It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

ALERT!!!!!!! Provost Marshals serve governors

page: 11
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by 12.13.2012
 


What would you call it if an elected official was forcibly or violently removed from office....


Well, I would call it the arrest of a criminal in a criminal investigation by a Common Law Court. I would not call it an act of terrorism, and I would not call it criminal. It is an act under the Law of the Land, something we all better get used to.




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
Point blank. What "Authority" do these "Guardians" have to speak for the people (Us), and act on our behalf?


Surely you read the notice...the authority was granted to these chaps by God himself along with the unanimous consent of the American people...all of them.

Don't you remember authorizing a thecratic based republic? I dont, but I might have been drunk or something when they came by to get my signature...I mean, they are christians, why would they lie.

They must have done some fancy talking, because I think I would rather eat my dog before pushing such a theocratic agenda.

On the plus side, I guess Americans are now rulers of the earth...sweet. I call dibs on Brazil!



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by 12.13.2012
 


What would you call it if an elected official was forcibly or violently removed from office....


Well, I would call it the arrest of a criminal in a criminal investigation by a Common Law Court. I would not call it an act of terrorism, and I would not call it criminal. It is an act under the Law of the Land, something we all better get used to.


Should it happen, expect anyone whom follows and fills the void to be "arrested via law of the land common law court" nonsense.

Something we all better get used to.

action, meet reaction and his brother reaction



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


if you look at the language of our current constitution you'll see the same kind of language. whats the big deal... i mean sure, theyre from texas and i think folks should be aware of that considering theyre brand of bible thumping patriotism but there are still more god fearing folk out there then athiests and until that changes i dont think your gonna see a document that panders to the godless advocating the return of our constituinal ways. id even go so far as to say that athiesm could be totolitarian when it comes to freedom of religion..



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


if you look at the language of our current constitution you'll see the same kind of language.




God

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.


Sorry, but this scribbling on toilet paper is little more than a hard christian theocratic agenda piece.


-add


i dont think your gonna see a document that panders to the godless advocating the return of our constituinal ways.

Ya, the first constitution pandering to the godless ways of the country really sucked...we need a new one from texans making sure that a lord god rules over the nation...none of that paganism, buddism, agnostics, athiests, etc etc etc...lets completely destroy the line between church and state and burn all books except for the kjv.

When the government needs to start mandating religion is when you know the religion is false. Sorry of these good ole boys need to restart a new constitution and make sure God is mentioned tons of time...that sort of shows the argument doesn't win (in their mind) on merit alone and needs federal help to institute it

[edit on 3-4-2010 by SaturnFX]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
There is much about this that has been purposely kept under wraps and for good reason. Simply look at all the people who are dismissing this without listening to Dr Sam Kennedy's broadcast on January 31st 2010.

To those who claim we still have a constitutional government I want to point you to the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. First, I do not know all there is to know as I am just getting into this act.

The APA allows all of the 50 plus regulatory Federal Agencies to establish or make rules and they do not need Congress since they were delegated these powers when legislation was passed. These rules have the full force of the law. There is a process they must follow which is first the proposed change must be posted it in the Federal Register 30 days before it takes effect so interested parties can comment on this, offer amendments, or oppose it. However, some regulations need only publication of the change and a way for people to comment.

The Governors and state legislatures of every state have allowed the Feds to violate the constitution or whats left of it. This is not left versus right for that is a false paradigm created to divide the people. And whether you believe in God or not there is no denying that the Founders wrote that our rights come from our creator not the Government. The plan is to restore a constitutional form of government based on god's law or more commonly known as common law not the administrative or admiralty law we currently have.

From Kevin Craig 2008 Libertarian Candidate for Congress:

Every Congressman takes an oath to "support the Constitution."

Scholars and political scientists will tell you what most people don't know: we no longer live under the Constitution, with its three branches of government. We live under "Administrative Law" in an "Administrative State." James Freedman has called "the administrative state" "a fourth branch of government,"[1] but it is actually a form of government which Madison, as he wrote in The Federalist, would have called “the very essence of tyranny.”[2]

Rather than calling attention to this tyranny, most congressmen have continued to vote for higher appropriations for this unconstitutional system. Both the Republican and the Democrat parties are completely out of step with the intent of the Founding Fathers and the genius of the American system.

