IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Most Wonderful Documents Ever Created, Declaration of Independence,Constitution

rob balsamo
post Oct 23 2006, 11:41 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1





IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 23 2006, 12:01 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1






Free Constitution Class Videos. Learn your Rights!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lights
post Oct 28 2006, 12:34 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 320
Joined: 23-October 06
From: Evansville, IN USA
Member No.: 150



You are absolutely right in saying that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are the most wonderful documents ever created.
Once we were a beacon of hope for peoples around the world. People once came here to find a better life and freedom--and in the main, they did.

Now most of the world hates America and justifiably so. America is showing itself to be an arrogant bully, trying to ram our way of life and government down every one else's throats. To protect our interests, people have been tortured and murdered. In Iraq, some members of the military have sunk to new lows in torturing and humiliating POWs (isn't this something we got mad at the North Vietnamese about?).

I could be wrong, but I think that if the Founding Fathers and others were to come back and see what America has become in the six years that Bush has been the President would weep. We are rapidly becoming a dictatorship under that man...I certainly hope and pray patriots will come forward and start to call this man on his misdeeds!

Thank you to the Founding Fathers for crafting such wonderful documents. In the End may we prove worthy of their efforts and the sacrifices of those who have died over the past 200-plus years to keep us free.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Oct 30 2006, 08:18 PM
Post #4


..with liberty and justice for all.


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,152
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Orlando, FL
Member No.: 65



"chest" bump.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 17 2006, 01:57 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Although this is from a fictional television show... the message should be loud and clear. WAKE UP!






When will you have had enough.... ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LetFreedomRing
post Sep 11 2007, 06:04 PM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 11-September 07
Member No.: 2,092



QUOTE (Lights @ Oct 28 2006, 11:34 AM)
Thank you to the Founding Fathers for crafting such wonderful documents. In the End may we prove worthy of their efforts and the sacrifices of those who have died over the past 200-plus years to keep us free.

salute.gif The torch is passed to us. History will hold us accountable for our watch. God Bless America and Let Freedom Ring.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jadenter
post Jan 23 2008, 02:08 PM
Post #7


Pilots For Truth Core Member


Group: Core Member
Posts: 204
Joined: 22-October 06
Member No.: 129



Consider the importance of the Original Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution passed by Congress May 1, 1810 and officially Ratified by three fourths (3/4) of the existing seventeen (17) states legislatures on March 12, 1819.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=10651
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Mar 10 2008, 05:47 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTvS-kyHzs...feature=related





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zgCYwxO5Xo

This post has been edited by liberty-911: Mar 10 2008, 06:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 11 2008, 10:37 AM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are realy wonderful documents, it looks like the legislators thought virtualy about everything. One wonders here in the chaotic Europe how far sighted were the people who have written them. For example:

14th Amendment sec. 3.: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I think, that the diction of the 14th Amendment sec. 3 clearly contains an implicite impeachment sanction - the disability is implicite after one broke the oath to the Constitution, but just in case if the Congress wants to remove the disability - then must vote 2/3. The officers according the 14th Amendment after breaking the oath to the Constitution hold office illegaly and act against the US Constitution - because the letter of it reads "No person shall...hold any office...", so if the person holds it - after the treason - then the office is holded illegaly and the person violates the US Constitution anyway.

To be a Supreme court judge means "hold the office" (of the judge) under US. The Supreme court quite clearly - for example in the case Sibel Edmonds vs. FBI - by majority have given "aid and comfort to the enemies" of the Constitution, because the 1st Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So in principle there couldn't be any federal law and/or lawful authority to abridge the freedom of speech, because such a law would be unconstitutional (and an renowned Harvard constitutional law expert even publicly stated the unconstitutional laws "are void") and/or such an authority an enemy of the Constitution - thus the Sibel Edmonds gag must be unconstitutional and/or unlawful and the Supreme court have had a decision: either release the gag or break the oath to the Constitution giving the aid and/or comfort to the enemy thereof. And did you heard about any voting of the Supreme Court back to office held in Congress?

I'm even afraid that the same concerns the US Congress itself (after a vast majority voting for the numerous unconstitutional laws - even it was repeatedly and explicitly warned they are unconstitutional and some of them have after been even ruled unconstitutional by courts) and using the executive orders and signing statements against several parts of the USC and constitutional rights also the US president.
It's ironical, because Bush came to the office solely thanks to the use of the 14th Amendment sec. 1. in the Supreme court case Bush vs. Gore - so nobody could say the 14th Amendment is invalid - even there is a controversy about the ratification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Am...er_ratification

Actually: There is a law now to pass in US Senate - the infamous HR1955 aka S1959 "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act", which was already passed by 404 Congresmen in HR. The law is clearly unconstitutional, but this time not just that. What? - They cite it often, even the Obama does, but they always cite just the first, maybe the second sentence and then they stop, so I'll continue a bit further... Declaration of Independence reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

The HR1955 clearly violates not only Constitution resp. Bill of Rights, but even its title (and the letter as well) violates and contradicts the very of the very right established in the above citation from the Declaration of Independence (even to write this text it could be according the HR1955 considered being "a terrorism")- which in legal sense is the core law of the US constitutional system. - Clearly: No one has a right to "prevent" the above right - right whose very exercise in fact founded and then constituted the USA. Who does it or even tryies it - clearly acts against the core of the core of the US law. And it is exactly the case of HR1955 - moreover it can be clearly used in conjunction with the Military Commissions Act to legaly label almost all activity expressing the above statutory right from the Declaration of Independence as "terrorism" ->and then use the Military Commissions Act to efectively and "lawfuly" smash all political opposition in the US, using indefinite and incomunicado detentions, torture and secret trials. The pattern exactly fits the "pursuing invariably the same Object evinced a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism" and in such a case there is lawfuly activated the last cited sentence from the Declaration of Independence, because it explicitly states that it is not just a "right", but also the "duty" "to throw off such Government" and in legal sense then the people who ignore this basic of the basic duties of an US citizen - it would maybe seem amazing - act unlawfuly - by a negligence of the core citizen duty.

But there is no sanction except of course to suffer under the absolute despotism... yes1.gif dunno.gif

But there clearly is a sanction - against those, who broke the oath to the Constitution - expressed in 14th Amendment - and it is quite a hard sanction - the implicite impeachment. One could ask "Yes, but they must be tried before they lose their right to hold the office and the sanction couldn't be implicite in a legal sense." But that is exactly the paradox of the 14th Amendment - The Trap - Such an objection is in principle invalid in case where majority of the actual HR legislators broke their oath to the Constitution voting Aye for the laws they contradict the Constitution - because in such a case they logicaly couldn't judge themselves and vote themselves back in the office they lost the right to hold while breaking the oath - because there couldn't be ever a 2/3 of them who didn't broke the oath - in priciple, that's a mathematics... And that's one of the reasons, why the sanction is in a legal sense implicite - i.e. to prevent the Amendment be ineffective against the rebels even in case they are the majority of the actual federal Congress legislators because in such a case it would break the principle of the eqality before the law. And anyway a power which would be principialy unimpeachable would be then exactly fitting in the definition of a despocy.
One could say I'm too radical or a legal extremist - but in this case I'm not discussing some pettines, but I discuss the meaning of the very core of the US constitutionality and its basic defensive systems in the letter of the inquestionably valid law - so a bit of insisting on the principles in my oppinion is in place.

