BOBT12
Forum Replies Created
-
Admin wrote on Nov 3 2009, 12:39 PM:Truly scary stuff http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/727.htmlYeah, very scary. I am going to refuse the shots.
-
“Fall of the Republic” is so good. It is even better than the very good Obama Deception in that it provides more detail and background regarding the unconstitutional acts that have taken place over the years to get the nation to the tyrannical state we are in today.
-
Admin wrote on Oct 25 2009, 04:34 PM:Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) used by government to covertly monitor you. Called Air Force Bugboats in the video. http://video.designworldonline.com/bugbots.html
It is clear that we are not in Kansas anymore.
-
Thanks for that info. Keep up the good work.
-
The nation should never have been put on unConstitutional fiat currency.
Quote:“Paper money is a nursery of tyranny, corruption, and delusion; a veritable debauch of authority in delirium.” – Mirabeau (1789). -
Admin wrote on Oct 13 2009, 09:26 PM:Texas Has Just Passed A Law That Will Show You How To File Criminal Charges Against The IRS — And Void Their Liens! http://www.citizensoftheamericanconstituti…d%20A%20Law.htm
This is great news.
-
Admin wrote on Oct 6 2009, 12:31 PM:U.S. Mint suspends production of American Eagle Silver Coins for 2009
As many of you know, silver has appreciated faster than gold recently, leading to increased demand for silver over gold coins. For statistics on this phenomenon, see:
Today, we called the U.S. mint to inquire about the availability of American Eagle 1 ounce silver coins. We used the following page on their website to contact them:
They told us that production of the American Eagle 1 ounce silver coins had been suspended entirely for 2009(!) because:
1. The law authorizing their issuance at 99 Stat. 61 requires the minto to produce American Eagle Silver Dollars in sufficient quantities to meet public demand.
2. Last year, they had unprecedented demand and couldn't keep up with said demand.
3. Because they can't keep up with public demand at this point, they said that had to STOP production or they would be in VIOLATION of the law authorizing issuance of the coins.
For press releases on this phenomenon, see:
http://www.reuters.com/article/fundsFundsN…744712920081007
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mint-wide…es-get-depleted
http://www.coinnews.net/2009/10/06/2009-go…ases-scheduled/
The message to the public by this decision is:
1. When we can't keep up with production, we will halt production ENTIRELY and effectively go on STRIKE.
2. The only kind of services we can offer the public are things they really don't WANT or NEED, which are NOT in high demand, and which don't interfere with our counterfeiting franchise/plunder program. God forbid that we should ever have to do ANYTHING to justify the plunder that constitutes our inflated paycheck and exhorbitant retirement plan. Instead, we want to retire on duty.
3. We don't have an obligation to meet demand by expanding production or to even explain why we aren't meeting our obligation to satisfy public demand.
4. We will do everything we can to create a contrived shortage of coins so that the premiums on the coins we mint will be so high and the differential between buy and sell to be so high that it is impractical, injurious, and not cost effective to try to protect your savings from inflation by buying said coins. This has the practical effect of FORCING you to use FRNs that will rapidly deflate to retain the value of your earnings.
5. If you want to invest in commodities, you have to go through a brokerage so you will be FORCED to pay taxes on the earnings because financial institutions have no qualms about reporting and violate the laws on reporting ALL the time and are protected in executing that fraud, theft, and conversion by the omissions of the DOJ in prosecuting these false reports.
6. The REAL reason they are suspending production of silver dollars is to FORCE the public to use fiat Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs). That way, they can effectively STEAL from those STUPID enough to use FRNs instead of REAL money by running the counterfeiting franchise/printing presses FULL TIME and thus decreasing the value of existing dollars in circulation. In other words, Americans are FORCED at gunpoint by restricting their practical choises to become surety for our irresponsible fiscal policies of a corrupted government and left with no recourse. Call it an adhesion contract, call it tyranny, or call it THEFT, which is what it really is.
THIS, folks, is how Obama wants to run your healthcare system! If they can't keep up with public demand, they will SHUT DOWN the entire system and unplug grandma and KILL her! Look at the recent issue of Newsweek magazine on Sep 19, 2009, which has on the front cover the story “THE CASE FOR KILLING GRANNY”. See:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215734
THIS is where we are headed, folks. Does this sound like a more humane, compassionate, MORAL government? NO, they are MURDERERS, LIARS, and thieves and they MUST fall, because they are violating God's law and his mandate specifically to handle money scrupulously and to to NOT kill. See:
The Government Can
This is an outrage! 😮
Remember the UN and the G20 are sinking the dollar. Change is coming, folks. The foreigners will no longer finance our debt. The printing presses or the only real (well cutting cost would really help, yet, the Banksters are unlikely to use an honest solution) option for the Banksters, this spells inflation. These fools don't want people to run to real money like GOLD and Silver!
http://www.infowars.com/robert-fisk-on-the…ing-the-dollar/
“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value–zero.” ~ Voltaire
Hey this is just in time for the Flu Shots.
The Killer Klowns intend to kill the people!