While a few thousand bills are introduced in Congress each term, only a few hundred become law, and this includes things like renaming a post office and giving a medal to Frank Sinatra.

Most of the real lawmaking is done in the bureaucracies. These unconstitutional agencies create ten times more law than Congress -- some 70,000 pages a year in The Federal Register

The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Er....just looking at the letter that was sent out to the Governors (at least as it was linked above here), and they've got the name of the Governor of Maryland wrong. They list him as "Joseph O'Malley," but his name is Martin O'Malley. Joseph is his middle name, but he doesn't go by it. Everyone in the state knows him by the name Martin.

Seems like a pretty bad blunder to make for a document purporting to be of such a revolutionary nature. Was the document proofread before it went out?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lernmore
 




Listening to the u-tube radio link posted just above, "Sam Kennedy" was just asked who Clive was (literally one minute after I first typed this) and his reply , word for word was.... "doesn't ring a bell".

So now we have people both here and on the radio show asking how Clive is connected to this. Can anyone provide a definitive answer?


Clive Boustred is who the website gotfr.com is registered to. He owns many, many, many websites. Mostly about himself.

The claim is being made by "Sam" that they do not know him.

Yet, they (Guardians of the Free Republics) hired him to design and host a website that contains what was supposed to be one of the most momentous moments in recent history?

But nope, no idea who this guy is, uh uh!

Someone said there is a video on CNN where they interviewed Clive, and he also denies any involvement beyond hosting and designing the website.

I would like it if someone could provide he link to the CNN video.

Clive, however, has a long history of Sovereign Citizenship issues, and his website is almost an exact mirror of the talk and legalise being used.

libertyforlife.com...

which links directly to the gotfr.com website.

How do you hire someone to host and design, and update, and maintain a website, yet, you have no idea who this person is? The *name* is not familiar? What? really? Just just call them on the phone and say, "Hey uhm, yeah, hi, Sir." Please...

This sort of thing requires a lot of time talking to, and working with, and communicating with the designer.

If we can have the supporting CNN video link, coupled with the radio broadcast, it would resolve the first palpable lie on the subject from "Sam".

Ironically, the caller from Australia towards the end of the broadcast sounded a *lot* like Clive in his videos.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Wow, speaking as if something is a fact and accusing others of lying.

Then to insinuate someone sounds *a lot* like someone.

Wow, I thought the idea of this site was to get to the bottom of things. Not to spread more innuendo and propaganda.

You just came off my friends list.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 
-

I dunno bout that (him not knowing the web guy by name) - i maintain some 300 websites as a webmaster and i would say most wouldn't know me by name. i'm just the guy who gets stuff done on their websites. usually just called 'the web guy' by most. just some guy they throw content at and want it to get posted on their site. the "company" gets the credit. so.... him not knowing the web designer doesn't say much.

just sayin



[edit on 3-4-2010 by Emptiness Dancing]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Just saw Don Lemon on CNN talking about the guardians of the free republic he even said 'Why arent they (the FBI) arresting these people?' and his guest said that the guardians haven't broken any laws and the FBI has talked to several of them and said they are ok I assume meaning no legal action has been taken against the people who sent these letters.

They brought a panel expert and he says
no drivers licence? no taxes? no marraige licence? thats not how we do business.

what a slimeball. Don Lemon too. MSM jekface. It's interesting to see how the media is handling this little uprising of the populace.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
ok, so what was once a "mysterious" group of people with at least some positive attributes maintained in their progressive offering- has now become (due to the possibility that at least one or more of this mysterious entity have been linked to the D.o.D. and the Israeli govt.) probably the most insidious false flag that one could even realize. I wonder what the final outcome is going to be? 9am monday morning is coming, no matter what the final verdict is. And did anyone ever correlate April 19th to this, or is it a seperate animal altogether? If it was relevant I would not be suprised, but it would make sense if the April 19th was legit and this recent "72 hrs" warning for the Governors to step down or sign on was a VERY incredibly ingenious play by tptb to circumvent April 19th activites (as immediate damage control). I guess we'll see...



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by alchemist2012
quick question what makes these guys think they can run the country better instead of this shouldnt we try to elect better public officals,kick wall street out and try to re-build america?not being a jerk just asking a real question


Well the problem is realy 150 years old. When the southern states walked out of congress, congress could not legaly operate and pass legleslation with so many members not present. But they did anyway and found themselves in a civil war.

