GentleStrength

This edits the Constitution right into a misquote…

That is not what the Constitution says.

The Constitution says at Article VI (MY EMPHASES FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT UNDERSTAND BASIC ENGLISH GRAMMAR SUCH AS THE MEANING OF A COMPOUND SENTENCE…)

1 AND 2 AND 3 shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

If treaties could usurp the Constitution, then the highly literate, educated men who pored over each phrase of the document would have had to have written…

Simple enough. But, they didn't write that because they didn't intend it to be so.

Obama, the alleged and widely unpublished editor of the Harvard Law Review claims that federal laws trump and render void Arizona Laws.

You claim, despite the clear language of the Constitution, that treaties trump and render void the Constitution.

Given how you quoted it in your post, (you left out the reference to the Constitution in the compound sentence) it is clear that you did not read Article VI attentively.

If that's what you're getting for your $27 a month…you might reconsider spending it on more useful tuition.

The court makes the point that most patriots who lose have failed to take into account.

The law of the case, the legal issue that the fact-finder will be charged to consider, is what the prosecutor says it is.

If the prosecutor says John doe willfully failed to file a tax return. That is the question, the only question before the court.

The defense has to address that question, not whether constitutional rights are abrogated by the fringe on the flag… or whether we are all on some virtual ship out in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

The pilot charged with that 'offense' simply responded that she did not know whether she was required to file a tax return inasmuch as her multiple queries to the government for clarification of her status went unanswered. She kept it simple and defended herself against the issue before the court and negated the necessary element of willfulness. Not Guilty.

Patriots who lose show the same immunity to facts that most sincere 'law-abiding' Americans do when you try and explain that they cannot consent to government franchises and then wrap themselves in the Constitution and criticize their federal 'employer' when they don't like something.

Not me. I like to get kissed while being seduced 😆 Seduction without kisses and cuddles is just STATUTORY rape 😮

They also shudder at the very notion of “personal responsibility”…

Personal responsibility…why the very idea is…what's the word that I'm looking for?– Ah, yes…un-American that's the word. Personal responsiblity…why the very idea is outrageous!! How un-American can you get?

It's seditious ideas like “personal responsibility” that are the cause of all this great gulag's (in this chapter “gulag” shall mean “country”) problems.

Personalresponsibilityism should be stamped out by microchipping any and all personalresponsibilityists so that they can be tracked and pictures of them put up in every post office so that their unsuspecting neighbors will know that their gulag has been infiltrated and they can take measures to protect their children.

Speak up and speak out! If you see a personalresponsibilityist lurking near a playground start screaming “Traitor, Traitor” draw a crowd and start pelting him or her with your social security cards (you should have made extra copies for situations just like this). Burn the Consitution right before the eyes of the personalresponsibilityist (you should have made some copies for situations like this). Shame and shun those treasonous selfish unempathetic anti-socialist gun-loving Constitution worshippers who think the state is a servant until they get the message and leave your neighborhood.

And if none of the above works…just call them anti-Semites. That always gets them.

Whew! I feel better already just as if I'd come back from an anti-personalresponsibility demonstration .

. . .is almost British in its understatement.

This is more like putting a contract out on defendants…and the judges are the hit women and men.

Even Thomas Jefferson who said the greatest threat to the Constitution and to liberty would come from the judiciary probably never imagined that the judges would engage in commerce…using taxpayer dollars…to jail and murder taxpayers…like they did the lawyer who noticed the court of jury tampering.

I wonder how much the reward was for the murder of a principled officer of the court. They probably threw the (check)book at the judge and gave her the maximum.

And to think that congress conspired with the judiciary and the executive branch to commit treason and murder and make it all 'legal'.

In that long lost country called America…there used to be a reward for capturing murderers. Now the rewards go to murderers.

The best reason yet for staying out of federal jurisdiction and federal courts.

As a member of FG forums, which demands documented admissible evidence for assertions made, I would take this book with a large pinch of salt for several reasons…of which I need give only two…

1. Chapter 8 on the Catholic Church, and particularly the Jesuits (the Society of Jesus), is nothing but conjecture and vague references to “expert” secondary sources. According to the author, the RC church using its 'terrorists' disguised as priests is responsible for the War in Vietnam, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the founding of the Federal Reserve bank (which was conceived not by the Vatican but by non-catholic Jewish bankers on Jekyll Island). The Jesuits, according to other authors, are also responsible for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

While all of these assertions MAY be true…no author has ever presented one 'admissible' document to back up these claims of injury.

