"Your rights ... have been suspended."

reply to post by fred call


neo-cons -_-

The president has zero lawful authority to enact legislation that citizens are bound to uphold on his own personal whim through Executive Orders. Hey may enact administrative law, which is not positive law. This is law that only the government must adhere to (and even this is a stretch of his constitutionally granted powers).

What points are you honestly trying to make aside from "Obama this" "Obama that". EVERY PRESIDENT HAS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION WHO HAS SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ATTEMPTING TO FORCE THE CITIZENS TO ADHERE TO A POLICY.

Not just Obama. Get over it man.

Most times I agree that the rights of the average citizen are completely ignored, which has led to alot of lawsuits on the part of those citizens. The govt. is not going to try and disarm us by taking our weopons people. That has been tried and failed more than once. As was mentioned earlier, their are way to many of us, and not enough of them. They will disable our ability to use them. Anyone else out there notice a shortage of ammunition for certain types of guns??? By cutting off supply and making what is available to expensive, they can effectively neutralize the majority of our gun toting friends. There are bigger fish to fry out there than putting on your right to bear arms coat. You will be able to carry them anywhere you want, but you won't be able to put bullets in them!!!!!!!

reply to post by Megiddodiddo


If anyone did that to me or a member of my family, in a uniform or not, they would be very sorry indeed...for the short time they could still experience pain anyway.

It's called the strawman people and if enough people did it at once the government would be seriously jammed up. No violence, all the debt gone, and every regains their indivdual freedom to live life as they choose. It just requires a great amount of legalese, but is quite worth the investigation here is an introductory video that is quite helpful in understanding he full extent of of this ILLUSION...


video.google.com...#

I'm not the best at embedding so here's the link.

I flagged because this subject isn't brought up enough, but it is old news.

Essentially, when you step into a vehicle and drive on public roads you surrender all rights under safety laws know as traffic laws.

This all was mainly established under Reagan, although it might have been under Bush I, but during the eighties under the guise of the war on drugs, when it became legal for a police officer to search your car under the excuse of probably cause. All an officer needs to do once he has pulled over your vehicle for any reason whatsoever, is say that they thought they saw something suspicious. Nothing needs to have been found, and they can cuff you, search, and impound your vehicle. They can then keep whatever property they desire to keep by claiming that it was involved in a crime, and they need no evidence to back this claim. As an individual, you must prove that your property was not used in a crime to reclaim your property.

Safety laws have been used to completely eliminate our constitutional rights, and they make Orwell's 1984 thought crime concept look innocent.

Anyone who has bothered to pay attention can see that the noose keeps getting pulled tighter with every new safety ordinance. All of this is for profit to the insurance companies, and the banks, as well as local municipalities that profit greatly from this type of law.

You don't have to do anything wrong, you just have to do something that some official interprets as potentially dangerous in order to confiscate your liberty and your property.

reply to post by poet1b


As another mentioned, I refer to it as the serf laws.

Color of law, legislation that only appears to be law.

It is like the movie, Minority Report. You can be arrested for Possible future crime. Or, you the serfs are acting dangerously, since you are a slave and property of the state, that is a no no.

Criminal law, use to be defined when there was a victim to this tenet, harm another or infringe on their right to Life, Liberty or Property.

I would argue that this came about way before any president you mention.

This scheme was created when the government, either state or federal began when they introduced legislation to LICENSE legal and lawful activity.

What, is driving (legal term) the same as operating a motor vehicle (legal term) or the same as traveling (legal term)?

Tell me, what type of law is traffic under? IMO is like a hybrid of contract law and maritime law. The UCC. Commercial Code. That in and of itself tell you something. Just the definition of person under UCC code. Take a look folks, the rabbit hole goes way..................down on this component.

Example, how can one be charged with operating a motor vehicle without a license? Because one did not sign any contract with the government, this could not fall under the contract law, so some sneaky things had to be created.

Also, why will a LEO throw you in jail if you fail to sign a traffic ticket? Because you are refusing to sign a forced contract to be under the jurisdiction of their court. Sign it with the under duress once. Or the myriad of other formats.

under duress, without prejudice
all right reserved UCC 1-207
without prejudice UCC 1-207

From here-en.wikipedia.org...

In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.

WOW, why does THAT date keep coming up in history.
Things that make you go HMMMM.

Now we need a license to marry.
license to buy
license to sell
license to be born
license to die
license to ................

You get the idea.
Show me in the Constitution, where the government is allowed all these schemes. That is what they are, schemes to control and tax. A license to STEAL in other words.

That is all the government knows, tax and control.

Hey, poet, I was just using you as the collective you for format purposes. Later.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by endisnighe]

I wish someone would find the addresses of both Cedrick Glover and the cop who beat the woman, then post them online with a reward for justice. Let the crazies hand out justice. We need not go all the way to Iraq to oust tyrants, we should only look as far as Shreveport, LA.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


I'm kinda glad you brought this thread up again, it allowed me to find Mayor Glover on wikipedia. Seems he's not a big fan of police officers, or at least, paying them to keep them around.

If you want his address you could always check with the parish assessor.