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.

 

Police trained that FEMA camps are perfectly normal

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxAn actual crime requires an actual victim. Who is the victim of vagrancy? Who is the victim of panhandling?


Sigh...ok, not really I don't make the laws any more than I made foreign policy as a Soldier. A municipality; which is why I live rural is free to make whatever laws they wish to protect their business or other interests.

If the elected officials of an area make vagrancy a violation or "crime" then move to somewhere it is not.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYes you are. You're just pretending it is perfectly all right to do it under color of law.


Nope, laws are blind if I wandered around downtown sleeping and pissing on someone’s business or lawn I'd expect the law to be enforced regardless of my income.

Don't like the laws run for office - run on the "invite the homeless to camp in your yard or business” campaign. I’m sure the resident taxpayers and homeowners will be all over that program.

I await the results of your campaign.

edit on 27/1/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





Sigh...ok, not really I don't make the laws any more than I made foreign policy as a Soldier. A municipality; which is why I live rural is free to make whatever laws they wish to protect their business or other interests.


Sigh...nobody makes laws. Laws exist and either discovered or they are not. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it were actually law, judges could not use their power of judicial review to overturn legislation as unlawful.

You are also the one who claimed that ordinances such as vagrancy and panhandling "don't seem to be unjust", which is fairly inferred to mean you support this sort of legislation.




If the elected officials of an area make vagrancy a violation or "crime" then move to somewhere it is not.


It is interesting to watch you try to sit on the fence and pretend you are really an okay guy even though you clearly support legislatures enacting bogus legislation, and then suggesting that those who don't like it can just leave. America, love it or leave it, right?




Nope, laws are blind if I wandered around downtown sleeping and pissing on someone’s business or lawn I'd expect the law to be enforced regardless of my income.


Law is law. Legislation is not law. You pretend to be impartial, and then turn right around and show your bias. It is not as if you spoke to the homeless who are not pissing and sleeping on someone's business or lawn and are either using public parks or sidewalks, and doing their best to respect the private property of others, but are still harassed by the police who rely on the very same ordinances you pretend are there to protect private property owners.

Pissing on private property is not "public urination" it is trespassing on private property, and that is entirely different than vagrancy ordinances.




Don't like the laws run for office - run on the "invite the homeless to camp in your yard or business” campaign. I’m sure the resident taxpayers and homeowners will be all over that program.


I love the law, starting with both the Federal Constitution and all State Constitutions. What I don't like are posers who expect to get paid by taxes taken from hard working people so they can piss all over those Constitutions, yourself included. If you are who you say you are then you took an oath to uphold the Federal Constitution, but instead you preach acting under color of law and show no regard at all to the unalienable rights of others.




I await the results of your campaign.


This may come as a shock to you but the people have the inherent political power in the United States, not politicians. As a person who holds the inherent political power in this nation, I have no need to run for office, but my campaign for freedom has been true and steady in this site since I joined. I do not rely on tax dollars to survive. I do not demand the public respect my uniform. I do not make any demands other than obey the law, and I would hold that same expectation of you. Obey the law. The actual law, not legislation that pisses all over the law.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis may come as a shock to you but the people have the inherent political power in the United States, not politicians. As a person who holds the inherent political power in this nation, I have no need to run for office, but my campaign for freedom has been true and steady in this site since I joined. I do not rely on tax dollars to survive. I do not demand the public respect my uniform. I do not make any demands other than obey the law, and I would hold that same expectation of you. Obey the law. The actual law, not legislation that pisses all over the law.


I signed my life away many years ago and yeah; I earned a pension doing it. I have nothing further to prove regarding my duty or oaths - I own my property (paid for working as a mercenary for the US Government depending on who you ask I guess) outright and will likely die defending it soon when the US colapses and we get more vagrants - lol.

I apreciate the taxpayers every 1st and 15th and will until the day I die and thanks for the kick ass medical care too - best part it was cheap, only one or two boken bones and one gunshot wound.

As for the homeless - I make the recommendation to not be.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





I signed my life away many years ago and yeah; I earned a pension doing it. I have nothing further to prove regarding my duty or oaths - I own my property (paid for working as a mercenary for the US Government depending on who you ask I guess) outright and will likely die defending it soon when the US colapses and we get more vagrants - lol.


