Constitutionalists now labeled as terrorists; says DOJ

So I have a beer with my 2 freinds are playing pool in the next room though that we maintain eye contact. I wanted to see what would go down without anyone being aware that I wasn't alone.

The two fellows come in and we exchange glances. Now I know an 'assassin' when I see one. Cold, crazy eyes. Anything goes kinda look. I used to work with some of these folks while working as a commando in the armed services though most of the fellows I worked with had honorable intent. These guys were bad news and were there for a reason. After we exchanged a few glances, one of the fellows sais "Belize" loudly to his freind. I look in their direction and they peer at me for a moment. After a few minutes goes by, I decided to approach the bigger guy with the large black cowboy hat and start to chat with him at the bar. It's good to approach one you suspect that's up to no good. All good 'managers' should know this as well. I used to be one and would always approach a suspected shoplifter or worse. Hey, it works, don't fix it.

We started to chat about this and that and actually had some good laughs and sang a few karaoki songs. I sang "Roadhouse Blues". It seemed 'appropriate' for the time. These guys really liked it. They sang their tunes, don't remember what they were as I wasn't familiar with the Latin songs they chose though got that message none the same.

Anyhow, I told the bartender, who knew these guys were bad news when they came in, to give those two fellows at the pool table, my friends a beer on me. I told the bartender they were 'with' me and the bartender, of course, then told the fellows. I believe they were Zetas.

Anyhow, just prior, I had smoked a doob before entering the bar with a fellow who had approached me so as not to draw concern about me being associated with the dea or any other acronym enforcement agency. I was careful and we were in a private location though still visible to the public at a near distance.

I wanted to make it clear, I'm no threat to the drug cabals. Who knows what they were told. Just wanted to clear that one up. So anyhow, back to the bar scene, we had a few beers and chatted about all kinds of things though at no point did I compromise myself or country. Just wanted to let the folks know that I was there to have a good time and that I had company. If they wanted to 'let it roll' then so be it though that wouldn't be a good idea for either one of us.

So we left the bar with a better understanding of each other and went our separate ways. Wow, that was a close call eh? At least we had a good time and went our own ways.

I got an extra frisk at the airport, at the gate, just before getting on the plane which is highly unusual. They never frisk me though this one was obvious.

I got home and had the stitches removed. It looks alot better now. Fortunately, I heal pretty fast.
Well that's it folks though not entirely.
There is some unfinished business that I hope to attend to when I get back to Belize though I hope the authorities get it settled before I arrive.

I have one demand. Cease and Desist ASAP. Enough foolishness.
I will arrive with an armed G clearanced security guard this time.
Leave me Be and I'll do the same.
I will arrive in peace.
It would be wise if the 'authorities' comply.

I will not put up with any more harrassment and will defend myself at all costs. I hope this is 'understood'.

As for the fellow who threw that heavy bicycle on my head, let's add some attempted murder or at least assault charges onto the 6 other (unrelated to myself) charges he faces to put him away for a long time.

I want Justice served.
Please, just 'Make it Happen'.
I will not be 'Gringoed' on my own land.
I 'have this hope' that this is 'understood' for 'all' concerned.

'Good' day folks?
We'll see soon enough.
"Machete" comes out 'tomorrow' my friends.
Lock and Load, just in 'case'.
I'm sure you Understand.


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Perseus Apex]

Originally posted by indigothefish
the Constitution of the United States of America is under attack, and the States themselves are not as "united" as they used to be

i think i've become so used to it now i'm desensitized to it's mentioning

Could this be why we are all up in arms about what AZ is doing or any other state? Could the "illegals" debate be the wedge to divide and conquer us?
Just wondering.
wow

Originally posted by LickDaCat
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

If Alex Jones says anything, then it is true. He does not spread rumors or lies and anything you hear from Alex can be considered to be fact.

Is one rumor/lie enough, or do you need more?

www.infowars.com...

A college instructor who worked as senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008 is making the stunning claim Barack Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State.

...

He says during the 2008 campaign when the issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility first arose, the elections office was inundated with requests to verify the birthplace of the U.S. senator from Illinois.

“I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver’s license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity,” Adams explained. “I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama].”

So, he never says he looked it up himself. And his boss said that they didn't have a birth record for Obama. Really? The election office didn't have a birth certificate on file for every voter? OMG, no way.

Plus, it would be illegal to go trolling for information on someone, regardless of the requests they were supposedly "inundated" with. And he never says that he personally checked...which is a good idea, because he would have been arrested.