What does it in fact all mean - It means that there are numerous evidences in the written law (we actualy don't need them to be convicted of complicity in 9/11 or like), that the vast majority of the actual Congressmen are holding their office ilegaly - since the treason - and there is no remaining immediate judicial power to impeach them - because they principialy couldn't judge themseves. The same then concerns the eventual impeachment of the US Government and Supreme Court - which could be again done just in the US Congress - according to the Constitution - but such a Congress must be first a realy legal Congress to be entitled do something like that. It looks like 1. the people of the US are on the immediate duty to take the current US Congress, Government and Supreme Court down and 2. the only remaining legal instrument that can be used except the 1. is to call the Convention (which only has the legal power to judge the US Congress as a whole) - and it also looks like the State Congressmen as the US citizens are now on the immediate legal duty to make such a call...

But I'm just a foreigner, I can't tell the Americans what to do - they would anyway maybe not listen...

But the joking reality is that I'm also afraid that sen. Hillary Clinton is not legaly electable to hold office of the US president, because she voted Aye for the Patriot Act - which violates and contradicts the Bill of Rights. I'm even afraid that sen. John McCain is not legaly electable for the office of the US president, because he voted Aye for the Military Commissions Act, which violates and contradicts habeas corpus (expressed clearly in the 5th, 6th and also in the 14th Amendment sec. 1 - what a robustnes...) - and voted Aye for the Patriot Act too... Both are senators, so they definitely sweared the oath to the Constitution - so they could be considered as perpetrators of giving "aid or comfort to the enemies" of the Constitution - if they voted for the bills they contradict it.

There is also the peppery end of this discourse - 14th Amendment section 4. - which is especially funny: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States...but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. - so if there is a debt made by US for example to the FED - which was established by the law violating and contradicting the clause I/8/5 of the US Constitution ("The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" - clearly: not the FED, but Congres shall have the right - and: the letter and meaning of the Constitution is founded by the Convention (resp. the painstaking process of ratification) - and the US Congress has absolutely no right to change it or delegate it's powers to anybody - nor of course to a FED - a private banking trust) - so such a debt could be now considered legaly void. For instance just this debt of public finance is now more than 9 trilions of $ - for any American including the babies it means more than 30000$ - and it could be for a vast majority of Americans at least a good reason to make a trip to the D.C...or not?

It's March, time to march... rolleyes.gif

It almost looks like a situation stemming to another war for independence or a civil war... but the people anyway are hopefuly more mature and can use the head - there is still the possibility to call the Convention or for politicians to demise their offices voluntarily.
Anyway, if the federal US power is illegal, it has no right to declare any martial law, or such a declaration might be considered void, nor has any immunities anymore, so the majority of US Congressmen, Supreme Court Judges or even the President could be legaly arrested as normal citizens and any resistance to such an arrest might be considered as a criminal offense. There is no need to impeach them, there is no such a law which would insist on it in a 14th Amendment sec. 3. case and also because no one else, but they themselves made uneligible to legaly hold the offices under US when they broke their oaths to the Consitution - their choice. Wonderful. whistle.gif

So like this looks it to a poor European. Now I please the Americans to tell what they think about. salute.gif

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 11 2008, 05:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Mar 11 2008, 11:01 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



Great post, tume!

Also foreigner:Zap







Sorry Carl...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Mar 12 2008, 07:25 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



This is Not about Creating new Laws
This is about Enforcing existing Law
"Supreme Law of the Land"
United States Constitution
Militia is Citizenship
Undeclared War
Is Betrayal
Read It.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 15 2008, 01:20 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (liberty-911 @ Mar 10 2008, 10:25 PM) *
This is Not about Creating new Laws
This is about Enforcing existing Law
"Supreme Law of the Land"
United States Constitution
Militia is Citizenship
Undeclared War
Is Betrayal
Read It.

So if I understand it well> "Enforcing" derives from "force" and I'm afraid the illegal govt. doesn't want to enforce the US constitution, they want to enforce the new laws created in the betrayal and thus void (if organized using the armed forces it is probably exactly fitting in the definition of insurgency or rebelion). So there are at least two sides: one side of the federal insurgents wants to enforce the unconstitutional laws, clearly using the police or military forces; and other side of citizens wants to enforce the Constitution, clearly using militia.
...as I've said it looks like a civil war situation. Maybe there could be a third side whch could use the head to solve the situation, maybe...

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 15 2008, 01:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 15 2008, 06:54 PM
Post #13


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 15 2008, 09:20 AM) *
[snip]
Maybe there could be a third side whch could use the head to solve the situation, maybe...


tume, your reading of the Constitution above parallels my own. However, I'm not an attorney, much less a Constitutional scholar -- so there is a lot I do not know and do not understand.

To me, the fundamental problem is contained within the phrase, "the consent of the governed" as expressed in the Declaration of Independence in the passage you quoted above. So long as people "consent" (tacitly and actively) to participate in a system that to many of us increasingly appears to be a "charade" -- an act of deception -- so long shall we endure the illusion of freedom, but not freedom in actual fact. We are "free," now, to say and or do pretty much whatever we want -- so long as what we say or do stays within the limitation of the deception, or, at any rate, so long as what we say or do does not become a genuine threat to the actual structures of power which lie behind the charade.

Yes, clearly, there have been many laws enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive and upheld by the Courts which have questionable Constitutional grounds. This isn't anything 'new' -- and that is part of the problem. The Cabal behind the Bush Presidency is only the most recent, and one could argue the most criminal, manifestation of the tendency to erode the effectiveness of the Constitution. However, most every erosion of the Constitution is presented by those who benefit from it as a "necessity" to the governed so that the vast majority of them at least tacitly consent -- indeed may not actually recognize this erosion for what it is in fact.

This is what we are up against. The illusion of a functioning Democratic Republic deriving its just powers from the Constitution through the tacit and active consent of the governed. We are allowed, for example, the right to speak freely -- so long as what we say does not pose a direct threat to the actual structures of power that operate behind this illusion. This, of course, is why the 9/11 Truth movement exists -- to expose the charade, to expose the deception not only of 9/11 itself, but of the whole machinery of government and government agencies, not to mention the corporate media, which sustain this illusion and, thus, perpetuate this consent.

You are right, the Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear what our duty as citizens is in regards to government and safe-guarding our Liberty. Whether we've taken oaths or not, it is our duty to protect the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic -- and it is precisely here that the citizenry has failed in their obligations. And they have failed in large measure precisely because there has been and continues to be a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evince[ing] a design to reduce them [us] under absolute Despotism. The enemies of the Constitution have succeeded in sustaining the consent of the governed and have now, under the guise of national security, put in place the infrastructure necessary to completely overthrow the Constitution itself.

If, indeed, there is a long-range conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution -- and I believe recent and past history (much of it unknown to the majority of the citizenry) demonstrates that there is -- then they (leaving aside for the moment any discussion of who 'they' might be) now have almost everything they need in place to fulfill this agenda. All that is needed now is an event or series of events that can be used to 'justify' in the minds of the governed the more obvious or abject tyranny that will follow. It could be another false-flag terror event; it could be an actual or provoked attack on the US or an ally or our defenses or our now highly computerized social systems; it could be an economic 'melt down' or some other natural or contrived 'cataclysm' -- or some combination of these. Whatever it is, it must produce sufficient 'social chaos' that extra-ordinary powers will seem to be mandated to govern the emergency.