Yeah, it is real funny isn't it? You take money from hard working people to get trained by a rogue government to learn how to kill those people. Real funny. So much for that oath.




I apreciate the taxpayers every 1st and 15th and will until the day I die and thanks for the kick ass medical care too - best part it was cheap, only one or two boken bones and one gunshot wound.


Yep. You've shown your "appreciation" all through this thread. You've shown us all who you are, and it is nothing more than a sycophant of tyranny. Good job, sport.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
TRAINED?? Dont ya mean brainwashed???? The hero worship of themselves!



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Well get ready though! The wave of FEMA nay-sayers will be on their way to this thread.....I started one a while back, with the exact same source as the OP of this thread. And to think this whole time I thought we were suppose to deny ignorance, and for some, ...well some tend to embrace it.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Golf66
 


I'm saying this, just not quite to the extent used in the film.



Sad how science fiction 25 years ago has become science fact today (video below).




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Isn't it odd that local councils suddenly enact those laws just prior to a major event in town??
Like hiding the mess??
I find that criminal in itself...


I can tell you I wouldn't enforce that edict which is why I dont live or work in a town - bad enough I have to answer to the fed and state; I don't need another layer of laws thanks.

If its criminal people should vote in people who will make it go away; or rebel I guess.

I wonder if its what the people want though? Does that matter at all?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory show about the police state and FEMA camps, which TruTV never aired because of constant government harassment and pressure, has already been memory-holed and is now under threat of being removed from You Tube as well. The show covers the takeover plan and what they don’t want you to see – how martial law is being implemented in America. Get these videos now and share them before they disappear forever. During his last appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Jesse Ventura confirmed that TruTV was forced to pull the show from their schedule due to government threats.



Former Gov. Jesse Ventura and his crew at Conspiracy Theory have blown the FEMA camp issue wide open in a truly groundbreaking episode from the program’s second season on TruTV. The “Police State” episode proves once and for all that the feds have trained to take on American citizens, planned for riots and disasters and made preparations to maintain order at any cost. Tune in this Friday, Nov. 12 at 10 PM Eastern/ 9 PM Central and leave the denial at the door. This powerful episode is the largest and most in-depth investigation into FEMA camps to date– and it is scheduled to air on television. Radio host and filmmaker Alex Jones returns to the series yet again, as the team takes you to confirmed on-the-ground facilities, confronts the legislators who authorized FEMA camps and breaks down the full-scale technologically-integrated police state that includes Fusion Centers, FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security and more. ! At one of many real and verified FEMA locations, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones approach a “Residential Center” run by Homeland Security in central Texas where they find locked doors, double-fences and escape warnings around the entire perimeter. Further inside the facility, they witness a playground complex, swings and slides for children. The crew walks up to the front door and attempts to get some answers. But the officials refuse to either confirm or deny the facility’s purpose, including whether or not American citizens are being held inside. However, our past investigations into this facility reveal that it has confined both children and adults, including immigrants, refugee seekers and American citizens.


source: www.infowars.com...



Whether you believe it or not, I've seen this episode, and the evidence ....well, simply put. Is mind boggling. This particular episode is hard to deny. And the very fact that TruTv never again aired this episode further suggests something sinister is lurking. You decide~

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


living mere minutes away, I can guarantee you there is no FEMA camp located anywhere near saratoga springs.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


I don't really know why people are even surprised or reject the existance of FEMA camps..

We have been indoctrinated for years to accept placing people in prisons for even the smallest of crimes.
Sometimes merely for the crime of being poor..

So there are already tens of thousands of normal people locked up as we speak and yet we accept that with barely a whimper..


While it's easy to see that many people should not be in prison, it's also easy to see that many should.

People who assault others, kill them, or steal from them, should be in prison. In my opinion, anybody who kills another person should be killed themselves, unless it was self defense. Anybody who assaults another person should have their arms amputated, again unless it was in self defense.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxSigh...nobody makes laws. Laws exist and either discovered or they are not. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it were actually law, judges could not use their power of judicial review to overturn legislation as unlawful.

