Massachusetts-State of Emergency

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


A lot of this “state or emergency” law came from places like Florida, from lessons learned through years of hurricane evacuations. The problem here is that what most people think of, when you say hurricane, is wind and that is how they are classified. The real risk in a hurricane is not from wind damage though, its from “tidal surge”.

People would often ignore the evacuation orders because it was only a level 1-2 hurricane, go to the beach to watch the waves, and get cut off from the mainland because they didn't realize how quickly the tidal surge came in through the bays/rivers/etc behind them, and cut off their escape routes. Once they were cut off from escape, yet the water kept coming in, they would eventually end up in a life and death situation. Others, for example, would go out immediately after the storm, to see the damage, and end up dead because they would get out of their car, into a puddle, only to find out that somewhere there was also a downed electric line in the same puddle.

Florida got into a bad scenario of over reporting storms (and scaring a bunch of folks over nothing), then under-reporting them (and causing a batch of deaths), and now are back to being over cautious with them. They discovered that its best to scare people into leaving as each situation is unique, has many variables, and can change in seconds leaving folks trapped. So they are going to always err on the side of caution now, especially after Katrina.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You're supporting legislation to prevent stupidity basically.

Isn't that the same as supporting a nanny state?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
People working as convenience stores and gas stations are “essential” personnel because they provide the fuel infrastructure to the emergency vehicles that are still on duty. As a matter of fact, something that most folks probably don't realize unless they live somewhere where you have a lot of these closures, is that gas stations are required to maintain an emergency reserve “level” of fuel in their tanks. So for example, in a hurricane, when they start getting to that tank level, they put bags on the pump handles, but in reality they still have a significant level of gas that is only allowed to be sold to “emergency workers”...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Why not go for broke and declare all gas is free for emergency workers too while we are suspending rights and such.

Well, if not free then give them cards with a code or something - then less people will be at risk. See - I care.

Just leave the pumps on give them a code viola no workers needed - less risk more people "saved".


Originally posted by defcon5
That's all great, but its not how it works.
The reason being, that often these foolish people take other innocent people down with them.


Again this is just preemptively punishing everyone for what some people might do... A dangerous precedent to set.


Originally posted by defcon5
An example, being the retirement homes both here in Florida and in New Orleans, where the owners foolishly decided to leave the occupants stranded throughout disasters.


In this case those abandoned people can seek legal remedy through the courts. The government can charge the company for the cost of any rescue and it is all within the scope of normal law. Punishing everyone for the potential acts of others is not the answer.


Originally posted by defcon5
Also people taking children with them into these situations, where the child is really stuck in a situation that is not of their own choice or making.


News flash, unless you are advocating people sign their kids over to the government based on the possibility they might someday be in a situation not of their choosing (a dangerous one) there is no way to prevent this preemptively. People put their children in harm’s way all the time. The States role is not one of preemptive enforcement and mitigation of all possible harm.

They act in the child’s best interest after there is probable cause to suspect harm - you know all the legal mumbo jumbo these "States of Emergency" waive - "for the good of the people".

Again, taking away a parents rights is not a preemptive thing but a reaction on the part of the State. No one, even the State can act on the presumption that people will harm their own children.

There is no reason or justification other than the absolute last resort for suspending the rights to the people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – period. Suspending our Constitutional rights should have a huge burden of proof of necessity on the part of the executive so ordering – with grave consequences for misjudgment and over reaction. A winter storm no matter how harsh is not such an event. Especially not before it even hits.
edit on 9/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


When hurricane Charley hit, the toll booths waved people on without paying.... first time I ever saw that...



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Just because you have never seen a tree free American


I'm not sure what a "Tree Free American is, but like the rest of your argument it has been ruled moot time and time again

And time and time again, people that listen to people like you end up in jail

Your wrong

It is as simple as that


Its obvious you do not know what a free American is nor freedom itself! My argument has never been ruled moot and I nor anyone has ever been thrown in jail for it and even been paid fees by the court for the frivolous charges. Your mistake is assuming my argument is the same as other frivolous arguments. Mine is unimpeachable Judges have to obey the law and it "IS" that simple.