And why would they be calling what is essentially a voter registrar's office for confirmation of someone's birth? That office could confirm that someone is registered to vote - that's public information. But they would be breaking state and federal law if they shared more than that.

Originally posted by LickDaCat
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

If Alex Jones says anything, then it is true. He does not spread rumors or lies and anything you hear from Alex can be considered to be fact.

How much money has he taken you for?

I know that list is real and it's been discussed many times here, but Alex Jones honest

I've seen a number of Alex Jones types in my life. They surround themselves with young gullible people and keep them in a state of rage to control them. No ethics whatsoever.

Sensationalism is the same as lying and he is an expert at it. Take a grain of truth, blow it out of proportion, embellish it with propaganda and they rake in the money. He needs to get a damn job.

Do a search and you will find the last nail in his coffin. He was taped taking over somebody elses legal protest in Texas and it was not pretty. He is a cheap thug preying on the uninformed. Men like him would not give you the time of day unless he thought he could access your wallet. My humble opinion of course. True all the same.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. When the gov't no longer supports our constitution, what can ya expect?

Originally posted by indigothefish
the Constitution of the United States of America is under attack, and the States themselves are not as "united" as they used to be

Forgive me, but I do believe that 1. The Constitution of the United State exists now only as a neurological simulation we call, "the matrix" and 2. the states cannot be united because they have long since died.

I evidence these opinions with several points of interest.

The Constitution is dead- Foremost, I will cite Senate Report 93-549 which has the legitimacy of the Senate, and a wonderfully articulate foreward and introduction. It was penned in 1973, and notes the suspension of the Constitution back in 1933.

Peripherally, I will help you to see through the Matrix that the Constitution is a rotten cadaver by easily stating that now wars can exist without a 2/3rds majority of Congress, that "free speech zones", class III licenses, (I could go on and on here) illustrate the absence of the Bill of Rights and therefore the illusion of this mystical Constitution we've only heard rumor of.

States are not united- Without doubt, organizations cannot be within unity if they do not exist. Formerly, the sovereign countries chose to unite within the union; although, there is little to no evidence they actually exist today.

FEMA regions numbering 10, ("federal") Executive Directives to the governors, bribery of taxed (plundered) funds for cohesion between the several states can evidence a lack of sovereignty (meaning- self determined).

Unfortunately, the greatest point of interest exists within the illusion of the US Constitution- "no state shall be deprived of suffrage in the senate..." Since the magic-show of the 17th Amendment, the characters on stage playing the part of the states have been replaced. The originals have been shot in the forehead and buried in shallow graves behind the theatre.

_______________________________


In the greater discussion, Constitutionalists ARE terrorists.... ABSOLUTELY!

Constitutionalists are adhering to mystical and illusory symbols of the past. This new Empire has moved beyond the Constitution, and while they're going to play lip service to the words therein enshrined, they're definitely not going to play by the spelling of those words.

If you are a Constitutionalist today, you are showing Morpheus your cool Judo moves within the Construct. You're not hard-wired into the system. You're thinking beyond the bounds that are allowed, and using legitimacies that are antiquated.

YOU ARE A TERRORIST. A throwback to an old paradigm.

Haven't you heard? The Constitution is a living and changing document?!

If you're getting stuck into the founders intent, well... you can only expect one simple thing: death by hanging.

I think the DOJ are considering those "Constitutionalists" Oh and I do say that in the LOOOOOOSEST possible sense of the word. Aren't actually Constitutionalists at all but more like home grown terror cells.

These "Constitutionalists" know as much about the Constitution as a born blind man knows about color.

All these freaks know is that they are pissed and want to start shooting Americans for it.

You can see it every time they go and dust off the Declaration of Independence and try and tout it as their universal license to start killing their fellow countrymen.

Don't fool yourself, if you think you are a "Constitutionalist" and think that killing your fellow countrymen is your solution to the political problems of today, then yes, you are a terrorist.

[edit on 9/3/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by butcherguy


I was referring to the OP, but it's nice to see that some here have common since though.

To everyone else: Knowledge is Power!

What did I say about photographers. PINAC and PINAC

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What did I say about photographers. PINAC and PINAC

Thanks for the links.

It is getting pretty bad when you have to look over your shoulder before you take a pic at a National Park, etc.

Let us take a look at one can find on Google Earth shall we?

Took me 2 minutes to get this, yep, better worry about those tourists with cameras huh folks?