Fast Forward to 1933 Under FDR the Federal Government was turned into a corperation and eventually the states followed suit.


“28 USC 3002” (definition of the United States as a Federal corporation never taught in civics class; go to paragraph 15) (www.law.cornell.edu...)


When the FEDS incorperated the consent of people was not given.

So ever since December 19, 1860 we have been under defacto rule.

All elected officials that swear an oath to defend and protect the constitution bear that responsibility. Now since the De Jure Republic was lost 150 years ago we are attempting to take it back.

We do not want to run the country but we are attempting to make sure the ones that are elected to do so fully understand their oath.

And to quote the declaration of Indenpendence:


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 to 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.



We have a God given right to restore the Republic!



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


that was a great post. If you dont mind, I would like to illustrate something that really bears repeating, and please everyone, take a moment to really let this sink in after you read it, and then decide how you feel:

And to quote the declaration of Indenpendence:


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 to 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.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by alchemist2012
So basically this pretty much is rebuilding America, back to the original constitution.





Understood but my wife is a seminole and i am african american we both have recently been discharged from the army i did 14 years and she 9..where does this put us she is worried she thinks restoring back to the original puts me back in slavery and her being put on the trail of tears...it sounds a bit far fetched but you gotta give some thought to why she thinks this way my question is where do we as minorities stand in this event??????


The constitution already has an amendment that states that slavery is illegal (I would've thought you would've known this, being in the service and all) so you and your wife have nothing to worry about (unless of course you're just making all this up to try and prove a dumb point that somehow "restoration" means going back to the old west.)



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 12.13.2012
 


Hey since you are letting things sink in, soak on this:

FYI...... Amendment 14 Paragraph 3


3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


www.usconstitution.net...

Bolded key point of interest. Whoever the mob replaces current Governors with would be in direct violation of Amendment 14.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Emptiness Dancing
 


And you don't find the irony in it at all that they have the same standing on the topic? And that he mirrors them on his website? Not the tiniest bit off? Not even a bit wierd?

How many of the website that you host do you mirror on your own site? Just curious.

That's fine, I have been foe'd for presenting facts on it, undeniable facts, and then presenting my opinion on the subject. Some people wish to stuff their heads in the sand over an unbearable desire for it to all become true.

I have been classified as a disinfo agent now for having an opinion.

*shudders*

Well, I maintain my stance that they are shielding him from being a known involvement for a reason. As I stated, it doesn't discount what they are trying to do, it just is an odd thing.

I also wonder where are all the transparency people now, too. They are being spoonfed in the same fashion as the lamestream media, except NOT from the lamestream media this time. More of an Alex Jones style, a la "Tune in next week to find out!"

Guess that makes it ok, since the process is something they want to happen.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
with the debt being racked up in your name to refinance the banks

id like to explain the math

lets say 5% of GDP IS WHAT THE FED CHARGES YOU FOR PRINTING YOUR MONEY

lets say the money going to the banks is charged at 13% EXAMPLE FIGUAR

fed is owned by the banks that the fed bailed out tresury supplies the money and your on the hook

so if that 18% was still in the us economy year to year

$100.00
year 1 $118.00
year 2 $139.00
year 3 $164.30
year 4 $193.87
year 5 $228.77
year 6 $263.09
year 7 $310.44

7 years to tripple the GDP

so if that 18% goes to the central bankers to ship offshore

$100.00
year 1 $82.00
year 2 $67.24
year 3 $55.13
year 4 $45.21
year 5 $37.07
year 6 $30.00
year 7 $24.92

you end up with 1/12 of the money in circulationb for the people to use

this is an example of how much money can be freed up for the people

example to get u thinking economics isnt that hard when you see the figuars




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
with the debt being racked up in your name to refinance the banks

id like to explain the math

lets say 5% of GDP IS WHAT THE FED CHARGES YOU FOR PRINTING YOUR MONEY

lets say the money going to the banks is charged at 13% EXAMPLE FIGUAR

fed is owned by the banks that the fed bailed out tresury supplies the money and your on the hook

so if that 18% was still in the us economy year to year


Please explain why the Fed is charging to Print money? I don't think this is logical.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join