You are also the one who claimed that ordinances such as vagrancy and panhandling "don't seem to be unjust", which is fairly inferred to mean you support this sort of legislation.


You need to go back to law school then – legislatures at every level from local to federal can and do enact laws and regulations every day; many of them are nonsense but they are laws none the less. (I put the definitions down there for you at the bottom.)

I don’t see anything wrong with a law against vagrancy if it is enacted by duly elected representatives. That is what they are for; no doubt, to enact the will of the people through laws that both limit and allow certain activities.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxIt is interesting to watch you try to sit on the fence and pretend you are really an okay guy even though you clearly support legislatures enacting bogus legislation, and then suggesting that those who don't like it can just leave. America, love it or leave it, right?


1) I am on the fence about this issue or I wouldn’t have asked my original question which was “are people being locked up for being poor or homeless; which IMO clearly they are not.

2) This has nothing to do with America as there are good many places that do not have such laws for one to live.

3) Everyone has the right to vote with their feet or to petition the government – in this case the local one for redress of grievances.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxLaw is law. Legislation is not law. You pretend to be impartial, and then turn right around and show your bias. It is not as if you spoke to the homeless who are not pissing and sleeping on someone's business or lawn and are either using public parks or sidewalks, and doing their best to respect the private property of others, but are still harassed by the police who rely on the very same ordinances you pretend are there to protect private property owners.

Pissing on private property is not "public urination" it is trespassing on private property, and that is entirely different than vagrancy ordinances.


You must be a lot smarter than me because I just don’t get it. The city; who manages the public property for the people who elect them can and do place limits on the times one can use the property and for what purpose. This seems reasonable to me as all manner of issues can arise from people hanging about at all hours sleeping and #ting and what not. Public, health (feces is nasty) and safety (the lives of those sleeping) are indeed something to be protected by such regulation and laws.

Of course the laws protect property owners; we pay the taxes - the homeless may or may not, likely not I'm guessing. We congregate together as people and form governments to protect our interests after all....

If I had a business in the area I’d not want people living in my front stoop or in the alley behind the store – likely as not the same poor homeless person would sue me if I opened by back door into them in the morning.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI love the law, starting with both the Federal Constitution and all State Constitutions. What I don't like are posers who expect to get paid by taxes taken from hard working people so they can piss all over those Constitutions, yourself included. If you are who you say you are then you took an oath to uphold the Federal Constitution, but instead you preach acting under color of law and show no regard at all to the unalienable rights of others.


In that case can you please point to the place in the Constitution that indicates a municipality cannot make laws to limit the access to or to govern the use and care of the property for which it is responsible? I am curious where that part is.

I take no taxes from anyone; I entered into a contract with the government of the people and in exchange for that contract; which limited a good many of my own freedoms by the way, for a good long time - I got paid a wage and after some time (24 years) a small pension.

This is a lawful enterprise as the Constitution does specifically enumerate power of the federal government for the collection and disbursement of taxes for the purpose of defense does it not?

We elect the representatives and they make policy which I carried out – easy to understand huh…

I never received an unlawful order in 24 years.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis may come as a shock to you but the people have the inherent political power in the United States, not politicians. As a person who holds the inherent political power in this nation, I have no need to run for office, but my campaign for freedom has been true and steady in this site since I joined.


How’s that been working out so far for you?


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI do not rely on tax dollars to survive.


I don’t either but I do appreciate the retirement check every 15 days I get to buy lots of cool stuff to prepare for the homeless hordes exiting the cities....


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux I do not demand the public respect my uniform.


Nor do I; I could care less if an individual appreciates my service or not I got paid the same regardless.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux I do not make any demands other than obey the law, and I would hold that same expectation of you. Obey the law.


What laws do you recognize then – speed limits, or helmet laws? It must be really expensive to be you if you don’t obey the laws you don’t like….


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe actual law, not legislation that pisses all over the law.


Again, I think you are confusing the world as you want it to be with the world that is….

Law


law

n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience. Custom or conduct governed by the force of the local king were replaced by laws almost as soon as man learned to write. The earliest lawbook was written about 2100 B.C. for Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, a Middle Eastern city-state. Within three centuries Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, had enumerated laws of private conduct, business and legal precedents, of which 282 articles have survived.......yada yada goes on and on.....To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life.

2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice).

3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws."


Legislation


–noun
1. the act of making or enacting laws.
2. a law or a body of laws enacted.


Again, don’t really know what the issue is if you are spouting some “I’m a sovereign" type thing you read on the internet but to me looks like a law and legislation are pretty much the same thing as are:

Statutes
Regulations

and other such words….

Personally, I have never been asked to enforce any laws in the US ever but I have executed a lot of hostile diplomacy in my day and I know one thing for sure – the one with the most guns usually wins any debate. glad I'm on that side.

I am glad I follow the laws and rules; however, everyone has their limits and below are mine....

Oath Keepers: Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey


1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.


Nope, in scanning that I see nothing about vagrancy...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I watched the three part series after reading your reply to the OP and I agree that it is mind blowing. My favorite part was at the end when he was interviewing a co-sponsor of the bill (can't remember the name of it) who seemed to have no clue as to what he signed. Priceless.

The evidence is overwhelming and I think Ventura is a brave man for really trying to bring this to light in such a public way. I hope the videos stay on the internet in some form so that more people can see them.

The other thing that I found to be disturbing was the play ground equipment within the fences of the "residential" center.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





You need to go back to law school then – legislatures at every level from local to federal can and do enact laws and regulations every day; many of them are nonsense but they are laws none the less. (I put the definitions down there for you at the bottom.)


And judges can and do strike them down as unlawful, of which I all ready made this point, but it clearly went over your head.




I don’t see anything wrong with a law against vagrancy if it is enacted by duly elected representatives. That is what they are for; no doubt, to enact the will of the people through laws that both limit and allow certain activities.


You obviously didn't read the link I provide for vagrancy law definition and I have no doubt will bother to read the definition this time, but even so, it is worth reposting this portion of that definition:


Vagrancy statutes have not been well received by the courts, due to their abuse, and have often been declared unconstitutional due to their vagueness, and their ignoring of due process.


In fact, The Supreme Court in Papachristou v City of Jacksonville declared a Florida vagrancy ordinance as unconstitutional:


The Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance, under which petitioners were convicted, is void for vagueness, in that it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions, it makes criminal activities that, by modern standards, are normally innocent, and it places almost unfettered discretion in the hands of the police. Pp. 405 U. S. 161-171.


Go back to law school indeed. I never went to law school, which just goes to show that even an ignorant soldier boy who relishes being a tax feeder can learn the law if they bother to do so. Doubtful that you will, but there is always hope.




1) I am on the fence about this issue or I wouldn’t have asked my original question which was “are people being locked up for being poor or homeless; which IMO clearly they are not.


Uh-huh. You're on the fence, but you're not. You asked a question to make it appear as if you are on the fence but you keep blathering on with your opinions that make it clear you are not at all on the fence about this issue.




2) This has nothing to do with America as there are good many places that do not have such laws for one to live.


This is about The United States of America and just because some cities do not have vagrancy laws does not excuse those who do.




3) Everyone has the right to vote with their feet or to petition the government – in this case the local one for redress of grievances.


Which is precisely what Papachristou did, in spite of your uninformed opinions.




You must be a lot smarter than me because I just don’t get it. The city; who manages the public property for the people who elect them can and do place limits on the times one can use the property and for what purpose. This seems reasonable to me as all manner of issues can arise from people hanging about at all hours sleeping and #ting and what not. Public, health (feces is nasty) and safety (the lives of those sleeping) are indeed something to be protected by such regulation and laws.


It only takes an average intelligence to understand that the people hold, at all times, the inherent political power in this nation. They did not surrender that right by electing government officials. Your attempt to frame all homeless people as people who indiscriminately defecate in public areas only shows your willful disregard for all the homeless people who don't do this and go to great pains to defecate in either a public bathroom, (if they are provided), or use a business' bathroom where they are allowed to do so. It is not just homeless people who urinate and defecate indiscriminately in public places, and there are also people of privilege who do this. Homelessness does not predicate disregard for others. Sociopathy does .