[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a810d3b3c8e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ead817b741d1.jpg[/atsimg]

Eh, what else is new? I'll take the terrorist label as flattery. I'd say we lost the Constitution. It still exists, but it's canceled out by the "Patriot" Act.

Warning, explicit language: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by cryingindian
reply to post by Alethea

 

Wow, who taught you about the Constitution? So in your understanding of the right to "Bear arms," where does the militia part come into play? Do you form the militia to preserve your family crest?

Sorry to sound condescending, if I am, I'd just like to hear your take on that first part of the second amendment.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by cryingindian]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by cryingindian]

I ask you the Same?"who taught you the constitution???

0130; its late but. The second amendment was written at a time our forefathers had just come from a bloody war beating a tyrannical govt back off our shores. At the time The term "Regulated" was more like "equipped" or ready. From my copy off my desk:"A well "regulated" militia, being necessary to the security of a free state , theright of the people to keep and beararms SHALLNOT BE INFRINGED.

I don't see whats to hard to understand.Firearms in the hands of a free people keep them free." A well equiped militia being necessary to the security of a free state the rightof the people to keep and bear arms.shall not be infringed. The "militia is every able bodied male between 18 and iirc 47(?) The firearm is the bsolute last resort but it gives tyrannts something to consider.

the 2nd has nothing at all to do with"hunting"or"sporting purposes". infact the flintlock muskets were the "assault rifles" of their day every bit the equal of the British military weapons.Even the supreme court has ruled the 2nd applies to individuals. There is no question.The 2nd was written to protect the people and as the ultimate means of stopping tyranny.


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

Originally posted by Alethea

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

If you think you have the right to Own and Carry a Firearms, you might be a terrorist.

If you are referring to the "right to bear arms" you are going waaay beyond what is written. The "right to bear arms" has nothing to do with owning or carrying a gun. This is a misnomer.

The "right to bear arms" deals with the legalisms of the Coat of Arms in terms of Heraldry.

Are you retarded?


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's part of the second amendment. It referrers to guns

To keep means to own
To bear means to carry

I know English is a hard language but even a 6th grader know this.


Where in the world did you come up with a coat of arms thing from .... this is America we are talking about here.


I own and Carry a firearm everyday because they have bad and evil people in this world that carry one as well. I was born and raised in New Orleans.
at 15 I got shot in the chest with a .25 by some want to be gangsters. If I would have not been armed and able to return fire I might not be alive today. That day 2 evil people died due to their ignorance. I am not proud of it but I would do it again given the chance.

I am the one responsible for my safety and the right to own and carry a firearm was put into the constitution so Government could never take that away.

Your coat of arms argument shows ignorance and stupidity and holds no weight.

heraldry? How could you possibly twist these simple english words to mean a crest???how is a crest going to secure a free state?????insanity.
these guys do as good a job as any:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by whatukno
I think the DOJ are considering those "Constitutionalists" Oh and I do say that in the LOOOOOOSEST possible sense of the word. Aren't actually Constitutionalists at all but more like home grown terror cells.

These "Constitutionalists" know as much about the Constitution as a born blind man knows about color.

All these freaks know is that they are pissed and want to start shooting Americans for it.

You can see it every time they go and dust off the Declaration of Independence and try and tout it as their universal license to start killing their fellow countrymen.

Don't fool yourself, if you think you are a "Constitutionalist" and think that killing your fellow countrymen is your solution to the political problems of today, then yes, you are a terrorist.

[edit on 9/3/2010 by whatukno]

If you think you can vote away the bill of rights: you sir are the terrorist.

reply to post by whatukno


I would like to know where, in America, people are shooting each other because of "constitutionalists" or some other term.

I would like to know where people are saying they are going to shoot each other.

In another thread, I told the story of Damocles and the origin of the "Sword of Damocles." I suggest you look up the tale - it's an interesting one. I like to think of the second Amendment as the framers suspending the Sword of Damocles above the U.S. government (and those of its member states). Privately owned weapons are that sword. I should hope people, when upset with the government, point this sword out.

The power of the sword is greatest when it hangs. Even some of the most gungho of gun-nuts seems to understand this concept. Seeing someone bust a watermelon in half from two miles with a rifle instills a sense of heart-stopping fear. Seeing someone gun-down government officials motivates everyone to action, and the fear of that one shot that may come is lost amongst the chaos of thousands that will.