While I BELIEVE the human beings called Jesuits, like the rest of humanity, will have a great deal to answer for, I cannot subscribe to a Jesuit conspiracy theory on the basis of this book when there is documentation to show others were likely instigators of the above events.

For example, Henry Kissinger (whose name the author misspells) is wanted as a war criminal in several venues for his crimes against humanity while in the Nixon White House.

The author asserts uncritically that Jack Ruby murdered Lee Oswald and even 'knows' Ruby's motivation — “to keep him from talking”. But did he? If you look at the photographs and videos of the close range alleged 'shooting' of Oswald, you have to ask the question: “Where's the blood?”.

I am not defending the Jesuits, or their overlord the Pope. I am defending intellectual honesty. Blaming the Jesuits for world altering events without documentation simply removes the spotlight from the real movers and shakers who hold the smoking guns.

2. The book is mis-titled. The US government is not a SECRET terrorist at all. It does everything out in the open.

Look at the documentation on this site how the IRS commits a felony every time it sends out a piece of mail extorting money from an innocent American who they claim is running booze in the Island territories of the federal United States.

Look at the anti-American, anti-Constitution Injustice Ginsburg who says openly that the laws should not be made pursuant to the federal Constitution, but should be made using foreign law (e.g. Sharia law, Israeli law) as precedents for SC decisions.

Look at the craven judges (the branch of government Thomas Jefferson felt was most dangerous to liberty) who will not recuse themselves or dismiss charges based on 26 USC for want of subject matter jurisdiction, for lack of an accusatory statute (even if they don't have jurisdiction), for denying the admission of evidence that the prosecutor and the court (i.e. the judge) are engaging in a criminal conspiracy against rights.

Look at the same judges who do not reveal that 27 CFR Sec. 72.11 defines the most heinous crimes as crimes against commercial law…not natural law.

Look at every government branch or agency that do not reveal that they are all operating in corporate/commercial 'jurisdiction' and are listed as profit making companies by Dun & Bradstreet. That is how they avoid Constitutional chains of restraint… commercial contracts. And the Constitution forbids interference in the obligations of contracts. They are protected by the very founding document they despise.

Look at the treasonous criminals in Congress , whose names and addresses are well known, who do not declare war justly, but instead give the 'unitary executive' 'authority' (which they do not possess and so cannot delegate) to use deadly force against other sovereign countries on nothing but lies about WMD.

The employees of the US government are not entirely without honor. They make clear their contempt for American citizens and the federal and state constitutions. That's the nice thing about them…they are known and their own words and techniques can be used against them.

Nothing to work with here. In nearly every sentence that I read, and I didn't need to read many, the book cries out for documentation.

In defense of the US government I hereby declare that it is NOT a SECRET terrorist…and that assertion is well documented inasmuch as it publishes …for all to read…every law that it breaks.

Is that honorable or what?

Despite hiding behind a lot of degrees…this woman's lack of education is startling and her inability to think without contradicting herself (and misspelling words with a summa cum laude degree in LINGUISTICS) is apparent.

Someone ought to point out to this ordinary, patriotic, American that the IRS says and the courts agree that you are NOT TO RELY ON ANYTHING THE IRS SAYS OR PRINTS.

And FG and SEDM hold that one should not “believe” what they say either…but everyone should check everything out for themselves.

If according to FG and SEDM you shouldn't blindly rely on FG and SEDM and…

you positively can't rely on the IRS and the Supreme Court's verifies that you cannot rely on the IRS…

then that leaves HER as the only source of truth and accuracy about federal taxation. 😕

However, (and here's the contradiction) she's teaching the stuff that the IRS says cannot be relied on.

What a dufus.

Looks like we need special ed classes in the universities (for faculty members 😛 ).

I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to talk uncontradicted reason to such a person (as defined). Her level of thinking ability ranks right up there with Brittany Spears. But point out in the simplest terms that she has missed the above points and become the ONLY authority on federal taxation. 😀

She has become a goddess. Just what we need…another one.

This is a situation where the citizen should have said “I do not consent”. Then let the warrantless agents pour the milk out themselves while being filmed.