New petition on Whitehouse.gov: Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede

page: 26
69
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sandmannc40
Yes, as of this morning 47 States have petitioned to secede the Union.


Wrong actually, Zero states have petitioned to secede. None have, none will.

Of course that fact does not stop you posting silly claims like "Yes, as of this morning 47 States have petitioned to secede the Union"




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Bildo

So, you deny the Act of 1871 exists. You deny the 1933 bankruptcy exists.


I don't know what act of 1871 you are refering to.

probably it exists and you just don't understand what it does....or, more likely, are deliberately misinterpreting it as something utterly different to what it is.

Certainly the "bankruptcy of 1933" is fantasy - going off the gold standard is NOT the same as being bankrupt - it's not even close, and if youbelieve it is you have some serious problems.


You deny HJR 192 exists.


Of course HJR 192 exists - stop telling lies about what I said.


It's all documented! You are worse than hopeless. If you don't have the intelligence to research this yourself I can't help you. You are the perfect definition of a "sheeple". And inside a box, too. C'mon, prove me wrong. Call the IRS. Call the Federal Reserve. Start asking questions. Or are you afraid?


What would I ask them, and why would I be afraid?

Your 3 points above are easily shown to be utter rubbish - time after time, in court and out as well.

edit on 14-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


I don't know what act of 1871 you are refering to.
Me---LOOK IT UP. Enter"The Act of 1871" into your search _ It's not difficult. Read it. It can't be "misinterpreted". Have someone else read it to you. Then the two of you can interpret it together. Better yet, get 4 or 5 or more of you to gather and read it.

What does going off the gold standard have to do with the bankruptcy of United States in 1933? I'm not talking about "going off the gold standard". You are absolutely right when you said
going off the gold standard is NOT the same as being bankrupt - it's not even close, and if you believe it is you have some serious problems.. Me: I totally agree with you there.

I'm happy to hear you are aware of HJR 192. I'm not telling lies about what you said. No need to be so viscious. I had to figure that if you were unaware of the US Bankruptcy of 1933 then you would most likely be unaware of HJR 192, since, as far as we can tell, that is our Remedy for what happened in the Bankruptcy of 1933. Since you are admittedly aware of HJR 192: Do you agree that it is sufficient "Remedy"?

Your 3 points above are easily shown to be utter rubbish - time after time, in court and out as well.
Me: Ok, I'll bite. Got some case law? Are you getting it from Public Policy or Public Law.? If I remember correctly, the transition was around 1937 or 1938.
edit on 14-11-2012 by Bildo because: added bottom paragraph



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo
Me---LOOK IT UP. Enter"The Act of 1871" into your search _ It's not difficult. Read it. It can't be "misinterpreted".


Ok, so we get www.legislation.gov.uk...
Dogs Act 1871

???? Just why do you think that is relevant?
or this one
en.wikipedia.org...
or this one
www.legislation.gov.uk...


you apparently know so little about how things work you apparently think there is only one act passed in 1871....
edit on 14-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Considering we are talking about the US, why would you think UK acts would be relevant? Come on, common sense bro



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
i don't get what the big deal is...

if a state succeeds at secedeing while sowing seed in the seaweed sea

wait that didn't come out right..
if a state succeeds in seceeding.. then those US rights are gone anyway... you don't just get immediate dual citizenship for the US and say.. the Republic of Texas...



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Considering we are talking about the US, why would you think UK acts would be relevant? Come on, common sense bro


Simply because some of the people believing in the freeman nonsense, the USA is really a corporation etc. claim pommie law is valid....



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Bildo
Me---LOOK IT UP. Enter"The Act of 1871" into your search _ It's not difficult. Read it. It can't be "misinterpreted".


Ok, so we get www.legislation.gov.uk...
Dogs Act 1871

???? Just why do you think that is relevant?
or this one
en.wikipedia.org...
or this one
www.legislation.gov.uk...


you apparently know so little about how things work you apparently think there is only one act passed in 1871....
edit on 14-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


Ok, here's an excerpt from the site I mentioned before. This is just one place to find it. You can dig more once you see what it is about in general.
THE ACT OF 1871

1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for
the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of
government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see,
Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in
the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests
(international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the
coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because
the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without
serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the
United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The
corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original
Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was
defaced -- in effect vandalized and sabotage -- when the title was capitalized
and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of
the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic
capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the
Republic. It does is not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact
on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing
the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the
government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This

newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits
only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely
outside the original (organic) Constitution.
Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic
Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges. One
example is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has now been transformed
(under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to
be licensed. (Passports) By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed
TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees
of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. [Information
courtesy of Lisa Guliani, www.babelmagazine.com. The Act of 1871 became the
FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.]



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Considering we are talking about the US, why would you think UK acts would be relevant? Come on, common sense bro


Simply because some of the people believing in the freeman nonsense, the USA is really a corporation etc. claim pommie law is valid....


What is: pommie law?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo
With no constitutional authority to do so,


Ok, exactly where does it state that it was unconstitutional?


Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers.


care to show us proof of this "debt"?


Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document.


Actually, it is. care to show us something valid that states it means anything?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 

Yeah, I got some uk stuff in my search also. I put this: District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 ; into a search and got this:
www.ask.com...www.ask.com...