-
Admin wrote on Sep 30 2009, 11:50 PM:EDITORIAL: Dave Champion runs the following websites:
http://www.americanradioshow.us/;
http://www.originalintent.org/;
http://www.davechampionshow.com
_____________________________
By Dave Champion:
Dear Friends,
Well, yesterday was my meeting with the IRS pursuant to a summons that they had left at my house several weeks ago.
First of all I want to say that I had a GREAT time!!!!!! If you are properly prepared (both mentally and with documents), remain calm, and pay strict attention to all that is being said and done in the meeting room you can demolish their purported authority to summons from many different legal perspectives. I know I said this before, but I had FUN!!!
As always, I was affable as could be with the Revenue Officers (herein RO); after all, if you've got the law on your side, there's no reason to be unpleasant. The old adage, “kill them with kindness [or at least civility]” comes to mind. This also has the added benefit of helping to over-turn the garbage that they are fed in training about us “Patriots”. Being well mannered and having sufficient evidence to devastate their authority is the best revenge! They HATE that!!!!
Whether it be the style of the new, more friendly, IRS or just the “tactics” of these particular RO's, we sat and BS'd for about an hour before they ever asked any questions that fell within the scope of “producing books and records”. That was fine with me because I had blocked out several hours for the meeting and and I had decided many days ago that I would not “take the fight to them”, but rather would allow them to voluntarily enter the minefield! It was kinda cute because the lead RO (Billingsley) just sort of slipped a question in about what I'm doing for a living these days. It really sounded quite conversational. It almost sounded like a common question that someone might ask you over a friendly beer – almost, but not quite!
At that point I asked if we were entering the portion of the meeting that would fall under his alleged authority to summons me for books and records. He was not happy that his little ploy had not worked, but he admitted that we were now in that area. As I had written to him in advance and had requested several documents to support his claim of alleged authority, he voluntarily handed me (without being asked a second time) a copy of the Delegation of Authority Order which he stated showed his delegated authority from the District Director to summons me. Interestingly, upon review, the Order [LA-6 (rev 16)] showed that the authority to “issue” summons was indeed delegated to RO's with a GS-9 and above rating [item 3 in the Order]. However, in item 4 of the Order I found that the authority to “serve” the summons was delegated ONLY to a Tax Fraud Investigative Aide. Isn't it nice of the District Director to be so specific! I asked the RO who had served the summons at my home if he was also a Tax Fraud Investigative Aide. He stated that he was not. I informed him that we had a little problem. I told him that if he was not a Tax Fraud Investigative Aide, then his service of the summons was a nullity because he exceeded his authority and everything from that moment forward was legally void. He wasn't too hot on that little reality check!
RO Billingsley then started making accusations of non-cooperation. In the spirit of cooperation (and having far more ammunition up my sleeve) I told him that if he preferred, we could pretend that his service was good and move on. He liked that idea and then requested my books and records. I explained that I meant that we should go on to the next question concerning the validity of his alleged authority. I wish I had a blood pressure monitor hooked up to that guy! I think it would have exploded!
I thought I'd go easy on him a while, so I moved directly to the language of IRC section 7602. Section 7602 state (in its relevant part) that, “…the Secretary is authorized…to summon the person liable for tax…”. I pointed out to the RO's that the language of 7602, i.e. “the person liable”, is present tense. In other words, in order for 7602 to have any legal effect, the IRS must ALREADY KNOW that the person IS liable for a tax. I pointed out that section 7602 does not contain any authority for the Service to go on a “fishing trip” in the hope of uncovering some fact(s) that might then create liability. I then asked the RO's to place “on the record” (I was taping the meeting) any evidence they had that proved I was liable for any tax contained in the IRC for the years indicated on the summons. As could be expected, there was no evidence.
I thought it was time to get ugly again, so I shifted to the IRS' history and organizational statement in Part 1100 of the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM). I asked the RO's in which Division they worked. Both stated that they worked in the assigned to the Collections Division. I had brought copies of the section which outlines the organization of the various Offices/Divisions/Departments, etc. of the Service. In the section I brought, it numerically designates the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (International) as 1132. Every division/department within the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (International) is designated with 1132 followed by a period and then one or two more digits. As an example, the Office of Resource Management is 1132.5, while the Director of the Office of Resource Management is 1132.51.
Now watch this series carefully:
Officer of Asst. Commissioner (International) 1132 Office of Taxpayer Service and Compliance 1132.7 Director, Office of Taxpayer Service and Compliance 1132.71 Collection Division 1132.72.
Hello! That doesn't take a rocket scientist. And for those inquiring minds – yes, 1132.72 is the ONLY collection division listed in the entire IRS organizational statement. Needless to say, both RO's vehemently denied that they work for the Assistant Commissioner (International), but could not provide any evidence to refute their own manual.
I then read them the functional description of their division from 1132.72, to wit; “Executes the full range of collection activities in delinquent accounts which includes securing delinquent returns involving taxpayers outside the United States and those in United States territories, and possessions and in Puerto Rico. Administers the program for mutual collection assistance under tax treaties. Provide assistance…”. Despite the fact that there is only one collection division mentioned in the org statement and that the functional description is from their own manual, they were adamant that I had lost my mind! Of course when I suggested that they return me to sanity by providing documentary evidence which would dispute 1132.72, they demurred. Hmmm.