The powers that be understand that maintaining the "consent" of the governed is paramount. In point of fact, they are powerless to implement their agendas, whatever they may be, without this consent on a broad scale. This is the point of my signature line, "SUDDENLY this whole farce of an election may come to SEEM as irrelevant as it already actually is!" Another "catalyzing event" could be used to justify a far more tyrannical erosion of civil liberties and a far more radical foreign policy (e.g., an all-out declared war in the Middle East that could rapidly spread to a full-on global confrontation). It is a bit of an over-statement in that I don't believe that who holds the Office of President or the majority of Congress is truly "irrelevant." It does matter to a limited degree. However, since we do not have verifiable elections and since, in any case, the major parties are either compromised or feel the need to tip-toe cautiously around the actual, hidden structures of power (such as were responsible for 9/11 and its cover-up), it is irrelevant from the point of view of any genuine, fundamental change.

So, where are we? For the moment we have the liberty and ability to discuss matters such as this in open forums. Using our First Amendment rights we can educate one another about that "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object" as is our duty. At some point it is hoped that, in some way, a 'critical mass' will be reached where-in the governed will re-assert their individual and collective prerogative to resist this train of events in meaningful and substantive ways. As stated here, this would not be a "revolution" but, more properly, a "counter-revolution" -- a return to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. However, of course, any such threat to the hidden structures of power will not be allowed to go unchallenged. Already by design and deception they are limiting our ability to disseminate important, relevant information and our ability to dissent and demand a redress of grievances.

None of us know how much longer we may have to continue as we have. My personal belief is that the future will not be like the past. I certainly can not say with certainty what will happen -- only what appears to be the pattern recent historical events have laid out. We know what they want to do. We know that they study us, evaluate us, change the course of their strategies based upon these observations. Since we lack the 'intelligence gathering' infrastructure they have, it is difficult for us to access precisely to what extent the governed are aware of what is happening outside the more ore less opaque sphere of the "social reality bubble" sustained by the corporate media. Clearly there is a sizeable and growing minority who, although their analyses of the situation and possible solutions may vary greatly, nevertheless see that there is something fundamentally wrong. Whether or not this minority can reach the larger majority, with their plurality of interests and opinions, in time to prevent calamity worse than we have already (and it is plenty bad enough when one grasps it), is an unanswerable question. We can certainly say that so far as the distorted and divisive social mirror corporate media holds up to us that gives us a sense of 'who we are' as a whole, any significant change in the direction of this train of events seems highly unlikely if not impossible. But we have to keep in mind that it is in their interest to sustain this perception of a nation of diverse people divided against themselves along political ideology and party lines, along racial and religious lines, along social justice lines, and along class and economic lines. So we can not trust their media driven "reflection" as accurate, much less objective. We have to try and work to overcome these divisions and unify around the protection of the Constitution and the National Ideals of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

There is an impassioned speech by Mario Savio that I want to share with you:











If I have the time at some point I'll post a longer version of this speech with more of the whole speech's context -- as it is applicable to our situation. At the time (1964) this speech was made in reference to the University of California and its attempt to prevent students from advocating civil disobedience as a political strategy for social change. It took many years for the student population of that university to become 'radicalized' enough to stand up to the University administration and demand their rights. What I'm saying here is that there was a long history of horizontal -- that is to say, peer to peer -- education about First Amendment issues. Moreover, it required the organization of a sizeable minority of the student population to bring about the conditions where such an impassioned speech as this could be given and heard and that the consequences of it would be, in this instance, the peaceful (yet illegal) seizure of a University administrative building in protest. Many of the students involved had already been arrested in both on and off campus demonstrations regarding this and other matters. But what galvanized them, a diverse political group, was the need to exercise, defend and protect their First Amendment rights in the face of Athoritarian attempts to stifle specific on-campus political views, organizing and strategies. It backfired and led to a series of events that, over a course of some years, led to civil disruptions so intense that the National Guard had to be called in to 'govern' the citizens of Berkeley and the student population in general. I am told by people who would be in positions to know that much of the "Rovian" philosophy of counter-politics employed by Carl Rove emanate from reactions to what happened at UCB at that time. So, all of this as it confronts us now is not a foot-note to history. They are directly related.

We don't need a revolution. What we need is to re-instate the full power of the Constitution with its Bill of Rights and Amendments. We need verifiable elections. We need a Congress and a President and a Department of Justice and a Military that will uphold their oaths of office to defend and protect the Constitution and, by extension, we the people.

Here is another quote from the same time period that I find relevant to our situation now:




“Most of us grew up thinking that the United States was a great and humble nation that only involved itself in the affairs of other countries reluctantly and as a last and final resort. But now the war in Vietnam has provided the incredibly sharp razor that has finely separated thousands and thousands of people from their illusions about the morality and integrity of this country’s purposes internationally. Never again will this self-righteous saccharine moralism of promising a billion dollars of economic aid while we spend billions and billions of dollars to destroy them, never again will that moralism have the power to persuade people of the essential decency of this country’s aims. What kind of a system is it that allows decent men, good men, to make the decisions that have led to the thousands and thousands of deaths that have happened in Vietnam? What kind of a system is it that justifies the United States seizing the destinies of other people and using them callously for our own ends? We must name that system, and we must change it and control it, else it will destroy us.” - Paul Potter, President of SDS on “Vietnam Day” May 1965




All one need do, today, is substitute "Iraq" or "Afghanistan" for "Vietnam" above and we see that, despite more than a decade of protest and social and political awareness that came to fruition when I was a young man, nothing substantive has changed. It is the same old 'ruling class' control of the economy and the military industrial complex and all that is associated with it including academic institutions, political parties, corporations, intelligence and national security apparatus -- and so forth. Nothing substantial has changed -- the national ideals are still held up as virtues which we decline to manifest in our actual international policies. Worse, this is kept hidden from the American people in order to sustain their consent. And yet, as we see, this "keeping it hidden" part is becoming less of a priority. The truth about 9/11 has now "provided the incredibly sharp razor that has finely separated thousands and thousands of people from their illusions about the morality and integrity of this country’s purposes" not only abroad but right here at home. That truth is there for anyone who wishes to explore it. Many choose not to because it frightens them. They fear that even if, especially if what we say is true, there is little any of us can do about it.

Overcoming both the denial, the fear, the cynicism and the defeatism of the American people is our biggest challenge.

So the first position all of us have to take is the use of and defense of the First Amendment to share information horizontally. We're still in that process -- and we have had some successes and may yet have more. But, beyond that, we have to make people aware of the counter-strategies. If people can not begin to see for themselves that they are being lied to, not only about 9/11 but, more fundamentally, deceived and manipulated about the actual distribution of power and wealth in this nation -- that being lied to, deceived and manipulated is more the rule than the exception -- then nothing fundamental can change. In some way which is not yet clear to us, a large segment of the population must become sufficiently disillusioned that they will grasp that what is at stake is not merely some piece of paper or political principles, but their own persons and families and values. It is difficult because people don't want to give up their illusions, they don't want to have to be responsible for more than they are responsible for already -- which is a lot when you consider the costs of survival in an economically top-weighted system such as ours. Moreover, they want someone to "lead" them -- someone like a MLK (or whomever) to stand up and rally them and call from them something that is better than their ordinary selves. They want to be led -- and this is their greatest weakness.

Those of us who are at least somewhat aware of our situation have to do this horizontally, peer to peer, across all the ordinary dividing lines of our society. It isn't going to work to put our bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels if we don't have cooperation from within the framework of the machinery itself. By that I mean the people whose day-to-day job is to make the machine work. If you think about who these people are, how they think and what they think, one begins to get a sense of what needs to be done and how far we have to go.

If we ever get the military on our side it will all be over. Right now they have the ability to arrest the commander-in-chief for treason against the Constitution, if they so chose. But of course there are two things. First, the military is, by and large, closely associated with the military industrial/academic/reserarch and development/intelligence and counter-intelligence/national security infrastructure. But, beyond that, they know full well that, even if some of them wanted to, to arrest the President would set a very bad historical precedent. My only point in bringing this up is that reaching the military, and the enlisted men and women in particular, is the kind of traditional 'boundary' that has to be crossed now. The site of a young marine holding up a '9/11 Truth' sign is inspiring even if he is a minority of one -- and we know there are more.

Recently I heard someone say, "Generally people do the right thing, when there is something in it for them," and this, for me, is the bottom line. If people ever 'get it' that what is in it for them is more security and more wealth, true justice and the possibility of genuine liberty -- and that the alternative is that abject despotism our Founding Fathers tried to protect us from -- we might just have a chance.

Although rare, miracles do happen. What they take, invariably, is a lot of hard work, dedication and principle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 16 2008, 05:35 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452




tume, your reading of the Constitution above parallels my own. However, I'm not an attorney, much less a Constitutional scholar -- so there is a lot I do not know and do not understand.

Thanks Painter for your excellent post.
I think the crisis in US is primary a constitutional crisis. Both representatives and their constituents don't understand their Constitution well and that's a basic problem. Nevertheless I think the US Constitution is fully comprehensible document, I'm not an lawyer too, but I didn't find much places in US Constitution I don't understand. I think it is one of the most perfect legal documents ever written.

To me, the fundamental problem is contained within the phrase, "the consent of the governed" as expressed in the Declaration of Independence in the passage you quoted above. So long as people "consent" (tacitly and actively) to participate in a system that to many of us increasingly appears to be a "charade" -- an act of deception -- so long shall we endure the illusion of freedom, but not freedom in actual fact.

I think it should be not ripped from the context - there is "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - so if for example the governed would have consent with the torture then the power of torture would be a "just power", but if the constituents doesn't have consent with the torture then the power to use torture would be an unjust power.

We are "free," now, to say and or do pretty much whatever we want -- so long as what we say or do stays within the limitation of the deception, or, at any rate, so long as what we say or do does not become a genuine threat to the actual structures of power which lie behind the charade.

Yes, the freedom of speech becomes very limited using the corporate means - the media owned by oligarchy regulates pretty much what could be said in public - it pretty much reminds me the media during the time of communism in eastern Europe - I think it is not so much a conspiracy in very sense, I think it is more a "conspiracy of silence" - censorship or autocensorship - In fact it is even worse now in Europe - for example there was the projection of the new 9/11 film ZERO in European parliament last month and from 1000+ journalists invited to the event arrived...zero! (0).

Yes, clearly, there have been many laws enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive and upheld by the Courts which have questionable Constitutional grounds. This isn't anything 'new' -- and that is part of the problem.

I would not say "questionable" - what I know at least the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act are clearly in contradiction with the US Constitution and to me this chain of Acts is "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinceing a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism" (Don't take it please as an offense, but me as an Eropean I can say it maybe so straight, because I'm looking at it "from outside" - I'am directly not involved.) But the chain of usurpations, you're right, is much longer, for example the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is clearly in contradiction with the clause I/8/5. And it is crucial - because it gave to the banking oligarchy almost absolute power over the US economy and even the Wilson who signed the Act quite clearly understood what does it mean and soon regretted it.

The Cabal behind the Bush Presidency is only the most recent, and one could argue the most criminal, manifestation of the tendency to erode the effectiveness of the Constitution. However, most every erosion of the Constitution is presented by those who benefit from it as a "necessity" to the governed so that the vast majority of them at least tacitly consent -- indeed may not actually recognize this erosion for what it is in fact.

Yes, I think it is because the vast majority doesn't understand the trick of the deception.

This is what we are up against. The illusion of a functioning Democratic Republic deriving its just powers from the Constitution through the tacit and active consent of the governed. We are allowed, for example, the right to speak freely -- so long as what we say does not pose a direct threat to the actual structures of power that operate behind this illusion. This, of course, is why the 9/11 Truth movement exists -- to expose the charade, to expose the deception not only of 9/11 itself, but of the whole machinery of government and government agencies, not to mention the corporate media, which sustain this illusion and, thus, perpetuate this consent.

Yes, the MSM play a key role, but I think the internet helps the people to become slowly independent on their lies and become aware of the behinds - the real rude power.

You are right, the Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear what our duty as citizens is in regards to government and safe-guarding our Liberty. Whether we've taken oaths or not, it is our duty to protect the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic -- and it is precisely here that the citizenry has failed in their obligations. And they have failed in large measure precisely because there has been and continues to be a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evince[ing] a design to reduce them [us] under absolute Despotism. The enemies of the Constitution have succeeded in sustaining the consent of the governed and have now, under the guise of national security, put in place the infrastructure necessary to completely overthrow the Constitution itself.

I'm not realy sure if there is in fact a consent with for example the abolition of habeas corpus (which was criticised by many State officials), consent with torture, or consent of the federal government interfering the economical freedoms of the States (especialy in th connection withe the policies against the predatory loaning - which was to certain extent criticised almost unanimously by all States)

If, indeed, there is a long-range conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution -- and I believe recent and past history (much of it unknown to the majority of the citizenry) demonstrates that there is -- then they (leaving aside for the moment any discussion of who 'they' might be) now have almost everything they need in place to fulfill this agenda. All that is needed now is an event or series of events that can be used to 'justify' in the minds of the governed the more obvious or abject tyranny that will follow. It could be another false-flag terror event; it could be an actual or provoked attack on the US or an ally or our defenses or our now highly computerized social systems; it could be an economic 'melt down' or some other natural or contrived 'cataclysm' -- or some combination of these. Whatever it is, it must produce sufficient 'social chaos' that extra-ordinary powers will seem to be mandated to govern the emergency.

I think it easily can be the economic "meltdown", for example to crash the dollar for the purpose to generate public consent with that Amero, meltdown of the US suverenity to close US into the proposet NAU and then abolition of the Constitution as an "natural" consequence of it. But I don't think they have everything - what is missing are realy legal instruments to effectively neutralize the domestic political dissent.

The powers that be understand that maintaining the "consent" of the governed is paramount. In point of fact, they are powerless to implement their agendas, whatever they may be, without this consent on a broad scale. This is the point of my signature line, "SUDDENLY this whole farce of an election may come to SEEM as irrelevant as it already actually is!" Another "catalyzing event" could be used to justify a far more tyrannical erosion of civil liberties and a far more radical foreign policy (e.g., an all-out declared war in the Middle East that could rapidly spread to a full-on global confrontation). It is a bit of an over-statement in that I don't believe that who holds the Office of President or the majority of Congress is truly "irrelevant." It does matter to a limited degree. However, since we do not have verifiable elections and since, in any case, the major parties are either compromised or feel the need to tip-toe cautiously around the actual, hidden structures of power (such as were responsible for 9/11 and its cover-up), it is irrelevant from the point of view of any genuine, fundamental change.

Yes, the election frauds are problem and it almost looks from here like the whole democratical political system is at least partialy a farce or a fiction - I can't estimate to what degree, but I think it is significant. It merely looks like they are realy desperate to speed-up the erosion of the rights even not using the classical propaganda but a real election fraud as a signifficant measure. However I think they must consider the 9/11 bit a mistake - because it brought the pretended conflict on the US soil, so the US people whenever they would find out it was made with the help of the federal goverment can radicalize very quickly.

So, where are we? For the moment we have the liberty and ability to discuss matters such as this in open forums. Using our First Amendment rights we can educate one another about that "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object" as is our duty. At some point it is hoped that, in some way, a 'critical mass' will be reached where-in the governed will re-assert their individual and collective prerogative to resist this train of events in meaningful and substantive ways. As stated here, this would not be a "revolution" but, more properly, a "counter-revolution" -- a return to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. However, of course, any such threat to the hidden structures of power will not be allowed to go unchallenged. Already by design and deception they are limiting our ability to disseminate important, relevant information and our ability to dissent and demand a redress of grievances.

I think that the attaining of the "critical mass" is effectively disrupted by the propaganda and cointelpro - to distract and divide the people from the core issues. I even think, that the "crittical mass" couldnt be attained without a massive "shock-and-awe" counter-cointelpro action. I've of course some ideas, but it would be maybe not reasonable to share it on a public forum and let own cards be seen... whistle.gif

None of us know how much longer we may have to continue as we have. My personal belief is that the future will not be like the past. I certainly can not say with certainty what will happen -- only what appears to be the pattern recent historical events have laid out. We know what they want to do. We know that they study us, evaluate us, change the course of their strategies based upon these observations. Since we lack the 'intelligence gathering' infrastructure they have, it is difficult for us to access precisely to what extent the governed are aware of what is happening outside the more ore less opaque sphere of the "social reality bubble" sustained by the corporate media. Clearly there is a sizeable and growing minority who, although their analyses of the situation and possible solutions may vary greatly, nevertheless see that there is something fundamentally wrong. Whether or not this minority can reach the larger majority, with their plurality of interests and opinions, in time to prevent calamity worse than we have already (and it is plenty bad enough when one grasps it), is an unanswerable question.

I think when one measures it using for example the number of the people they are interested in the Ron Paul it could be quite considerable part of the society. Although I'm afraid that there is not much time left and this year I consider be a critical one.

We can certainly say that so far as the distorted and divisive social mirror corporate media holds up to us that gives us a sense of 'who we are' as a whole, any significant change in the direction of this train of events seems highly unlikely if not impossible. But we have to keep in mind that it is in their interest to sustain this perception of a nation of diverse people divided against themselves along political ideology and party lines, along racial and religious lines, along social justice lines, and along class and economic lines. So we can not trust their media driven "reflection" as accurate, much less objective. We have to try and work to overcome these divisions and unify around the protection of the Constitution and the National Ideals of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, I think the Constitution is the the core issue and the core of a possible unity.

There is an impassioned speech by Mario Savio that I want to share with you:



Yes, nice citation, but I'm afraid that just "to let them know" changes nothing - there must be demonstrated that the "threat" - or the power to do it - is real.

If I have the time at some point I'll post a longer version of this speech with more of the whole speech's context -- as it is applicable to our situation. At the time (1964) this speech was made in reference to the University of California and its attempt to prevent students from advocating civil disobedience as a political strategy for social change. It took many years for the student population of that university to become 'radicalized' enough to stand up to the University administration and demand their rights. What I'm saying here is that there was a long history of horizontal -- that is to say, peer to peer -- education about First Amendment issues. Moreover, it required the organization of a sizeable minority of the student population to bring about the conditions where such an impassioned speech as this could be given and heard and that the consequences of it would be, in this instance, the peaceful (yet illegal) seizure of a University administrative building in protest. Many of the students involved had already been arrested in both on and off campus demonstrations regarding this and other matters. But what galvanized them, a diverse political group, was the need to exercise, defend and protect their First Amendment rights in the face of Athoritarian attempts to stifle specific on-campus political views, organizing and strategies. It backfired and led to a series of events that, over a course of some years, led to civil disruptions so intense that the National Guard had to be called in to 'govern' the citizens of Berkeley and the student population in general. I am told by people who would be in positions to know that much of the "Rovian" philosophy of counter-politics employed by Carl Rove emanate from reactions to what happened at UCB at that time. So, all of this as it confronts us now is not a foot-note to history. They are directly related.

Is that the "campus revolution" which was portrayed in the Michelangello Antonioni "index" (in US) film "Zabriskie point" (from beggining of 70ies)? When I meet an American I always ask if he/she knows the film, I almost never have met any American who actually did - though it is such a prophecy...

We don't need a revolution. What we need is to re-instate the full power of the Constitution with its Bill of Rights and Amendments. We need verifiable elections. We need a Congress and a President and a Department of Justice and a Military that will uphold their oaths of office to defend and protect the Constitution and, by extension, we the people.

Yes, exactly, no revolution needed, there was actually a revolution - the American revolution of 1776-1783, only thing which is needed is to restore its legacy.
Here is another quote from the same time period that I find relevant to our situation now:
<hr color="red">
“Most of us grew up thinking that the United States was a great and humble nation that only involved itself in the affairs of other countries reluctantly and as a last and final resort. But now the war in Vietnam has provided the incredibly sharp razor that has finely separated thousands and thousands of people from their illusions about the morality and integrity of this country’s purposes internationally. Never again will this self-righteous saccharine moralism of promising a billion dollars of economic aid while we spend billions and billions of dollars to destroy them, never again will that moralism have the power to persuade people of the essential decency of this country’s aims. What kind of a system is it that allows decent men, good men, to make the decisions that have led to the thousands and thousands of deaths that have happened in Vietnam? What kind of a system is it that justifies the United States seizing the destinies of other people and using them callously for our own ends? We must name that system, and we must change it and control it, else it will destroy us.” - Paul Potter, President of SDS on “Vietnam Day” May 1965
<hr color="purple">

All one need do, today, is substitute "Iraq" or "Afghanistan" for "Vietnam" above and we see that, despite more than a decade of protest and social and political awareness that came to fruition when I was a young man, nothing substantive has changed. It is the same old 'ruling class' control of the economy and the military industrial complex and all that is associated with it including academic institutions, political parties, corporations, intelligence and national security apparatus -- and so forth. Nothing substantial has changed -- the national ideals are still held up as virtues which we decline to manifest in our actual international policies. Worse, this is kept hidden from the American people in order to sustain their consent. And yet, as we see, this "keeping it hidden" part is becoming less of a priority. The truth about 9/11 has now "provided the incredibly sharp razor that has finely separated thousands and thousands of people from their illusions about the morality and integrity of this country’s purposes" not only abroad but right here at home. That truth is there for anyone who wishes to explore it. Many choose not to because it frightens them. They fear that even if, especially if what we say is true, there is little any of us can do about it.

Yes, nothing changed, it is even worse, not even one Vietnam, but Afghanistan, Iraq...possibly Iran, Syria and Pakistan or the whole Middle East.

Overcoming both the denial, the fear, the cynicism and the defeatism of the American people is our biggest challenge.

In the Buddhism there are identified three roots of the evil> Ignorance, Hatred and Lack of Compassion. The fear is a result of this roots either actively or passively. The courage is to overcome them with the roots of the good> Wisdom, Love and Compassion.

So the first position all of us have to take is the use of and defense of the First Amendment to share information horizontally. We're still in that process -- and we have had some successes and may yet have more. But, beyond that, we have to make people aware of the counter-strategies. If people can not begin to see for themselves that they are being lied to, not only about 9/11 but, more fundamentally, deceived and manipulated about the actual distribution of power and wealth in this nation -- that being lied to, deceived and manipulated is more the rule than the exception -- then nothing fundamental can change. In some way which is not yet clear to us, a large segment of the population must become sufficiently disillusioned that they will grasp that what is at stake is not merely some piece of paper or political principles, but their own persons and families and values. It is difficult because people don't want to give up their illusions, they don't want to have to be responsible for more than they are responsible for already -- which is a lot when you consider the costs of survival in an economically top-weighted system such as ours.

I dont think they dont want to be responsible - they fear it - because they are divided - they fear they would rest alone - with their then compromised jobs, families, life or of being ridiculized, defamed or excomunicated (from the community of the illusion of a just society)

Moreover, they want someone to "lead" them -- someone like a MLK (or whomever) to stand up and rally them and call from them something that is better than their ordinary selves. They want to be led -- and this is their greatest weakness.

Yes, especially when there are many psychopaths they are eager to "lead" (as I consider for example that Obama with his a la MLK speeches - which nevertheles contain the liberal-fascism seeds...). But I dont think it must be a weakness - if the people come to the point where they are able to discern the leader to the hell. When they realize, that all that rigged polls who is popular and who not is just an illusion created by MSM (and there are many evidences of it). That Obama - nobody knew him one year ago - it is just a false fame completely fabricated by MSM. If one looks deeper in the consistency of what he is saying, then one must come to the conclusion that guy is at least quite very inconsistent about the foreign policy and other issues...one wonders how somebody like him can be people interested in. But it is just an example maybe not completely neutral - because If I would be an American I would vote for Ron Paul - because of his emphasis about the constitution and steady and consistent oppinions about as well as the conservative republicanism is close to my wiews- but there is also an exception of consistency of him - the 9/11...

Those of us who are at least somewhat aware of our situation have to do this horizontally, peer to peer, across all the ordinary dividing lines of our society. It isn't going to work to put our bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels if we don't have cooperation from within the framework of the machinery itself. By that I mean the people whose day-to-day job is to make the machine work. If you think about who these people are, how they think and what they think, one begins to get a sense of what needs to be done and how far we have to go.

This is exactly what I'm not knowing much about. But I think most of the people of the machinery just fear to cross the line. So this fear vould be a concern for me.

If we ever get the military on our side it will all be over. Right now they have the ability to arrest the commander-in-chief for treason against the Constitution, if they so chose. But of course there are two things. First, the military is, by and large, closely associated with the military industrial/academic/reserarch and development/intelligence and counter-intelligence/national security infrastructure.

Yes, the military is usualy the key. And in the case of US I think it true twice. It was astonishing for me how much people from military support RP - maybe they just realized that the proposed policy of RP would bring the troops home, will not expose them to the dangers in the wars for corporate interests etc. I think that most of the military people would be on the side of the people in case of a major conflict. I think that the rulers must know it very well. I even think the same concerns the intelligence people as well. But I think the impulse would rather come from the "civil" side - i mean militia.

But, beyond that, they know full well that, even if some of them wanted to, to arrest the President would set a very bad historical precedent.

Why a bad precedent? I don't understand this. If a president is a criminal dictator and would be arrested I don't understand why it should be a bad precedent. Yes ok, it would be better if he would be arrested by police not military. The military shouldn't probably have a right to arrest the US officers even the major part of their crimes is of the military nature.

My only point in bringing this up is that reaching the military, and the enlisted men and women in particular, is the kind of traditional 'boundary' that has to be crossed now. The site of a young marine holding up a '9/11 Truth' sign is inspiring even if he is a minority of one -- and we know there are more.

I think this is a job for the families and relatives of the mil people. Many Americans somehow know the people from the military personaly and I think this is a civil way how to let them know - privately.

Recently I heard someone say, "Generally people do the right thing, when there is something in it for them," and this, for me, is the bottom line.

Yes, why the people ever would want to change anything if there would be no motive to change it - that was generaly the reason why I've pointed out that sec. 4. - just like an example of such an incentive in pecuniar sense. 30000$ used to be quite lot of money - but if it would go the direction as it goes after several years it would be worth of nothing - the debt machinery of the FED policy and the subsequent inflation of money or derivates and the predatory loaning is unstopable without abolishing it.)

If people ever 'get it' that what is in it for them is more security and more wealth, true justice and the possibility of genuine liberty -- and that the alternative is that abject despotism our Founding Fathers tried to protect us from -- we might just have a chance.
Although rare, miracles do happen. What they take, invariably, is a lot of hard work, dedication and principle.

Our local proverb is "the fortune bids the courageous". I'm not sure if I would agree with that calvinistic "hard work" (...sh*t happens because you don't work hard enough...or vice versa rolleyes.gif ) - it is all about the minds so it merely needs to think ...lightly. But dedication, principle, prudence, wisdom, cleverness, responsibility and good luck I wold agree.
I'm afraid it is not a question of a chance but unfortunately already a question of a drive of survival. And I'm of course not saying it just for my pleasure - there is something in it for me - the US constitutional crisis now poses a realy serious threat for whole the world and only the Americans could directly do something about. The things went too far...

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 17 2008, 01:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Oct 11 2008, 05:17 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (painter @ Mar 13 2008, 08:54 PM) *
tume, your reading of the Constitution above parallels my own. However, I'm not an attorney, much less a Constitutional scholar -- so there is a lot I do not know and do not understand.

To me, the fundamental problem is contained within the phrase, "the consent of the governed" as expressed in the Declaration of Independence in the passage you quoted above. So long as people "consent" (tacitly and actively) to participate in a system that to many of us increasingly appears to be a "charade" -- an act of deception -- so long shall we endure the illusion of freedom, but not freedom in actual fact. We are "free," now, to say and or do pretty much whatever we want -- so long as what we say or do stays within the limitation of the deception, or, at any rate, so long as what we say or do does not become a genuine threat to the actual structures of power which lie behind the charade.

Although rare, miracles do happen. What they take, invariably, is a lot of hard work, dedication and principle.


I very much agree on the problem location within the phrase, "the consent of the governed", as it is a very subtle cognitive distortion which does not at all address the potential deceptions those governed might base consent upon, or if that consent was faithfully perceived or recorded. Then there is another implication not indicated.

The governed are presented options and base their consent to one or another upon the options. Nothing is said about broadening the options. Clearly, those authoring had their perceptions of their own options narrowed by the threats they faced and so mostly open a door for us, rather than help us find a way.

There are social contracts that predate the Declaration of Independence which are recognized by at least the state I live in, California.

When ordering a book titled "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA", published by the CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY, 1999- 2000.

The table of contents reads thus.

Magna Carta
Mayflower Compact
Declaration of Rights of 1765
Declaration of Rights of 1774
Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation
Constitution of the United States

There are 1/2 dozen more in the contents section. My point is that the Magna Carta begins it. Also, from examining history and the Magna Carta I find inconsistency in the historically represented motive of the Barons to ask for or accept the control of King John to the extent the Magna Carta grants it in the peoples benefit not the benefit of the Barons.

I submit that the Barons sought protection within an agreement between the King and the people because the Barons had lost all credibility in any bargaining/negotiation/treaty or whatever, and the people were just going to kill them, burn them out, remove the foundations of their castles, and plant the ground with grain until all had forgotten what stood there and why.

So when you say,

so long as what we say or do stays within the limitation of the deception, or, at any rate, so long as what we say or do does not become a genuine threat to the actual structures of power which lie behind the charade.

I would respond and state that "so long as what we KNOW," does not become a threat. And that such knowledge extends to simple things like growing our own food and having skills that make us independent. It extends to our knowing the wrong things, as in misleading a generation or 2 with psychologically manipulating programming of TV.

Fundamentally the corporations which run media benefit from a miscarriage of justice.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm

Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in US law as "artificial persons," similar to the way Star Trek portrays the human-looking robot named Data.

But after the Civil War, things began to change. In the last year of the war, on November 21, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln looked back on the growing power of the war-enriched corporations, and wrote the following thoughtful letter to his friend Colonel William F. Elkins:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. prescient. InAs a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

Lincoln's suspicions were prescient.In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to determine the taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's right-of-way. However, in writing up the case's headnote - a commentary that has no precedential status - the Court's reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Oddly, the court had ruled no such thing. As a handwritten note from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National Archives said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." And nowhere in the decision itself does the Court say corporations are persons. Nonetheless, corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's headnote and began to quote it like a mantra. Soon the Supreme Court itself, in a stunning display of either laziness (not reading the actual case) or deception (rewriting the Constitution without issuing an opinion or having open debate on the issue), was quoting Davis's headnote in subsequent cases. While Davis's Santa Clara headnote didn't have the force of law, once the Court quoted it as the basis for later decisions its new doctrine of corporate person-hood became the law. Prior to 1886, the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment defined human rights, and individuals - representing themselves and their own opinions - were free to say and do what they wanted. Corporations, being artificial creations of the states, didn't have rights, but instead had privileges.


It may well be that an "Article V" convention maybe the only way to reverse a number of these type problems or cure other minor but cumulative inequities of our Constitution and laws under it. A major barrier is that the media is not bound to serving the greater meanings of free speech to the people, so the peoples information is very compromised resulting in the inability to act.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 14 2008, 07:35 PM) *
[indent]
Yes, the MSM play a key role, but I think the internet helps the people to become slowly independent on their lies and become aware of the behinds - the real rude power.

I'm afraid it is not a question of a chance but unfortunately already a question of a drive of survival. And I'm of course not saying it just for my pleasure - there is something in it for me - the US constitutional crisis now poses a really serious threat for whole the world and only the Americans could directly do something about. The things went too far...


I'm reminded that DAR PA financed the internet and that it was tested by the military for almost a decade before being made public. After beginning as the usenet, hosted on university servers that were dedicated to free speech, it was sold out to commercial interests and .com became the default interface.

Therefore the internet is another pot of options offered to us by the masters of the technology it depends on.

I am also very aware of the rand corporations work utilizing sophisticated psychological studies on human perceptions and motivation within groups.

I will conclude with one inference. If there is a greater meaning to free speech, and the internet is overinformation having much misinformation all ultimately designed to be disinformation, then it is up to us to know how to both present the greater meanings, and to know them when they are written, THEN, identify and support them with zeal and exclusivity until the present Constitution crisis is resolved by focus upon the underlying principles of the Constitution and their revitalization via an Article V convention.

This doesn't mean I hang out here.

www.foavc.org

and I don't because they can't discuss 9-11 rationally. Sad, 'cause they'll never get a Article V without resolution of 9-11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Dec 11 2009, 08:38 PM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



United States Tax Court:



Respectfully, I disagree with the allegation of stealing 12,208.00 dollars in 2006 from the IRS or the U.S. Treasury for the deception of National Debt Interest, unknown in our Constitution. Therefore, I choose to exercise my Constitutional right to a Grand Jury Indictment and a Jury Trial in Pursuance of Article III; Section 2; Clause 3, Amendment V, Amendment VII and Amendment XIV.

The Supreme Law of the Land over rules all Statue Laws to the contrary.

Article III
Judicial Branch

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Bill of Rights, Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Bill of Rights, Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


To deny any born or naturalized citizen the Right of Jury Trial, (due process of Law) is a violation of our Supreme Law of the Land. Our government was instituted among men to defend these rights from invasion and foreign or domestic Enemies.

Any Statute Laws that violate the Supreme Law of the Land are Crimes against,
“We the People” and the Enemy of this Constitution.







This Statute Law was Not made in Pursuance, therefore NOTWITHSTANDING.


The Tax Court and Its Jurisdiction

The United States Tax Court is a court of record established by Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. When the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined a tax deficiency, the taxpayer may dispute the deficiency in the Tax Court before paying any disputed amount. The Tax Court’s jurisdiction also includes the authority to redetermine transferee liability, make certain types of declaratory judgments, adjust partnership items, order abatement of interest, award administrative and litigation costs, redetermine worker classification, determine relief from joint and several liability on a joint return, review certain collection actions, and review awards to whistleblowers who provide information to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on or after December 20, 2006.


Tax Court Judges

The Tax Court is composed of 19 presidentially appointed members. Trial sessions are conducted and other work of the Court is performed by those judges, by senior judges serving on recall, and by special trial judges. All of the judges have expertise in the tax laws and apply that expertise in a manner to ensure that taxpayers are assessed only what they owe, and no more. Although the Court is physically located in Washington, D.C., the judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in various designated cities.

The Supreme Law of the Land.

Article VII
Ratification by the States
September 17, 1787
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Article VI
Supreme Law of the Land
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.



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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Article V
Amending the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

In Essences, ALL Laws and Amendments Shall be made in Pursuance and require 75% State Ratification to be WITHSTANDING.

The Legal Tender Act of 1862. Shall be made in Pursuance and requires 75% State Ratification to be WITHSTANDING.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Shall be made in Pursuance and requires 75% State Ratification to be WITHSTANDING.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Article II
Executive Branch

Section 4 Clause 1
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.



Question, where does the Exeutive Branch “IRS” or the Judicial Branch “Courts” gain the Powers to Collect Taxes on Income when Congress (Legislative Branch) only has the Power to lay and collect taxes on income? The Treasury belongs in the Legislative Branch of Government, not the Executive Branch.

Act of Congress Establishing the Treasury Department
Chapter XII.
An Act to establish the Treasury Department.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be a Department of Treasury, in which shall be the following officers, namely: a Secretary of the Treasury, to be deemed head of the department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a Register, and an Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, which assistant shall be appointed by the said Secretary.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit; to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue, and the public expenditures; to superintend the collection of revenue; to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to grant under the limitations herein established, or to be hereafter provided, all warrants for monies to be issued from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law; to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands belonging to the United States, as may be by law required of him; (B) to make report, and give information to either branch of the legislature, in person or in writing (as he may be required), respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office; and generally to perform all such services relative to the finances, as he shall be directed to perform.

APPROVED: September 2, 1789


Powers of Congress
Legislative Branch

Article I
Section 8

Clause 1
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
(United States currency Notes)
The word Interest is unknown in the Constitution!

Clause 3
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;




Limits of Congress
Legislative Branch

Article I
Section 9

Clause 7
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Limits of States
Legislative Branch

Article I
Section 10

Clause 1
No state shall; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;

In other words, No state shall Ratify any Amendment to alter or abolish anything but
gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

These Supreme Laws of the Land have never been Amended by State Ratification.

Statute Laws either comply with this Constitution or they violate this Constitution.

U.S. Code: Title 31>Subtitle IV>Chapter 51>Subchapter I
§ 5103. Legal tender

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

U.S. Code: Title 31>Subtitle III>Chapter 31>Subchapter II
§ 3123. Payment of obligations and interest on the public debt

a) The faith of the United States Government is pledged to pay, in legal tender, principal and interest on the obligations of the Government issued under this chapter.
(B) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt. As the Secretary considers expedient, the Secretary may pay in advance interest on the public debt by a period of not more than one year, with or without a rebate of interest on the coupons.