Of course the laws protect property owners; we pay the taxes - the homeless may or may not, likely not I'm guessing. We congregate together as people and form governments to protect our interests after all....


Do not kid yourself, homeless people pay taxes too, but more importantly, being a "taxpayer" does not buy you access to the law. Everyone is equal under the law regardless of how much they pay in taxes. The issue of law and taxation are separate issues. Taxes are the revenue government relies upon to, among other things, establish justice. Every person has unalienable rights, not just property owners.




If I had a business in the area I’d not want people living in my front stoop or in the alley behind the store – likely as not the same poor homeless person would sue me if I opened by back door into them in the morning.


No one is making business people tolerate such a nuisance, other than the person who trespasses on that proprietors property, but there are all ready laws in place for that proprietor to find remedy to his grievance. Vagrancy ordinances are not necessary, nor do they fix the problem of homelessness. Not all people want to be tax feeders sucking off the public teat in order to survive.




In that case can you please point to the place in the Constitution that indicates a municipality cannot make laws to limit the access to or to govern the use and care of the property for which it is responsible? I am curious where that part is.


Ignorance of the law is no excuse! When it comes to municipalities the proper document to rely on would be the State Constitution in which that person resides. In the State of California, for example, a homeless person being unfairly harassed with vagrancy laws has several sections of the Declaration of Rights to rely on in order to protect themselves from the tyranny of ambitious politicians and police officers, starting with:


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


Followed by:


SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.


Followed by:


SEC. 17. Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.


And for your instruction:


SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.


And most importantly, and coming from the same Section 24:


This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.


If a homeless person has not trespassed on someone's private property, and has not caused another harm, then whatever they do, they do by right!




I take no taxes from anyone; I entered into a contract with the government of the people and in exchange for that contract; which limited a good many of my own freedoms by the way, for a good long time - I got paid a wage and after some time (24 years) a small pension.


In other words, you're a tax feeder.




This is a lawful enterprise as the Constitution does specifically enumerate power of the federal government for the collection and disbursement of taxes for the purpose of defense does it not?


Do not pretend that you or any member of the military at this stage of the American Empire building has defended the American public, and you certainly have no interest in defending homeless people.

From Article I, Section VIII, where the Congress’ explicit powers are named:


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


There is no express call for a standing army. That Congress keeps appropriating money to fund a standing army every two years is a dubious reading of the Constitution. Consider what just two of our Founding Fathers had to say about standing armies:


…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…


President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.


“I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.


Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.


As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia


James Madison (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)


Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]


Thomas Jefferson 1st Annual Message, 1801


The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.


Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807


The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.


Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814


Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.


Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800

These were two Framers of the Constitution, and they make perfectly clear the dangers they saw in standing armies. The Constitution does not call for a standing army during peacetime, and this so called "war on terror" is not an official Declaration of War made by Congress.




We elect the representatives and they make policy which I carried out – easy to understand huh…


Yours is not to question why, yours is but to do or die? Here is what is easy to understand, it is easy to understand that you are salivating at the idea of an economic collapse so that you can lock and load and shoot to kill American citizens you deem to be vagrants. You made that perfectly clear here with this statement:




I own my property (paid for working as a mercenary for the US Government depending on who you ask I guess) outright and will likely die defending it soon when the US colapses and we get more vagrants - lol.





How’s that been working out so far for you?


This question you ask to my assertion that I have no need to run for political office, and that my campaign has been for freedom, of which I have run a campaign in this site since I've joined. Is your question sarcasm? Do you imagine I stand alone in this site, and that all the other members ostracize me? Not all members agree with my understanding of law and freedom, but plenty do, so I would have to say that all in all, my efforts in this site is working out just fine. Thanks for asking.




What laws do you recognize then – speed limits, or helmet laws? It must be really expensive to be you if you don’t obey the laws you don’t like….


Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you want to surrender to legislative acts without question, this is your choice, but just because your foolish enough to go along with tyranny doesn't mean everyone else has to, and relying on law...real law...will set you free. There are plenty of judges who still respect the rule of law, and recognize when they are confronted with someone else who does.




Again, I think you are confusing the world as you want it to be with the world that is….


On the contrary, it is you who is confusing the world as you want it to be with the world that is. All law is natural and universal. This includes the collective organization of the right to self defense. All people have the right to self defense. It follows then that people have the right to form governments towards that same end. Vagrancy ordinances, panhandling ordinances, and helmet ordinances do not aim towards that end, and as such are not law. Every Constitution within the United States, whether it be the Federal Constitution, or each State Constitution, recognize this.

You can point to websites written by the priest class lawyer set that hope to frame law as being nothing more than the whims of legislatures, but it has been well established that on a federal basis, the Constitution for the United States of America stands as the Supreme Law of the Land, and it is superior to all subsequent legislation. Congress cannot write acts of legislation that violate Constitutional restraints, nor can state legislatures violate state Constitutions simply by writing an act of legislation. Some people understand this, and as you handily demonstrate, some people don't. This is why critical thinking remains so important, because in this so called "age of information" there is plenty of disinformation. Critical thinking allows a person to figure out what is information, and what is disinformation. Those not skilled in critical thinking will have a harder time doing so.




Again, don’t really know what the issue is if you are spouting some “I’m a sovereign" type thing you read on the internet but to me looks like a law and legislation are pretty much the same thing as are:


I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. It would be best to rely on what I said, instead of pretending I said what I did not say.




Personally, I have never been asked to enforce any laws in the US ever but I have executed a lot of hostile diplomacy in my day and I know one thing for sure – the one with the most guns usually wins any debate. glad I'm on that side.


"Hostile diplomacy"? It comes as no surprise you have fallen prey to doublespeak. You also handily demonstrate why the 2nd Amendment is so damn important to the individual, and that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing at all to do with "hunters rights" and has everything to do with defending oneself against hostile governments, including, and especially ones own.




Nope, in scanning that I see nothing about vagrancy...


Uh-huh. So, apparently when you took an oath to defend the Constitution you didn't bother to read the Bill of Rights, and in particular, the Ninth Amendment:




The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


If you need a list of rights to inform you on what the people can do then you don't understand how numerous those rights are. If you need it spelled out for you, the allow me to spell it out for you. What people do that causes no harm, they do by right. When people are compelled to harm another in self defense, defense of property, defense of loved ones, or even those helpless strangers who are in danger of being harmed themselves, then this particular harm is done by right.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I am in awe of your command of the issue. I could not, ever, have put my thoughts into words as well as you have done in response to Golf66's posts. ATS is lucky to have you.



edit on 1/28/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Looks like Fema is taking their job seriously finally. After Katrina, and the catastrophe that was the 'fema response', I feel it taught the government a lesson in preparedness. This is the result. Fema is trying to be ready to help millions if needed, or at least more ready than they were before.

I do not fear 'fema camps', I have been in an emergency situation where the government sent troops in to assist in getting everyone to safety, and we went to a shelter and were further assisted from there. It is a neccesity, and more now than ever. I for one am glad to know that they are not just sitting on their duff drawing a check, this show being more prepared for disaster.

How would those of you who feel it is to capture and detain american citizens feel that would be the right way for Fema to handle practicing handling a disaster?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

bravo sir! its american such as your self that inspire me to defend all of our God given rights.
i would bet evan if ats offerd for you to be a moderatetor youd turn it down you sir are a man of the people .bravo!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


im offended that you constantly refer to homeless as ppl who urinate and defecate on ppls lawns... how would you feel after vietnam war spit you out with serious ptsd to an ungrateful country?
edit on 28-1-2011 by jplaysguitar because: forgot some important words



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Bravo dude. I actually applauded for a second, then remembered its 4 AM and I should be quiet



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Again I would like to ask, more specifically at this time, what would you consider a 'normal' fema drill?

We are facing many forms of catastrophe, fema is the agency that must be ready to respond, working with local authorities should the need arise. What do you propose they do differently so it doesn't appear to you that fema has plans to lock you up in a camp rather than fema is preparing for disaster? Should the police not be told or participate in drills, ect?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join