You spread fear and propaganda just as you were programmed to do at the academy and think your badge gives you all power. It doesn't and Americans are waking up to that fact. You won't believe it till you get slapped down hard by one of us in court. And you are liable personally for your actions contrary to what you were taught at the academy.

edit on 10-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 




While I agree that the Governor of a State should have the right and does have the authority to do many things in his State – suspending the rights of people to freely travel in anticipation of a winter storm seems to be an excessive over reaction.

Limiting any right of the people should be an absolute last resort in the face of the most overwhelming of circumstances and based in facts rather than presumption. Bottom line it should not be an preemptive action taken for the convenience of the government to make their jobs easier.


You're right.
Limiting people to freely do as they choose is excessive.

Not having lived in the area to know the typical weather conditions, terrain and behaviour of motorists when it snows two feet, its hard to tell just how excessive it is though.

There are places that get much more snow than this, consistently all winter long and travel bans are not issued. People need to be able to move freely as they wish. As it should be. Usually its just strongly advised not to go out unless you really need to. Stay home and most do.

Have they heard of just having road closures? That's what most places do instead. Some roads are closed because they aren't fit to travel on.

Does it hardly snow there like this and motorists just don't know how to drive in it?

Once they get away with using state of emergencies for the reason of travel bans, it will become where it never was just for snow storms but for anything else warranting state of emergency.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
What people are missing is that declaring a "state of emergency" has little to do with the citizens and everything to do with getting priority to the Federal treasury and consolidating power to the Executive to override that pesky "representative" thing we have; republic? nah, we are in a "state of emergency"!

Here is the statement that should have been issued from the Government; not some statewide ban on travel...


Please avoid unnecessary travel


That is it; nothing more, nothing less. There is plenty of lawyers who could spin that in favor of the Government to nail idiots who decided that a taco-bell run at 4am was a good idea and ended up needing rescue. But Heaven forbid the people who don't want to break the law, but need to get to work. The state unduly places them into a predicament: do I get to work to do my job to feed my family or do I obey the edicts of the Government and explain to the power company, the mortgage lender, the paper boy, etc that I am short this month?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
The propensity to dogmatic stupidity by humanity can never and must never be under-estimated.

Legislatives creates the laws.

The People, can either agree or disagree with such laws through congressional representation, and once if Society/The People, in majority either through themselves or their elected representatives agrees to it, laws are enshrined and respected by all, which is equal to all.

The minority who disagree with the law can either do 2 things - be convinced or convince themselves the rationality of such laws FOR THE GREATER GOOD, or exile themselves and not hinder society. A civilised society cannot function upon the whims and fancies of the minority who wish to remain under jungle laws.

It is true that the cause of GREATER GOOD had often been misused for tyranny. However, such misuse can only win if the People are sleeping, or are weak and apathetic, such as the Iranians, Russians and the Chinese.

In America, there are CHECKS AND BALANCES at every level of governance of both state and federal terrroritories, and beefed up by an educated People whom can tell the difference between wool and reality, and not easily swayed by any misuse of the causes for Greater Good by potential tyrants.

State of Emergency, Martial law and the such likes are Executive Powers granted to the Executive in times of clear and present danger to deal effectively with a situation whereby time does not permit the normal authorisation of legislative debate.

The storm was a clear and present danger, and was far too dangerous to leave it to the 'responsible' behaviour of the People to keep themselves and others safe, without punitive action upon those irresponsible. As events had proven, there were irresponsible people on the streets driving when a ban was in place, which had disrupted traffic flow, endangered themselves and others including emergency responders, etc.

Do not debate for the sake of excercising one's mouth, or hold laws dogmatically when it is obvious they are standing in the way of safety and progress. RATIONALISE those laws based upon logic and reason, on the neccesity of them.

To dogmatically cling on to them using justification of freedoms are pure lies if not utter stupidity. Freedom is a power that comes with responsiblities to oneself and to others in a civilised society. The only place whereby a man has no responsibility or accountability to anyone is either in undiscovered jungles or the graveyards.

The founding fathers, from brilliant generals to newly wed foot soldiers, did not sacrifice themselves to write the sacred Constitution in blood for the nation to revert back to the jungles, but to be benevolently ruled by a dynamic RULE of LAW with checks and balances in place for everyone to play a part within a civilised society to know freedom and responsibilities, to safely progress and evolve.

They were not blind to human nature, and knew full well how irresponsible some will be within the nation, and thus the provision of executive powers when the nation is in danger. Yet again, through this storm, they were proven right.