U.S. Code: Title 31>Subtitle IV>Chapter 51>Subchapter II
§ 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins:

(1) a dollar coin that is 1.043 inches in diameter.
(2) a half dollar coin that is 1.205 inches in diameter and weighs 11.34 grams.
(3) a quarter dollar coin that is 0.955 inch in diameter and weighs 5.67 grams.


(4) a dime coin that is 0.705 inch in diameter and weighs 2.268 grams.
(5) a 5-cent coin that is 0.835 inch in diameter and weighs 5 grams.
(6) except as provided under subsection © of this section, a one-cent coin that is 0.75 inch in diameter and weighs 3.11 grams.
(7) A fifty dollar gold coin that is 32.7 millimeters in diameter, weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold.
(8) A twenty-five dollar gold coin that is 27.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 16.966 grams, and contains one-half troy ounce of fine gold.
(9) A ten dollar gold coin that is 22.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 8.483 grams, and contains one-fourth troy ounce of fine gold.
(10) A five dollar gold coin that is 16.5 millimeters in diameter, weighs 3.393 grams, and contains one-tenth troy ounce of fine gold.
(11) A $50 gold coin that is of an appropriate size and thickness, as determined by the Secretary, weighs 1 ounce, and contains 99.99 percent pure gold.

(5) Legal tender. - The coins minted under this title shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103.

U.S. Code: Title 31>Subtitle IV>Chapter 51>Subchapter II
§ 5115. United States currency notes

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(B) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

TAXES
Accounts Receivable Tax Service Charge Tax
Auto Registration Tax Social Security Tax
Building Permit Tax Road Usage Tax
Capital Gains Tax Sales Tax
CDL License Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax
Cigarette Tax Road Toll Booth Tax
Corporate Income Tax School Tax
Court Fines State Income Tax
Dog License Tax State Unemployment Tax
Estate Tax Telephone Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax Toll Bridge Tax
Fishing License Tax Toll Tunnel Tax
Food License Tax Traffic Fines
Fuel Permit Tax Trailer Registration Tax
Gasoline Tax Utility Tax
Hunting License Tax Vehicle Inspection Tax
Inheritance Tax Vehicle Sales Tax
Inventory Tax Water Craft Registration Tax
IRS Interest Tax Well Tax
IRS Penalty Tax Workers Compensation Tax
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax Plus the Federal Income Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage Tax AMONG OTHERS
Medicare Tax
Parking Meters
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax

Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2009

September $15,526,354,159.31
August $27,374,808,039.95
July $19,812,486,187.83
June $106,612,310,280.24
May $20,600,287,859.26
April $24,846,792,476.82
March $19,829,502,464.91
February $10,311,076,391.59
January $ 3,132,139,257.38
December $97,775,030,034.07
November $18,558,733,892.95
October $18,984,305,636.29

Fiscal Year Total $383,363,826,680.60

Total National Debt on December 9, 2009 is 12.1 TRILLION Dollars.

Estimated Total National Debt 2010 is 14 TRILLION Dollars.

Available Historical Data Interest Expense Fiscal Year End

2008 $451,154,049,950.63 Walker Bush
2007 $429,977,998,108.20 Walker Bush
2006 $405,872,109,315.83 Walker Bush
2005 $352,350,252,507.90 Walker Bush
2004 $321,566,323,971.29 Walker Bush
2003 $318,148,529,151.51 Walker Bush
2002 $332,536,958,599.42 Walker Bush
2001 $359,507,635,242.41 Walker Bush
2000 $361,997,734,302.36 Bill Clinton
1999 $353,511,471,722.87 Bill Clinton
1998 $363,823,722,920.26 Bill Clinton
1997 $355,795,834,214.66 Bill Clinton
1996 $343,955,076,695.15 Bill Clinton
1995 $332,413,555,030.62 Bill Clinton
1994 $296,277,764,246.26 Bill Clinton
1993 $292,502,219,484.25 Bill Clinton
1992 $292,361,073,070.74 Herbert Bush
1991 $286,021,921,181.04 Herbert Bush
1990 $264,852,544,615.90 Herbert Bush
1989 $240,863,231,535.71 Herbert Bush
1988 $214,145,028,847.73 Ronald Reagan

The following Interest Deception violates the Supreme Law of the Land because this is stealing from the Taxpayers in Billions and Billions of fiat dollars.


Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2009, Fiscal Year Total $383,363,826,680.60

During 2009 the U.S. Treasury printed $383,363,826,680.60 in new Federal Reserve Debt Notes to pay for National Debt Interest to the private Federal Reserve Bank.

The Federal Reserve Bank takes $383,363,826,680.60 from the U.S. Treasury and adds $383,363,826,680.60 to the National Debt to replace the $383,363,826,680.60 sweat dollars they removed from circulating back to the Money supply.

This equals 766,727,653,361.2 Billion Sweat Dollars removed from the United States Economy in just one year, only for the deception of INTEREST on National Debt.

Fiat Money issued by the private Federal Reserve Bank or Fiat Money collected as a Federal Income Tax to pay for borrowed Federal Reserve Bank Fiat Notes plus Federal Reserve Bank INTEREST, is mathematically impossible to ever pay back!

National Debt INTEREST violates Amendment XIII, Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE SECTOR SURVEY ON COST CONTROL
A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
VOLUME I
APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AT
ITS MEETING ON JANUARY 15, 1984
Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
• One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
• Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
• With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.
Mission Statement of the Federal Reserve Bank.

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.





Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

•conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
•supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
•maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
•providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system

Last update: November 6, 2009

IRS Mission Statement
Internal Revenue Service

Provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.

Self-evident Truths

“We the People” are all created with certain equal Unalienable Rights.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, among others.

“We the People” have no Unalienable Right to Kill, Lie, Steal or Torture
For the Pursuit of Sadness even with Statute Laws.

“We the People” justly empower our Republic form Government with consent to secure these certain Individual Rights by enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land.

“We the People” only have the Individual Right to Defend Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. How can “We the People” give Governments Rights We do NOT have?

“We the People” have the Right of Jury Trial Verdicts.
“We the People” have the Right to judge the testimony, the evidence and the statute laws.
Unanimous Consent Verdict Is Required.

In summation, if “WE the People” allow these Deceptions to continue our Unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness will be Destroyed by the Enemy of our Constitution, the International Bank Stockholders. Once this occurs all three Branches of our Republic will be obsolete and replaced with Home Land Security.
There can be NO Justice without Truth, only more Force.

Weigh and place the Prosecution Truth; testimony, evidence and statute laws that withstand the Supreme Law of the Land on the balance scale.

Weigh and place the Defendant Truth; testimony, evidence and statute laws that withstand the Supreme Law of the Land on the other side of balance scale.
Look for the offset tilt of the balance scale. This is your Unanimous Jury Trial Verdict.

This post has been edited by liberty-911: Dec 13 2009, 11:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 14 2010, 06:32 PM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Yes they are the most wonderful documents ever created and the people in power Like Bush And Obama
dont honor them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ungari
post Jan 18 2011, 05:06 AM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 3,785



Having been peripherally aware of the deceptive contracts that are the Birth Certificate, the Social Security Card, and the Drivers License entail for several years now, I never really understood how the Constitution was usurped, and supplanted, until I studied this:
http://www.gemworld.com/USAVSUS.HTM




This post has been edited by ungari: Jan 18 2011, 05:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th December 2019 - 06:15 AM