I then went to the old standard – there are no implementing regulations for 7602 in Title 26. The only reg promulgated by the Secretary for 7602 is found in Title 27 (which deals exclusively with ATF matters). The RO's stated that the statute was sufficient and that there was no need for regs in this matter. I simply reminded them that the Secretary obviously thought otherwise because he had promulgated regs for 7602 in Title 27. I pointed out that that fact clearly confirms that a reg IS needed to implement 7602 and that the Secretary had apparently decided that 7602 was NOT to be applied to tax matters other than those relating to alcohol, tobacco and firearms. Of course, once again, the RO's assured me that I was an idiot and that they did have authority to apply 7602 to me in matters of non-ATF taxes. Needless to say, I was told that I would simply have to take their word for it.
And last but not least, I informed them that Treasury Decision 120-01 (which transferred the functions of the IRS' Division of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to the newly-created “Bureau” of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) specifically transferred the functions of Revenue Officers to the BATF. Boy oh boy! You would have thought I set off firecrackers in their pants! They got down right nasty about this time. Anyway, I asked them if they had any evidence that I was involved in ATF activities. Of course the answer was “no”.
About this time I think they were getting tired of getting beat down with their own agency's paperwork showing the authority they DIDN'T have, so they decided that our meeting was over. Too bad – I was having such a good time and I had so much more to offer!
Take care,
Dave Champion
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
— Patrick Henry
That is great! Thanks for sharing. 😆
-
Admin wrote on Sep 16 2009, 12:59 AM:Twenty Minutes With the President-Charlie Sheen http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/
It is great to see sheen come out with such a well thought out letter.
It has been difficult for the Major Media to bury this good work. Of course, they put their spin on the situation, and they refuse to deal with any of the real issues brought up in the letter. Thus, they reveal how superficial their coverage is, and that they have an agenda to hide the truth.
-
Admin wrote on Sep 10 2009, 10:23 PM:Baucus Health Care Draft to Fine Reluctant Gun Owners up to $3,800
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Thursday, September 10, 2009
By now, members of Gun Owners of America should have received pre-written postcards opposing the anti-gun health care bills that are floating around on Capitol Hill.
Please send in those postcards — as it's very important for legislative offices to see mounds of gun owners' mail being dumped on their desks!
Now that Congress is back in session — and the President has given his televised push on health care — it is time for us to redouble our efforts.
To review the bidding:
Every major health care bill being considered in Congress would require many (if not most) Americans to be covered by insurance policies written by the Obama administration — so-called ObamaCare.
Among other things, ObamaCare will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database — pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.
So, as a gun owner who doesn't want this data to be trolled by the BATFE from a federal database, you might say:
* “I'm not going to buy an ObamaCare policy.”
or
* “I'm going to buy the type of insurance that I want to buy.”
Well, anti-gun Democrat Max Baucus (D-MT) has a question for you: “How would you like to pay a $3,800 a year fine?”
That's right. In a legislative draft released this week, Baucus would fine you up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders you to buy.
So, what's going to be required under ObamaCare? And how much is it going to cost?
Baucus isn't going to tell you that until after the bill is passed. We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.
Take into consideration that the Baucus draft — with its $3,800 per year fines and its ObamaCare -related gun databases — is the so-called “conservative” bill. This is the one that they're trying to get Republicans to sign onto because it's so “conservative.” The final Pelosi-written conference report will be much, much worse.
Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign, but guess what? He lied.
ACTION:
1. Write your Senators. Ask them to oppose the anti-gun Baucus draft, with its requirement that Americans purchase an Obama-approved insurance policy or pay a $3,800 annual fine. This legislative draft has not yet been publicly released; however, several news agencies have reported on its key features — and these reviews are widely available on the Internet.
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.
2. Distribute this email far and wide. There are people that you know who should be involved in the fight against socialized health care who are just sitting on the sidelines. Please forward this email to them and get them involved in the fight!
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
Please oppose the open-ended anti-gun mandates contained in the Baucus health draft. Among other things, Baucus-mandated policies, which would have to be approved by the Obama administration, will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database — pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.
So, what if a gun owner insists on buying the type of insurance he wants to buy? Sen. Baucus would fine him up to $3,800 a year.
That's right. In a recently released draft, Baucus would fine gun owners up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders them to buy. So, what's going to be required by this Baucus-mandated policy? And how much is it going to cost?
Baucus isn't going to tell us that until after the bill is passed. We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.
Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign.
In short, please oppose the anti-gun, anti-freedom Baucus “compromise” and please let me know exactly where you stand on this issue.
Sincerely,
________________________
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to [url url=”http://”]gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net[/url] with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or click on the link at bottom.
Problems, questions or comments? Please visit http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket or call 703-321-8585 during normal east coast business hours. If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.
I already sent in my card against ObamaNoCare. The GOA is much more serious about gun ownership than the NRA.
Quote:“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”– Thomas JeffersonHere's another interesting note.
Quote:Obama “Czar” Sunstein Talks About the Second AmendmentKurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 10, 2009
In the following video, Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein — who was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday – talks about the Second Amendment.
Sunstein also misinterprets the Second Amendment. His argument about government restrictions on the amendment — in particular, gun locks — is predicated on the self defense argument. In fact, the founders naturally assumed individuals would use weapons for self defense and they did not include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure self defense against criminal acts — rather, they explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against tyranny and were not organized for hunting expeditions. So-called liberals inherently sidestep this basic principle and insist the Second Amendment is about hunting and to a lesser degree self defense. It is unimaginable to them that the people may one day be required to defend themselves against a tyrannical state.
Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny. “Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes,” he assured Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and other senators during his confirmation.
It would seem senator Saxby and the other Congress critters share a dim understanding of the Second Amendment as well. For them, it is all about hunting and self defense, not a tyrannical state.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-czar-sunstei…cond-amendment/
-
franklin wrote on Sep 9 2009, 11:44 AM:Hey BobT
We're not in disagreement. I'm just emphasizing that the smoke and mirrors created by corporations means that the gov is playing in one stadium, under corporate policy, and the American people are playing in another, under constitutional law. To debate or 'duke it out' they both have to be on the same playing field.
I believe exposing the corporate government fraud and it's fraudulent franchise contracts, in passionate town hall meetings, would be the most effective because the courts can hear contract grievances while a person is presumed to lack standing if they have a constitutional grievance.
[…]
So, it is up to the people to expose the corporate fraud at loud and passionate town halls and then insist on constitutional behavior. For me it's a matter of first knowing what you are trying to correct with the constitution before insisting on its observance. Unless the 'corporate jurisdiction' fraud is fully exposed, the criminals will always be able to hide behind it and hoodwink the people.
With all due respect, I think the people (at Town Hall meetings, etc.) are fighting the issue on the correct basis, based upon the Constitution and their heart.
Quote:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” -ConstitutionI see no support that the people ever agreed to the propositions that you outline.
Quote:The Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. -Hamilton, Federalist No. 78They are seeking liberty and justice.
Quote:“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it… Where do you stand Citizen?” –Judge Learned Hand (1961)Quote:“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void.” — VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)Quote:“The Creature having nothing, and being nothing but what the creator makes him, must owe all to him [the creator], and nothing to anyone from whom he has received nothing.” -Sidney -
franklin wrote:Hey BobT
I didn't specify the group I was talking about. The president won't raise Johnwk's issue, and the politicians listening to him won't either.
This may, or may not, be true.
“Of course, there is no place in the Constitution that authorizes the Constitutional president to promote healthcare by federal law.” On this we agree. “No government is ever in favor of freedom of the individual. It invariably seeks to limit that freedom, if not by overt denial, then by seeking to constantly widen its own functions… All governments, of course, are against liberty…” –H.L. Mencken.
“But, he is not the constitutional president and refuses, adamantly, to show the necessary documents that would verify his status as such.” This is the very fraud that I speaking of. If these documents give him some power over the public that is not clearly spelled out in the Constitution, it is invalid. “As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.” -John Locke
“Of course, the people are raising the issue about the socialist unconsitutional nature of federal health care, but that is not stopping ob from pursuing it. I meant the complicit congress and the co-opted press will not raise the question in any meaningful, constitutional way.” Tyranny is not easy to put into line, and it refuses to govern itself! “The defining characteristic of a tyrant is a belief that a power not expressly denied is granted by implication; that a right not expressly reserved is surrendered by implication” -George Mason.
“Of course ob is committing fraud by allowing people to think he is either occupying the oval office constitutionally or even unconstitutionally. He is the president of a company with a constitution-sounding name, an idem sonens if you will, of the constitutional land mass k/a the united States of America. He is not occupying that office unlawfully as the corporation has no natural born citizen requirement. The fraud is hiding the fact of the corporation while allowing people to believe he is the consitutional president.” In this case, I think we agree, than, this is a criminal enterprise. “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”– Thomas Jefferson.
Quote:“He took an oath under the Constitution. It doesn't matter if it is listed in the Jupiter Times.”Did he take an oath under the constitution?
Either he did, or he has no legal or lawful power as President. “There is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side, and the government on the other. The compact (U.S. Constitution) was that of the people with each other, to produce and constitute a government. To suppose that any government can be a party in a compact with the whole people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a right to exist.” –Paine.
“He took two oaths, one public one semi private and not televised.” What is your support for this view? Where does the Constitution provide for this second Oath?
“But were either of them relevant.” Only the Oath under the Constitution is relevant. Any other Oath is fraudulent. How can one serve two masters?
“The constitution is not effective against a board of directors of a company and the ceo with whom they contract.” I disagree, what we are talking about is fraud and tyranny! The Constitution is in place to deal with just these sort of issues as they relate to government. “The government was set to protect man from criminals — and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government — as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.”– Ayn Rand.
“If the oath was only for show, to keep the corporation secret from the public, then that is further fraud.” We are in agreement, thus, the entire proposition has no foundation, for the law cannot be based upon fraud and lies. “History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”– Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947).
Quote:“A fraudulent contract is unjust, thus, the Constitution can be used against such action.”The corporate contract may not be “unjust”. It would be a mountainous burden of proof to show that it was. And what court would hear such a thing if you lack standing because you have not been personally harmed.
Every Act that is passed against the Constitution is a harm, it sucks up yours, and my, rights, tax dollars, and often puts people in prison. Some courts may, or may not, hear such harms. The more the system will not hear the law is what tyranny is all about; the law holds no concern in such environments.
“I do not disagree at all with you or Johnwk.” Thanks, I know that we all agree in many areas.
“My only point is that ob, those around him and the press will not raise the constitutional issue because as a corporate officer he can make policy for those also under contracts or franchise agreements with the corporation. Under no circumstances can they blow the corporate cover. That, I believe, is why he simply ignores all challenges to his birth citizenship. It's irrelevant to a corporation.“Emphasis added. And this is my point. The challenges regarding citizenship are clearly rooted in the Constitution (a number of cases are still pending), when the challenges are ignored, justice is denied! It appears you feel that this corporate arrangement provides some sort of legal cover for those asserting this sort of reasoning. Yet, it is merely fraud! This is because the fraud prevents such cover from being just. “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”- Thomas Paine.
“The people may be raising constitutional issues about health care at town hall meetings, but you cannot argue the constitution to Wal Mart or the United States of America, Inc. or to the President of the United States, Inc. domiciled at 1600 Penn. Ave. N.W. Wash, D.C.” Again, we disagree. All corporations are created by the states, they, in turn, only possess the power delegated to them by the people. If the state has exceeded it authority in setting up the corporation, then the Constitution has the power to deal with the issue, for it is supreme law for the government. “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”- James Madison.
“This is the same problem with the IRS, a 1938 Delaware company. Most people think its a government agency.
Even though people believe the IRS to be a government agency, and thereby are led into fraudulent, unlawful contracts…it is simply not enough to be right that fraud vitiates any contract ab initio. But, bearing the burden of proof, try to find a judicial forum, with a non-taxpayer judge, who will not dismiss the suit using the “f” word because the Article IV courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such questions.” It is up to the people to realize they are the source of government authority. And that the people's freedoms are derived from the Creator. To say otherwise is to put the government in the place of the Creator! Of course, like any common criminal, the governments of this world are often guilty of abusing the people's rights. This abuse is known as TYRANNY! However, it is not the people's job to find cover for such criminal activity. “The End of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom.” -Locke.
Quote:”If these Commentaries shall but inspire in the rising generation a more ardent love of their country, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the union, then they will have accomplished all that their author ought to desire. Let the American youth never forget that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people in order to betray them.”–JOSEPH STORY, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”, 2d ed., vol. 2, chapter 45, p. 617 (1851); Justice Story served in Congress 1808–1809.Emphasis added.
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?sh…&#entry5272
P.S. “We can have justice whenever those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by it as those who have been.” — Solon (594 B.C.).
-
The President should meet with Mr. Sheen regarding the events of 9-11-2001. He should be given “Twenty Minutes with the President”. The 911 Commission Report is a work of fiction; six of the members of the commission admit that the Report was less than forthcoming. Please let the Whitehouse know how you feel.
A comprehensive bibliography containing all of the evidence presented above can be viewed at http://www.prisonplanet.com/20_minutes_bibliography.html
Quote:Twenty Minutes with the PresidentReported by Charlie Sheen
Infowars
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Charlie Sheen – Good afternoon Mr. President, thank you so much for taking time out of your demanding schedule.
President Barack Obama – My pleasure, the content of your request seemed like something I should carve out a few minutes for.
CS – I should point out that I voted for you, as your promises of hope and change, transparency and accountability, as well as putting government back into the hands of the American people, struck an emotional chord in me that I hadn’t felt in quite some time, perhaps ever.
PBO – And I appreciate that Charlie. Big fan of the show, by the way.
CS – Sir, I can’t imagine when you might find the time to actually watch my show given the measure of what you inherited.
PBO – I have it Tivo’d on Air Force One. Nice break from the traveling press corps. (He glances at his watch) not to be abrupt or to rush you, but you have 19 minutes left.
CS – I’ll take that as an invitation to cut to the chase.
PBO – I’m all ears. Or so I’ve been told.
CS – Sir, in the very near future we will be experiencing our first 9/11 anniversary with you as Commander in Chief.
PBO – Yes. A very solemn day for our Nation. A day of reflection and yet a day of historical consciousness as well.
CS – Very much so sir, very much so indeed…. Now; In researching your position regarding the events of 9/11 and the subsequent investigation that followed, am I correct to understand that you fully support and endorse the findings of the commission report otherwise known as the ‘official story’?
PBO – Do I have any reason not to? Given that most of us are presumably in touch with similar evidence.
CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?
PBO – I am aware of certain “in fighting” during the course of their very thorough and tireless investigative process.
CS – Mr. President, it’s hard to label this type of friction as “in fighting” or make the irresponsible leap to “thorough,” when the evidence I insist you examine regarding 6 of the 10 members are statements of fact.
(At this point one of Obama’s senior aides approaches the President and whispers into his ear. Obama glances quickly at his watch and nods as the aide resumes his post at the doorway, directly behind me.)
PBO – No disrespect Mr. Sheen, but I have to ask; what is it that you seem to be implying with the initial direction of this discussion?
CS – I am not implying anything Mr. President. I am here to present the facts and see what you plan to do with them.
PBO – Let me guess; your ‘facts,’ allegedly supporting these claims are in the folders you brought with you?
CS – Good guess Mr. President.
(I hand the first folder of documents to the President)
CS – Again sir, these are not my opinions or assumptions, this is all a matter of public record, reported through mainstream media, painstakingly fact checked and verified.
(the President glances into the folder I handed him)
CS – You’ll notice sir on page one of the dossier dated August of ‘06 from the Washington Post, the statements of John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission, his quote stating, “I was shocked how different the truth was from the way it was described.”
PBO – (as he glances down at the report, almost inaudible) …. um hmm….
CS – He goes on to further state “The [NORAD Air Defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years….”
(the President continues to view the documents)
CS – On pages two and three, sir, are the statements, as well, from commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, commissioners Bob Kerrey, Timothy Roemer and John Lehman, as well as the statements of commissioner Max Cleland, an ex-Senator from Georgia , who resigned, stating:
“It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”
He also described President Bush’s desire to delay the process as not to damage the ‘04 re-election bid. They suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Mr. President, this information alone is unequivocally grounds for a new investigation!
PBO – Mistakes were clearly made but we as a people and as a country need to move forward. It is obviously in our best interest as a democratic society to focus our efforts and our resources on the future of this great nation and our ability to protect the American people and our allies from this type of terrorism in the coming years.
CS – Sir, how can we focus on the future when THE COMMISSION ITSELF is on record stating that they still do not know the truth??
PBO – Even if what you state, might in some capacity, begin to approach an open discussion or balanced debate, I can’t speak for, or about the decisions certain commission members made during an extremely difficult period. Perhaps you should be interviewing them instead of me. Wait, don’t tell me; I was easier to track down than they were?
CS – Not exactly sir, but let’s be honest. You’re the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the buck stops with you. 9/11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your administration is reading from the same playbook that the Bush administration foisted on America through documented secrecy and deception.
PBO – Mr. Sheen, I’m having a difficult time sitting here and listening to you draw distorted parallels between the Bush/Cheney regime and mine.
CS – Mr. President the parallels are not distorted just because you say they are. Let’s stick to the facts. You promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. You pledged to end warrantless wire tapping against the American people and now energetically defend it. You decried the practice of rendition and now continue it. You promised over and over again on the campaign trail, that you would end the practice of indefinite detention and instead, you have expanded it to permanent detention of “detainees” without trial. This far exceeds the outrages of the former administration. Call me crazy Mr. President, but is this not your record?
PBO – Mr. Sheen, my staff and I authorized this interview based on your request to discuss 9/11 and deliver some additional information you’re convinced I’d not previously reviewed. Call me crazy, But it appears as though you’ve blindly wandered off topic.
CS – Sir, the examples I just illustrated are a direct result of 9/11.
PBO – And I’m telling you that we must move forward, we must endure through these dangerous and politically challenging years ahead.
CS – Mr. President, we cannot move forward with a bottomless warren of unanswered questions surrounding that day and its aftermath.
PBO – I read the official report. Every word every page. Perhaps you should do the same.
CS – I have sir, and so have thousands of family members of the victims, and guess what; they have the same questions I do and probably a lot more. I didn’t lose a loved one on that horrific day Mr. President and neither did you. But since then I, along with millions of other Americans lost something we held true and dear for most of our lives in this great country of ours; we lost our hope.
PBO – And I’d like to believe that I am here to restore that hope. To restore confidence in your leaders, in the system that the voting public chose through a peaceful transfer of power.
(An odd moment of silence between us. Precious time ticking away).
CS – Mr. President, are you aware of the number of days it took to begin the investigation into JFK’s assassination?
PBO – If memory serves I believe it was two weeks.
CS – Close. Seventeen days to be exact. Are you aware sir, how long it took to begin the investigation into Pearl Harbor?
PBO – I would say again about….two weeks.
CS – Close again sir, eleven days to be exact. Are you aware Mr. President how long it took to begin the investigation into 9/11?
PBO – I know it must have seemed like a very long time for all the grieving families.
CS – It was a very long time Mr. President – four hundred and forty days. Roughly 14 months. Does it bother you Mr. President that it only took FIVE HOURS for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the initial attack to recommend and endorse a full scale offensive against Iraq?
PBO – I am not aware of any such purported claim.
CS – I have the proof Mr. President, along with scores of documents and facts I’d like you to take a look at. Here.
(I hand him another file – much thicker than the first)
PBO – I see you came prepared Charlie.
CS – No other way to show up Mr. President. When in doubt over prepare I always say.
PBO – Now you sound like the First Lady.
CS – That’s quite a compliment sir.
PBO – As you wish. Please continue.
CS – Sir, I’d like to direct your attention to the stack of documents in the folder I just handed you. The first in from the top is entitled “ Operation Northwoods“, a declassified Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US soil, to be blamed on Cuba as a pretext for war.
PBO – And I’d like to direct your attention to the fact that the principle draftsman of this improbable blueprint was quickly denied a second term as Joint Chiefs chairman and sent packing to a European NATO garrison. Thank God his otherworldly ambitions never saw the light of day.
CS – I wouldn’t be so certain about that Mr. President.
PBO – I could easily say the same to you Charlie.
http://www.infowars.com/the-alex-jones-sho…r-911-cover-up/
http://www.infowars.com/challenge-me-on-th…truth-movement/
http://www.infowars.com/charlie-sheen-now-…mand-the-truth/
http://www.infowars.com/charlie-sheen-requ…r-911-cover-up/
-
The President should meet with Mr. Sheen regarding the events of 9-11-2001. He should be given “Twenty Minutes with the President”. The 911 Commission Report is a work of fiction; six of the members of the commission admit that the Report was less than forthcoming. Please let the Whitehouse know how you feel.
A comprehensive bibliography containing all of the evidence presented above can be viewed at http://www.prisonplanet.com/20_minutes_bibliography.html
Quote:Twenty Minutes with the PresidentReported by Charlie Sheen
Infowars
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Charlie Sheen – Good afternoon Mr. President, thank you so much for taking time out of your demanding schedule.
President Barack Obama – My pleasure, the content of your request seemed like something I should carve out a few minutes for.
CS – I should point out that I voted for you, as your promises of hope and change, transparency and accountability, as well as putting government back into the hands of the American people, struck an emotional chord in me that I hadn’t felt in quite some time, perhaps ever.
PBO – And I appreciate that Charlie. Big fan of the show, by the way.
CS – Sir, I can’t imagine when you might find the time to actually watch my show given the measure of what you inherited.
PBO – I have it Tivo’d on Air Force One. Nice break from the traveling press corps. (He glances at his watch) not to be abrupt or to rush you, but you have 19 minutes left.
CS – I’ll take that as an invitation to cut to the chase.
PBO – I’m all ears. Or so I’ve been told.
CS – Sir, in the very near future we will be experiencing our first 9/11 anniversary with you as Commander in Chief.
PBO – Yes. A very solemn day for our Nation. A day of reflection and yet a day of historical consciousness as well.
CS – Very much so sir, very much so indeed…. Now; In researching your position regarding the events of 9/11 and the subsequent investigation that followed, am I correct to understand that you fully support and endorse the findings of the commission report otherwise known as the ‘official story’?
PBO – Do I have any reason not to? Given that most of us are presumably in touch with similar evidence.
CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?
PBO – I am aware of certain “in fighting” during the course of their very thorough and tireless investigative process.
CS – Mr. President, it’s hard to label this type of friction as “in fighting” or make the irresponsible leap to “thorough,” when the evidence I insist you examine regarding 6 of the 10 members are statements of fact.
(At this point one of Obama’s senior aides approaches the President and whispers into his ear. Obama glances quickly at his watch and nods as the aide resumes his post at the doorway, directly behind me.)
PBO – No disrespect Mr. Sheen, but I have to ask; what is it that you seem to be implying with the initial direction of this discussion?
CS – I am not implying anything Mr. President. I am here to present the facts and see what you plan to do with them.
PBO – Let me guess; your ‘facts,’ allegedly supporting these claims are in the folders you brought with you?
CS – Good guess Mr. President.
(I hand the first folder of documents to the President)
CS – Again sir, these are not my opinions or assumptions, this is all a matter of public record, reported through mainstream media, painstakingly fact checked and verified.
(the President glances into the folder I handed him)
CS – You’ll notice sir on page one of the dossier dated August of ‘06 from the Washington Post, the statements of John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission, his quote stating, “I was shocked how different the truth was from the way it was described.”
PBO – (as he glances down at the report, almost inaudible) …. um hmm….
CS – He goes on to further state “The [NORAD Air Defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years….”
(the President continues to view the documents)
CS – On pages two and three, sir, are the statements, as well, from commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, commissioners Bob Kerrey, Timothy Roemer and John Lehman, as well as the statements of commissioner Max Cleland, an ex-Senator from Georgia , who resigned, stating:
“It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”
He also described President Bush’s desire to delay the process as not to damage the ‘04 re-election bid. They suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Mr. President, this information alone is unequivocally grounds for a new investigation!
PBO – Mistakes were clearly made but we as a people and as a country need to move forward. It is obviously in our best interest as a democratic society to focus our efforts and our resources on the future of this great nation and our ability to protect the American people and our allies from this type of terrorism in the coming years.
CS – Sir, how can we focus on the future when THE COMMISSION ITSELF is on record stating that they still do not know the truth??
PBO – Even if what you state, might in some capacity, begin to approach an open discussion or balanced debate, I can’t speak for, or about the decisions certain commission members made during an extremely difficult period. Perhaps you should be interviewing them instead of me. Wait, don’t tell me; I was easier to track down than they were?
CS – Not exactly sir, but let’s be honest. You’re the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the buck stops with you. 9/11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your administration is reading from the same playbook that the Bush administration foisted on America through documented secrecy and deception.
PBO – Mr. Sheen, I’m having a difficult time sitting here and listening to you draw distorted parallels between the Bush/Cheney regime and mine.
