another time but this time they were waiting with bags of prepared change i.e £19.80, but we all got wind of it and took £50 notes.
They gave up after that.I think next time they try we may end up having to take copper coins and paying in small change. 20p in pennies are easily dropped on the road, then we'll have to put the bikes on their stands and scrabble around for the coins whilst the cars drivers are tooting their horns at the delays.
I think next time they try we may end up having to take copper coins and paying in small change. 20p in pennies are easily dropped on the road, then we'll have to put the bikes on their stands and scrabble around for the coins whilst the cars drivers are tooting their horns at the delays.

Until the people say enough is enough, the Governments and leeches like the Rothschilds will push the stick further and keep moviong the goalposts, after all the people are sedated with flouride, imagine if that stopped how many people would start thinking for themselves?.


Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

Originally posted by patent98310
I agree with killing off the top 5 %
I'd like to see what they do once they have prices on their heads.


NOW there! is a great idea for a reality show or a new competition show!
Yes sir there's genius in those words.



And I agree 101%, after all , like the queen in England what DO they do for theire money? apart from step on the backs of others? WHy should we keep carrying them? cut out the dead flesh of man.


[edit on 11/2/10 by DataWraith]



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icerider
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Are you saying that you should only have a right to travel if you can afford to pay for it?

2nd line

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Icerider]


a) driving is a privilege not a right

b) you may travel the world at your leisure, but mostly only if you can afford it

c) toll roads are generally alternative routes and not mandatory routes that offer you a quicker way to get where you're going for a price of course.

I personally don't have any issues at all with toll roads being built so long as no tax dollars are used to subsidize construction and the work is undertaken by private business alone.

I do agree the government has no place in building toll roads. It's inevitable that will fail because of the very nature of government not being able to properly manage infrastructure for the most part, at least historically that is true.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I ask you, what are roads for?

It is to connect families that forms a society called a civilised nation. When mankind began, they realized how important paths were, so that communication can be made with every family living in far flunged regions in a country, for social and for economy.

Even Romans realized how important roads were, and the first to use paved roads first to conquer lands, and after conquering them, the biz entities used it for trade and brought prosperity to the empire.

It IS the responsibility of the govt to maintain roads, as roads are part of social spending expenditure, shared by the population, just as education, healthcare and other social functions.

Transportation is another social responsibility of the govt, to ensure proper planning, accounting and maintenance of it so that everyone gets a chance to be connected in the country for not many can afford cars.

And cars are not personal habits like ciggies which one can do without - if time is crucial or the only means of better transportation than public transport for biz or social life, then a personal transport would be necessary.

If this is NOT the responsibility or that is NOT the responsiblity of govts, then lets disband elected representatives, politics and let us all revert back to the jungles where each has a fair chance for survival - of the fittest and to hell with the weak!

Is this what you want and call civilisation?



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 
I beg to differ. There is NO ONE that safe when the numbers and strength are against them, or their protection compromised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me first here while I laugh my ass off!
Okay, that's better! Now, private citizens have in the past tried to make citizen's arrests on karl Rove twice, and both times, it was the "citizen" who got arrested and dragged away from ole Karl! Now, if we the people "can't" touch guys like Karl Rove, how do you think we're gonna get any closer to the ones handling him and others like him?



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by djusdjus
 
driving is a privilege not a right
_____________________________________________________________
Sorry here, but driving is a right! That is guranteed in the "Declaration of Independence", or are you familiar with that document? This understood right was not placed directly into the constitution because it was fully understood by all who wrote the constitution at that time that this and other "unalienable" rights were guaranteed to us by the creator(God).



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by thewind
reply to post by djusdjus
 
driving is a privilege not a right
_____________________________________________________________
Sorry here, but driving is a right! That is guranteed in the "Declaration of Independence", or are you familiar with that document? This understood right was not placed directly into the constitution because it was fully understood by all who wrote the constitution at that time that this and other "unalienable" rights were guaranteed to us by the creator(God).



No it's not a right. You show me anywhere in the declaration where it says it is your right to drive a car or truck? If it's your right, why do you require a license and testing? Why do you require insurance on your vehicle?

Get yourself educated man, your ignorance is showing. You are wrong. Period. Now look it up and become enlightened to your folly.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by djusdjus
 


Not to be argumentative, but I cant help but to comment on your ignorance. This is a site to deny ignorance, not to pepertrate it.