May those whom wish to be irresponsible and use dogmas as excuses for such behaviour, rethink their position, learn from it, or...the airport for flights to jungle states is open 24/7, barring weather conditions.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
You guys saw where the 11 year old boy dies during this latest storm? A tragic death from carbon monoxide poisoning.

The article states that the boy was helping his father dig out the family car and that he got cold during the shoveling so his father placed him in the car to warm up. The exhaust pipe was buried under the snow and by the time the father discovered what had happened, it was too late. The boy died either in route to the hospital or shortly thereafter.

www.christianpost.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I know this is a conspiracy theory site, but I think many are making much to do about nothing. I live in MA. The travel ban was so dumb people wouldn't be out driving on the roads. This makes it easier/necessary for the plows and sand trucks to do their jobs throughout the day/night. In prior blizzards cars were being abandoned in the middle of the streets and even on roads like I-93 making it difficult or impossible to plow. Not to mention it keeps the number of wrecks down and having to make EMT's and police get out in the mess to help people.

I will also say that the driving ban didn't seem to be enforced at all. I haven't heard any stories of people getting citations and police were given specific instructions to allow the reasons for people needing to travel be broad. A friend of mine passed by two cops on his way to work yesterday morning and neither stopped him.

If droves of people wouldn't get out in this sort of weather and get hurt or make clean-up difficult or impossible, then things like a travel ban wouldn't be necessary.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





Legislatives creates the laws.

The People, can either agree or disagree with such laws through congressional representation, and once if Society/The People, in majority either through themselves or their elected representatives agrees to it, laws are enshrined and respected by all, which is equal to all.


No that is not how it works at least not according to the law and Constitution. The propensity to ignorance and denial of the people of their history and the actual laws that exist to protect them from overbearing government is mind blowing.

The legislature can only create laws within the confines of the constitution federal and state period! Any law they create outside those confines is null and void from inception and citizens are under no obligation to obey any such law. We are not a mob rules democracy we are a republic The constitution is the standard of the republic no law can be created that violates it.

"Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

There it is in black and white right there above a supreme court ruling affirming what I just told you along with several other supreme court rulings I have posted in this thread proving now what I have said several times. It's not idle talk or some sovereign voodoo this is American law on record for all to see know and use! If you want to deny that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and deny the Supreme Court has upheld it numerous times and that every judge in every state is obligated to uphold it and continue to remain ignorant and allow yourself be extorted and abused by local and state officers that is your prerogative but don't sit here and act like you know anything about the law and your rights when clearly you do not.

edit on 10-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Regardless if the insignificant nobody me know the law or not to your personal convoluted jungle standards, the fact remains that laws are created by the People to serve the People.

There are no laws that can fix every situation that arises in humankind, more so one as fast paced and evolving as ours. And thus, there are needs to look at laws as they are legislated, to ensure that it keeps in essence to the sacred Constitution, not deviate too far from there, or if there is a need, it must be FULLY justified so.

And the State of Emergency for the storm broke NO laws as the executive provisions allowed it to be done, for a short time and to save lives as provened by the irresponsible during the storm.

If you anti- societally wish to dream up further challenges to the Constitutional based upon your deluded scenarios, you are free to do so, but do not attempt to make use of this SOE for the storm to whip up support for your regressive dreams for jungle law irresponsible freedoms or disparage against those whom see through your pathetic attempts



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Hawkiye is correct, it is you who is wrong, if you truly are a seeker of truth, then you must comprehend WHY government was created and HOW it has become a corporation.


America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796). Republican v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The society for Propagating the Gospel & c. v. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.


These are court cases and other documents which expose and show us the truth.

Legislation is NOT law, it is regulation, there can be no "Law" without Due Process. Common Law is that fact where there is an injured party, damaged property or the trespass on anothers rights or property.

You obviously do not get it. I will post some cases which explain the "regualtion" and that it is NOT law.


In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is:
“a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.” [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P. 2d 199, 203.

“A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc. 2d 700; 211 N.W. 2d 480, 487.


The police power is subordinate TO the people, this means We the People have the authority OVER the policy enforcement officers. Public Policy IS NOT LAW. I can not express that enough and can not comprehend WHY you people can't grasp that. Do you want or need to be taken care of from cradle to grave? Are you THAT irresponsible that you NEED to be ruled over?