CS – Mr. President the parallels are not distorted just because you say they are. Let’s stick to the facts. You promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. You pledged to end warrantless wire tapping against the American people and now energetically defend it. You decried the practice of rendition and now continue it. You promised over and over again on the campaign trail, that you would end the practice of indefinite detention and instead, you have expanded it to permanent detention of “detainees” without trial. This far exceeds the outrages of the former administration. Call me crazy Mr. President, but is this not your record?
PBO – Mr. Sheen, my staff and I authorized this interview based on your request to discuss 9/11 and deliver some additional information you’re convinced I’d not previously reviewed. Call me crazy, But it appears as though you’ve blindly wandered off topic.
CS – Sir, the examples I just illustrated are a direct result of 9/11.
PBO – And I’m telling you that we must move forward, we must endure through these dangerous and politically challenging years ahead.
CS – Mr. President, we cannot move forward with a bottomless warren of unanswered questions surrounding that day and its aftermath.
PBO – I read the official report. Every word every page. Perhaps you should do the same.
CS – I have sir, and so have thousands of family members of the victims, and guess what; they have the same questions I do and probably a lot more. I didn’t lose a loved one on that horrific day Mr. President and neither did you. But since then I, along with millions of other Americans lost something we held true and dear for most of our lives in this great country of ours; we lost our hope.
PBO – And I’d like to believe that I am here to restore that hope. To restore confidence in your leaders, in the system that the voting public chose through a peaceful transfer of power.
(An odd moment of silence between us. Precious time ticking away).
CS – Mr. President, are you aware of the number of days it took to begin the investigation into JFK’s assassination?
PBO – If memory serves I believe it was two weeks.
CS – Close. Seventeen days to be exact. Are you aware sir, how long it took to begin the investigation into Pearl Harbor?
PBO – I would say again about….two weeks.
CS – Close again sir, eleven days to be exact. Are you aware Mr. President how long it took to begin the investigation into 9/11?
PBO – I know it must have seemed like a very long time for all the grieving families.
CS – It was a very long time Mr. President – four hundred and forty days. Roughly 14 months. Does it bother you Mr. President that it only took FIVE HOURS for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the initial attack to recommend and endorse a full scale offensive against Iraq?
PBO – I am not aware of any such purported claim.
CS – I have the proof Mr. President, along with scores of documents and facts I’d like you to take a look at. Here.
(I hand him another file – much thicker than the first)
PBO – I see you came prepared Charlie.
CS – No other way to show up Mr. President. When in doubt over prepare I always say.
PBO – Now you sound like the First Lady.
CS – That’s quite a compliment sir.
PBO – As you wish. Please continue.
CS – Sir, I’d like to direct your attention to the stack of documents in the folder I just handed you. The first in from the top is entitled “ Operation Northwoods“, a declassified Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US soil, to be blamed on Cuba as a pretext for war.
PBO – And I’d like to direct your attention to the fact that the principle draftsman of this improbable blueprint was quickly denied a second term as Joint Chiefs chairman and sent packing to a European NATO garrison. Thank God his otherworldly ambitions never saw the light of day.
CS – I wouldn’t be so certain about that Mr. President.
PBO – I could easily say the same to you Charlie.
http://www.infowars.com/the-alex-jones-sho…r-911-cover-up/
http://www.infowars.com/challenge-me-on-th…truth-movement/
http://www.infowars.com/charlie-sheen-now-…mand-the-truth/
http://www.infowars.com/charlie-sheen-requ…r-911-cover-up/
-
franklin wrote on Sep 7 2009, 04:38 PM:Johnwk asked…Quote:Under what article, section, clause or amendment of our federal Constitution have the people of the united States knowingly and intentionally granted authority to Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate their personal health care needs?
None!
Quote:No he will not only not answer the question, but neither he nor anyone else will raise it.Sure the people are asking as you can see above, and at many Town Meetings around the nation.
Quote:Because he is not occupying the office of president under the Constitution.Then he is committing fraud.
Quote:He is the president and CEO of a corporation, listed as open for business in Dun & Bradstreet,He took an oath under the Constitution. It doesn't matter if it is listed in the Jupiter Times.
Quote:and it is perfectly legal for him to hold that office, called the president, even if he is a foreign national. He is not holding office under the Constitution. His board of directors hired him as president of the corporation.While he is not obligated or constrained by the Constitution. He cannot force people into a contract with his corporation. He can use propaganda just as other corporations do in their advertisements intended to influence the behavior of the masses.
He does not need constitutional authority to “offer” health care to all Americans. He will contract with them. All will have to apply for health benefits (that is to say, consent to health benefits) by filling out forms and signing them under penalty of perjury. Even for “forced” innoculations, all will have to apply by filling out the paper work full of words of art and thereby consent to be coerced.
If you have buyer's remorse because you think the contract you signed was coerced through fraud, the burden of proof is yours. File your pleadings in the nearest Article IV territorial court you can find. And good luck to you.
It is a corporate contract issue not a Constitutional issue. The Constitution cannot be thrown at contracts, which are private law in which Congress cannot interfere, (according to the Constitution).
A fraudulent contract is unjust, thus, the Constitution can be used against such action.