The fact is - the right and authority to make decisions rests in the hands of those who have the power to make events happen. There are many ways to make things happen - armed force not the greatest or least of which. But make no mistake - the only reason this government exists as it does is because people will it to exist. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no power or authority without the backing of people.

reply to post by Aim64C


What you seem to be forgetting is that the people in our government are Americans. And your blatant threat of the Sword of Damocles is a threat against Americans. This is a government that is supposed to be Of the People, By the People and For the People. And to threaten those Americans elected by Americans is a direct threat against Americans.

When you threaten our elected officials with your "Sword of Damocles" you are saying that the American People don't have the right to choose who governs them. You are specifically trampling on the constitutional rights of the People and in doing so you are actively engaging in terrorism.

reply to post by whatukno

When you threaten our elected officials with your "Sword of Damocles" you are saying that the American People don't have the right to choose who governs them. You are specifically trampling on the constitutional rights of the People and in doing so you are actively engaging in terrorism.

In America, we elect representatives. Those representatives that fail to conduct their duties as representatives may be discharged from office. A vote for an individual does not constitute consent to legislation. Being elected is not permission to do what one will while in office.

I have made no threats against elected officials. I do not need to - all that must be done is remind someone that there are plenty out there willing to apply the force granted them within the second amendment.

You may see that as a threat. You may see that as terrorism. It doesn't really matter. When push comes to shove - the people with the power to make events happen are ultimately the ones who set the standards. You can agree with that, or you can disagree with that - it really makes no difference.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the people in our government are Americans. And your blatant threat of the Sword of Damocles is a threat against Americans.

You really don't seem to understand the term. The "Sword of Damocles" is suspended above the throne by a horse's hair. It is symbolic of the threat all centralized powers face. There is always someone looking to usurp the throne, to have the power of another.

It is suspended above the heads of every executive out there - a subordinate wanting their job, the board of directors finding him/her an obstacle.

It's not a threat - it simply what is. Similarly - we all have that sword suspended above our head - though it may be a butter knife by comparison. Someone wants your vote - your limited authority within the government. They want your complacency - your dependence. We like to call them politicians - they want your power and authority.

America was never meant to operate on a two-party system. The idea that 51% of the people should be able to control the whole through the election of representatives is an absurd notion. 26% of the vote could get someone into office - that does not mean they are able to enact policies that are favorable only to that 26% because "everyone else lost." This two-party nonsense has lead to the idea that "winner takes all" and absolutely destroyed the concept of a citizen government by combining representation with election.

The people have a right to be represented by their government. Look at any map - you will see clear differences in political demographics between urban areas and more rural areas. Rural life is different from city life. If the people in rural areas tell the cities to go suck a lemon - it is their right to establish a government that suits their need and defends their people from foreign governments (which would, by definition, be the military forces called in by the cities who are now trying to figure out what they are going to eat).

The problem is that you see the firearms as a way of launching an offensive. If/when Missouri says: "you all are nuts, seeya" - they won't send people in to kill federal representatives, they will simply insist the U.S. no longer has jurisdiction in the state. The U.S. will insist it does - and send in armed forces to press the issue. Missouri and the people would then do what any government would do and defend its people from foreign invasion. Some 20 states have already said the U.S. can take the healthcare bill and stuff it where the Sun doesn't shine - complete secession is more probable than I find comfortable.

Now - I think secession is a little extreme at this point in time - I'm not here to argue the morality or ethics of secession at this point in time - merely to demonstrate that you have mistaken the context of firearms. While many are willing to kill people over the issues - they are not about to go door-to-door killing, or to kill representatives. If for no other reason - when you kill people for political ideologies, it tends to make them a martyr: Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt (even though he was not killed, merely attempted to kill him), King, etc. Despite the fact some or most of them were rather ineffective leaders.

So - killing people is generally a bad idea, if for no other reason than it is more counter-productive.

reply to post by whatukno

When you threaten our elected officials with your "Sword of Damocles" you are saying that the American People don't have the right to choose who governs them. You are specifically trampling on the constitutional rights of the People and in doing so you are actively engaging in terrorism.

In America, we elect representatives. Those representatives that fail to conduct their duties as representatives may be discharged from office. A vote for an individual does not constitute consent to legislation. Being elected is not permission to do what one will while in office.

I have made no threats against elected officials. I do not need to - all that must be done is remind someone that there are plenty out there willing to apply the force granted them within the second amendment.

You may see that as a threat. You may see that as terrorism. It doesn't really matter. When push comes to shove - the people with the power to make events happen are ultimately the ones who set the standards. You can agree with that, or you can disagree with that - it really makes no difference.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the people in our government are Americans. And your blatant threat of the Sword of Damocles is a threat against Americans.

You really don't seem to understand the term. The "Sword of Damocles" is suspended above the throne by a horse's hair. It is symbolic of the threat all centralized powers face. There is always someone looking to usurp the throne, to have the power of another.

It is suspended above the heads of every executive out there - a subordinate wanting their job, the board of directors finding him/her an obstacle.

It's not a threat - it simply what is. Similarly - we all have that sword suspended above our head - though it may be a butter knife by comparison. Someone wants your vote - your limited authority within the government. They want your complacency - your dependence. We like to call them politicians - they want your power and authority.

America was never meant to operate on a two-party system. The idea that 51% of the people should be able to control the whole through the election of representatives is an absurd notion. 26% of the vote could get someone into office - that does not mean they are able to enact policies that are favorable only to that 26% because "everyone else lost." This two-party nonsense has lead to the idea that "winner takes all" and absolutely destroyed the concept of a citizen government by combining representation with election.

The people have a right to be represented by their government. Look at any map - you will see clear differences in political demographics between urban areas and more rural areas. Rural life is different from city life. If the people in rural areas tell the cities to go suck a lemon - it is their right to establish a government that suits their need and defends their people from foreign governments (which would, by definition, be the military forces called in by the cities who are now trying to figure out what they are going to eat).

The problem is that you see the firearms as a way of launching an offensive. If/when Missouri says: "you all are nuts, seeya" - they won't send people in to kill federal representatives, they will simply insist the U.S. no longer has jurisdiction in the state. The U.S. will insist it does - and send in armed forces to press the issue. Missouri and the people would then do what any government would do and defend its people from foreign invasion. Some 20 states have already said the U.S. can take the healthcare bill and stuff it where the Sun doesn't shine - complete secession is more probable than I find comfortable.

Now - I think secession is a little extreme at this point in time - I'm not here to argue the morality or ethics of secession at this point in time - merely to demonstrate that you have mistaken the context of firearms. While many are willing to kill people over the issues - they are not about to go door-to-door killing, or to kill representatives. If for no other reason - when you kill people for political ideologies, it tends to make them a martyr: Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt (even though he was not killed, merely attempted to kill him), King, etc. Despite the fact some or most of them were rather ineffective leaders.

So - killing people is generally a bad idea, if for no other reason than it is more counter-productive.

reply to post by Aim64C

Excellent post.
Getting down to brass tacks"what you know". You know what we are
talking about you are just trying to win the abstract armchair argument.

Hitler was also an elected fellow German citizen; Hitler rounded up and executed German citizens; first he marginalized them as "the problem". Then set about fixing the problem for the good of the "fatherland"..o say my blood ran cold the day bush's dept of" homeland" security started using the word "homeland" would be an understatement.

The German citizens had the moral authority and the right to beat "their" Government off them like any common thug in an alley them when it uses its power to try and kill them.Surely the people who would overthrow our govt and dispense with the limits set by the constitution upon its power and reach would certainly be "Americans" ( in name only I add).

The so called "terrorist of 911 have already "won"."Our" govt is listening to our phone calls;reading our email; searching us relentlessly at every opportunity. Dirty hungry goat herders in a cave could not do that; it had to come from "our"govt.There seems to be no limits as to how low they will go ( nekkid body scanners?). mobile backscatter vans trolling our streets??
Look at the poor brits more cctv cameras watching them than anywhere in the world.


Oh yeah this about the second amendment; it's interwined with "liberty".
as long as we keep our "liberty teeth" there is only so much a criminal tyrannical unconstitutional government can force upon us. I for one see giving that up as patently insane.


As accepting as the people have of Any program or incursion any time any politician says " to keep us safe". How far is out of line?
I know what my standards are:

rather than "tilting at windmills":
I ask you :

how far is too far??

Constitution ( and fredom and individual liberty ) be damned?

How far? Should we be locked in our homes at dusk and automatically released at 0730?
When is a free citizen transformed into a "slave" of the government?
In your mind is that okay?

Should the govt quarter a single soldier in every home? "For our protection? of course???I mean he could report to the block commander what we were reading.;How much food we were eating; whether we had issues with our family.Only to" keep us safe" I assure you.

is there nothing worth fighting for??
where do YOU draw the line?