Responsible people do not need government or governing in ANY way. Please, for the love of God grasp the reality of that, if you seek the truth as your site name proclaims. You claim the Constitution does this or that, it does not apply to the People, it applies TO THE GOVERNMENT, it imposes a restriction on WHAT they can REGULATE!! Again, legislation is NOT law!!

“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540 (1902); Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.y. Co., 24 A. 848 (1892); O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 103 A. 887.

“The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” [emphasis added]Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 U. S. 613 (1935); Buchanan vs. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).

“It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.” Tighe vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 (1925).

“As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. City of Milwaukee, 146 N. W. 882 (1914).

If you wish, U2U me with your e-mail address and I will send you thousands of cases where people have told the government to, in not so harsh a word, SHOVE IT!! I have won cases. It is not hard to grasp once you have a comprehension of WHAT you are and WHO you are. Man came first, not government, We rule.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





Regardless if the insignificant nobody me know the law or not to your personal convoluted jungle standards, the fact remains that laws are created by the People to serve the People.


I'm sorry but perhaps you could explain to us just how citing straight supreme court rulings and the laws themselves gets translated to "personal convoluted jungle standard" in your mind? You appear to be in denial and just arguing for argument sake at this point since daddio and myself have now quoted numerous cases proving beyond doubt what we have said is well established in American jurisprudence. Just because a majority of Americans are ignorant of these cold hard facts and allow themselves to be subverted by government schemes and misinformation in no way changes the facts that this is the law.

The day is coming when we may lose those rights because of the ignorance of the masses and their failure to claim understand and assert their rights as tyrants and criminals continue to usurp our Constitution and rights because of said ignorance. Therefore it behooves every American to learn and understand these things and assert their rights and freedom. If you truly believe the Constitution is sacred as you said you would never allow the legislature to stray even a little bit outside its bounds and you owe it to yourself to become educated in these matters!



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
This is bull crap, we use to get 10 feet of snow in th U. P> but you deal with it.
This is like comm # what if , you a equip to be out there then what.

How bad is this storm, is this so they can plow the roads , what.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Very well put, If you file a UCC-1 you can take back your strawman and make the government the debtor that it is, WE are the creditor. You can take your statement (bills) and write on the front.. "Money Order" and sign it on the back "For Deposit in the U.S. Teasury Only" and the government has to pay your bills pursuant to HJR-192 of 1933. They took the gold from the publics hands then and gave us fiat currency (IOU's) until such time as they give us our gold back, in 1964 they took the silver and Nixon sealed the deal. We owe nothing, the government must pay us back for the gold and silver they took as legal tender, you have nothing to pay a debt with, a "Federal Reserve Note" is a debt instrument, you can not pay a debt with a debt instrument,

A state of emergency is a joke, the government is seeing who is paying attention and monitoring this stuff, so they can change their program to completely destroy us all. I am glad to see that some people get it and know it!!

Good on you Hawkiye!!!
edit on 10-2-2013 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

If you truly believe the Constitution is sacred as you said you would never allow the legislature to stray even a little bit outside its bounds and you owe it to yourself to become educated in these matters!




That is nonsene. Laws are enacted by the People, for the People. If there are laws that are detrimental to the well being of the nation, then it will be struck off through either congressional means or on the streets, regardless if such law came about yesterday or had been there for 200+ years.

The only reason why the sacred Constitution remained as its is for 200+ years was because the founding fathers had great foresight, as much of those laws and regulations remains relevant for the well being, protection, progress and evolution of the american people.

But rest assure, when the day comes that those laws are no longer necessary, or it brings more griets to the nation than salvation, it will be amended accordingly by the majority. But that day has not come yet and NO mortal can predict the future with accuracy.

My point is - never, never hold onto laws that are detrimental to the well being of the nation, which causes more sufferings than help, just because that law needs to be upheld. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to use the constitution to bind up and enslave the People. It was only to bond all americans to responsible freedom.

As for daddio, you are only correct when you say 'We, the People, rule'. For the love of all that is bright and pure, do comprehend what that means.

It meant us the People, as a COLLECTIVE, rule, and NOT a single individual. When you alone challange those laws, you are doing on the basis of the collective, for laws are across the board and equally applies to all. The law does not bend to your will alone, nor do you You alone rule but the COLLECTIVE does.