Well I don't think that went very well. I don't know why there's 2 of 'em there. Oh well. There's a whole mess of good info in there. This will take you out other threads as you become more informed. Verify something if you don't agree with what is stated. You've got to remember, I used to think pretty much along the same line as you. I thought this was all crazy stuff. I tried to prove it wrong. I failed. I concede. Now, it's your turn to prove it wrong.
I only used wiki because other people tend to use it alot.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bildo
 


Right - so we have the 1871 Disctrict of Columbia act - I don't know why you were so hostile to me asking about what it was when apparently you have written this quite easily.

Soooo...... you claim congress had no right to pass this act? why not?

The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country, and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives Congress power over a federal district, stating:


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings


so right there in the constitution it allows for a Federal area of up to 10 miles square (=100 square miles). DC is now just over 63 square miles in area.

the 1871 act repealed the seperate chartes of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a single territorial government for the whole of DC rather than seperate ones for each city.

so how was the 1871 act illegal or unconstitutional or anything else dodgy??

District of columbia Act 1871 (3mb pdf)
edit on 14-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: spelling



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Bildo
With no constitutional authority to do so,


Ok, exactly where does it state that it was unconstitutional?


Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers.


care to show us proof of this "debt"?


Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document.


Actually, it is. care to show us something valid that states it means anything?

See the site with all the links. That I just posted. Even though you have some valid questions, I'm surprised you didn't come up with more. I had alot more than that, at first.
Most of the debt was legitimate war debt. Look it up. The answers to questions about this can be very lengthly. Hopefully, being this far, you can research this futher. If you want to know about war debt, then search in that arena. Go right into the legislation and case law of that time period.
Also, look up the Legal Person. Know what their definition of person is? Look it up. It's : a trust; a corporation.
It's a huge web. I'm still learning. It seems to never end. Legal vs Lawful--- another can o' worms.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Bildo
 


Right - so we have the 1871 disctric of Columbia act - I don't know why you weer so hostile to me asking about what it was when apparently you have written this quiet easily.

Soooo...... you claim congress had no right to pass this act? why not?

The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country, and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives Congress power over a federal district, stating:


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings


so right there in the constitution it allows for a Federal area of up to 10 miles square (=100 square miles). DC is now just over 63 square miles in area.

the 1871 act repealed the seperate chartes of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a single territorial government for the whole of DC rather than seperate ones for each city.

so how was the 1871 act illegal or unconstitutional or anything else dodgy??

District of columbia Act 1871 (3mb pdf)

You said it. The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country But, then, in 1871 they come in and make a "government" for the District they already have?
See the Constitution for the specifics about congress---what their job is, what they're allowed to do? Did the states give this power to the District? They went and formed a "Territorial Government". No longer national. Get out there and dig. I'll try and be back tomorrow. It's a weeknight and I'm beat.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Bildo
 


Right - so we have the 1871 disctric of Columbia act - I don't know why you weer so hostile to me asking about what it was when apparently you have written this quiet easily.

Soooo...... you claim congress had no right to pass this act? why not?

The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country, and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives Congress power over a federal district, stating:


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings


so right there in the constitution it allows for a Federal area of up to 10 miles square (=100 square miles). DC is now just over 63 square miles in area.

the 1871 act repealed the seperate chartes of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a single territorial government for the whole of DC rather than seperate ones for each city.

so how was the 1871 act illegal or unconstitutional or anything else dodgy??

District of columbia Act 1871 (3mb pdf)

You said it. The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country But, then, in 1871 they come in and make a "government" for the District they already have?



Prior to the 1871 act there were several smaller territorial governments in DC - eg for eth 2 cities mentioned above.

the 1871 act reformed the internal Govt into a single unitary one.


See the Constitution for the specifics about congress---what their job is, what they're allowed to do? Did the states give this power to the District?


yes - it did VERY SPECIFICALLY - I have included the section of hte constitution in this reply again - yuo seem to have missed it last time.


They went and formed a "Territorial Government". No longer national.


They formed a territorial government for the TERRITORY of DC - it is a municipal government - it does not replace Congress as the Gov't of the USA!!



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This thread has made me think(which is a good thing) about why I signed the petition for Louisiana. I personally don't think that secession is a good idea,I think we have to keep America whole.The reason I signed the petition is that I believe that if the state of La. wants to secede that should be her right and I support her right to do so.I think a few people who signed this petition feel as I do.Just a little perspective from me.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
were screwed get over it we cant even over throw. no secession nothing so buckle up theres nothing we can do.LOOPHOLE STITCHED CLOSED
edit on 14-11-2012 by MissCoyote because: did some investigating



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


It wouldn't hurt to throw out people that are that delusional. Though medical(mental) help would probably be more humane.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Oh don't worry, Obama is doing the heavy lifting of ruining America. You might want to notice that once the petitions gain a number of siggys, the admin has declared they will address them. (whatever that means in Obama vernacular).



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MissCoyote
 


In my view, the goal is to break up the monopoly the govt has on power in this country. It is way too big for its own britches. Liberals whined about the "empire" running around occupying countries and now that Obama is running things they tell people who want no part of it they are delusional.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fripw
reply to post by rockintitz
 


It wouldn't hurt to throw out people that are that delusional. Though medical(mental) help would probably be more humane.


Translation: "It wouldn't hurt to throw out people who disagree with my position that Nanny Statism and Big Govt will cure all the problems we have. Everyone who disagrees with me is mental. There's a new entry in DSM called 'Liberty minded who don't like Big Govt'."
edit on 14-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
69
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join