A license and testing is to ensure the driver knows how to drive a car and be a safe member of the driving population.

Is going to the toilet and crapping mentioned in the constitution? You mean if it is not written explicitly there, it would means we have no right to perform our bowel movements? Do we need to ask or write in to the President or Parliament for permission to perform bowel movements?

As for who is the stupid one here, I will let you judge yourself, afterall, i explain it so simply in a language and an example you can crappingly understand.

Cheers.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The elite want us to think that we are endowed with a few rights and that all others are derived from a wave of their wealthy, bejeweled hands!

Being wealthy is not a right. And for the most part, the wealthiest 1% are the most parasitical people on the planet. Long bereft of any entrepreneurial spirit, this parasite class uses their wealth to kill people so that they can be enriched even more. Is that right or a privilege?



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by djusdjus
 
No it's not a right. You show me anywhere in the declaration where it says it is your right to drive a car or truck? If it's your right, why do you require a license and testing? Why do you require insurance on your vehicle?
_____________________________________________________________
No, you're ignorance is the one speaking volumes here, for it's apparently clear that you know nothing about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Here's what the DOI says about our freedoms: www.ushistory.org...

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
_____________________________________________________________

Now, do you understand what you read above? Let me give it to ya in a nutshell. The gov't doesn't own you, me, or the land here, for the "people" that are goverened are the ones who actually own the gov't, and the gov't is not allowed in no way, shape or form to interfere with the people's rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. God created this land for us to travel on, not man or any gov't!

Now, let's move on to the driver's license issue. You obtain a driver;'s license because the state dupes you into doing so. By law, you do not need a driver's license to travel anywhere in your vehicle unless you are using your car or truck to make a living. Here's the proof that supports this:
www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com...
Traveling is a Right

For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state governments in the form of a permit or drivers license.

Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.

("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

Government, in requiring the people to file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview:

"Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions.

Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
_____________________________________________________________
So, who's ther ignorant one now?



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by djusdjus
 


Not to be argumentative, but I cant help but to comment on your ignorance. This is a site to deny ignorance, not to pepertrate it.

A license and testing is to ensure the driver knows how to drive a car and be a safe member of the driving population.

Is going to the toilet and crapping mentioned in the constitution? You mean if it is not written explicitly there, it would means we have no right to perform our bowel movements? Do we need to ask or write in to the President or Parliament for permission to perform bowel movements?

As for who is the stupid one here, I will let you judge yourself, afterall, i explain it so simply in a language and an example you can crappingly understand.

Cheers.


sorry but you are wrong as well and you need to brush up on your reading comprehension obviously, because you also read like someone who is ignorant here.

Travel is a right, driving a vehicle is not. It is a state granted priviledge. If you cannot understand that, then perhaps I can educate you on your own constitution?

You may travel the roads, you may venture where you like, but when it comes to doing that in 3000 pounds of moving steel, well sorry, that ain't your right at all.

Why do some of you Americans blindly believe you are entitled to all the amenities of modern living as a "right" that was granted in your constitution which apparently an inordinately large amount of you have failed to read and an equally large amount of you are dimwitted in your weak attempts to interpret it.

Sorry, you fail. Thanks for playing, now go crack a book. You need to obviously and take the hillbilly with you as well.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by djusdjus
 
Sorry, you fail. Thanks for playing, now go crack a book. You need to obviously and take the hillbilly with you as well.
_____________________________________________________________
Let's see, I showed that we do own the right to travel in a vehicle by posting courts cases, and even constitutional ammendments (the 14th one), and yet you still want to argue? LOL Apparently hooked on phonics didn't work for you, did it? Years ago in Ohio, Penn, Indiana, and Illinois I think it was, they tried to make the amish folks stop driving their carriages in town and throughout the counties, citing that they didn't have their horses and buggies registered. Well, all those states lost in court because it was proven that the amish did have the right to travel, not only in thei buggies that were horse-drawn, but they could travel to in automobiles as long as they were not using them for commercial reasons!

So, I think you had better be the one to go back and crack a book instead of a case of beer cans, for you'd have to be drunk not to understand what I posted in plain "english" the court cases and the DOI it'self concerning the right to travel!






top topics



 
86
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join