You may have different views, so do I, so does everyone. Thus it is the common goals of everyone that binds us all together to progress and evolve. When the collective had made their decision, every citizen will have to abide by it, unless it is challenged in a court of law, and the collective will either accept that ruling or that plantiff made to change theirs.

However, I am not here to talk about frivolous court cases and the whatnots. It is for another thread if you wish to convince others of such convoluted logic that your kind had presented.

This thread is about the SOE for the current storm, a temporary decree to have minimal disruptions in a densely populated area and to save lives, and it is the SOE's aims that I am more interesting in than debating wild theories of citizens or govt missusing the constitution to perpertrate their ignorances and irresponsibilities.
edit on 10-2-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





It was never the intention of the founding fathers to use the constitution to bind up and enslave the People. It was only to bond all americans to responsible freedom.



You obviously have never studied the writings of the founders nor the history of this once great nation!. The Constitution was written explicitly to bind down the federal government to prevent exactly crap like the Massachusetts governor from violating rights especially under the guise of protecting them. the Constitution was a restriction on the government not the people.

The word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution for good reason. It was written to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority i.e democracy. As long as I am not harming anyone it is nobodies business what I do least of all the soc called collective. That is nothing more then mob rules and the anti-thesis to the founders intentions. The bill of rights was a warning to government not to mess with those rights that the rights of the individual not the the collective. the collective has no right to tell the individual what to do as long as he is not harming anyone.

You claim the Constitution is sacred yet you have no clue as to its meaning. You repeat media rhetoric as if it is fact. It's not it's nonsense! I suggest you start reading the federalist papers and the ant-federalist papers to understand what the intentions of the founders were for it was maximum freedom and liberty of the individual not mob rules as you suggest... Please quit assuming you know about something you show compete ignorance in. Our rights existed long before the Constitution. it is just a document illustrating some of them

The basic maxim of law this country and the Constitution is based on is; no harm no crime and honor your contracts. Not the 51% get to tell the 49% what to do and they must obey... That is nothing but mob rules and the founders abhorred such democracy which is why it in not in our founding documents.

edit on 10-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You obviously DO NOT know how the US Constitution came about. Is history no longer taught in school?

The preamble of the Constitution reads as, 'WE, the People....." and not 'I, sovereign citizen Kane...."

No educated american would call america's form of governance as 'direct democracy' whereby the mob rules. USA is based upon principles of representative democracy within the republic. Perhaps only you believed that the mob rules in USA, more so with your belief over the election result. It was and had always been the electoral college votes that counted, and not the popular vote, if I may remind you.

Go on dreaming that the constitution meant liberty for you alone, and argue all you want, but your revisionist jungle version hardly holds any credibility. If you wish to be irresponsibly free, there are still some undiscovered parts of the jungle in the Amazon where you can do as you wish, with one advice, you better be the fittest or you will never survive a week alone after getting there.
edit on 11-2-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You obviously DO NOT know how the US Constitution came about. Is history no longer taught in school?

The preamble of the Constitution reads as, 'WE, the People....." and not 'I, sovereign citizen Kane...."

Go on dreaming that the constitution meant liberty for you alone, and argue all you want, but your revisionist jungle version hardly holds any credibility. If you wish to be irresponsibly free, there are still some undiscovered parts of the jungle in the Amazon where you can do as you wish, with one advice, you better be the fittest or you will never survive a week alone after getting there.


I see you are just trolling and have no intention of meaningful discussion. Of course I never said liberty meant me alone or irresponsible freedom. that is just a false argument you put out to try and distract from the fact you don't know what you are talking about. I said no harm no crime how is that irresponsible? Oh that right you are just trolling...sigh! Individual liberty means liberty for everyone as in each individual but you seem to think a group of people can vote limit individual liberty which of course is dead wrong! For the mentally challenged it means the majority do not get to tell the minority what to do.

So since you avoided it tell us have you read the federalist papers hmmmm??? (I won't hold my breath as I am sure we'll get another false argument that has no basis in reality).They are basically the backdrop of the founders intentions on every tenant of the Constitution there really is no question as to what their intentions were and your rhetoric is not even remotely close to what they wrote. I'd bet dollars to donuts you have never read them and have no clue whats in them since you keep coming on here and spouting utter inane nonsense you have been brainwashed with.

edit on 11-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
22
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant